Dominance

 

I'm Comin' Home Again

The poets cry for dreams they never saw
The only certainty is nothing sure
And nothing stays the same
Go back where they came

Forget about certainty, is dominance sure?

There is a difference between dominance and certainty. Dominance is about who won a game or series. Certainty is about whether that winner is also expected to win again. If a game is Heads I Win/Tails You Lose, there will always be a winner, and that winner will show dominance. But just because there is a winner in one game, it does not mean that this winner is going to win the next game or series. In a one game series, the probability is 100% that there will be a dominant winner, but there is only a 50% chance that the dominant winner will win the next game. That is why there are multi-game series. As the number of games increases, the chances that the winner of the series will also win the next game also increases. The table below shows the dominance and certainty of the outcome of a series of  games based on the record of that series. For example in a 5-game series, there is a 100% chance that the winner of a 4-3 series shows dominance, but there is only a 73% chance that this dominant winner will win the next series. A 0-7 record in a 7-game series means that there is a 99.22% chance that the loser with that record will also lose the next game.

Games			Games			Games			Games
1	Dominance	Certainty	3	Dominance	Certainty	5	Dominance	Certainty	7	Dominance	Certainty
1-0	100%	50.00%	3-0	100%	87.50%	5-0	100%	96.88%	7-0	100%	99.22%
0-1	0%	50.00%	2-1	100%	62.50%	4-1	100%	84.38%	6-1	100%	94.53%
			1-2	0%	62.50%	3-2	100%	68.75%	5-2	100%	83.59%
			0-3	0%	87.50%	2-3	0%	68.75%	4-3	100%	72.66%
						1-4	0%	84.38%	3-4	0%	72.66%
						0-5	0%	96.88%	2-5	0%	83.59%
									1-6	0%	94.53%
									0-7	0%	99.22%

 A series may stop after dominance has been achieved. If a 7-game series stops after 4 wins have been recorded, then if all games had been played, the final record could have been 7-0, 6-1, 5-2 or 4-3. Those records each have a different certainty, but they also have a different probability of occurring. The certainty of a winner of the series also winning the next game should thus be weighted, and not a simple average. The certainty that the dominant winner of the series will win the next game, i.e. is certain, is thus as shown in the table below

Series	Dominant is Certain
3 games	45.83%
5 games	59.79%
7 games	70.31%

 The same logic also applies to voting members, say by justices of a 9-member Supreme Court. A 9-0 opinion might be just as dominant as a 5-4 opinion, but that 9-0 opinion is more certain.

9	Dominance	Certainty
9-0	100%	99.80%
8-1	100%	98.24%
7-2	100%	92.97%
6-3	100%	83.59%
5-4	100%	75.39%
4-5	0%	75.39%
3-6	0%	83.59%
2-7	0%	92.97%
1-8	0%	98.24%
0-9	0%	99.80%

 This also holds true for jury votes. A 12-member jury which reaches a unanimous decision of Not Guilty is 99.98% certain. However unless there is an infinite number of members on that jury, the certainty will always be less than 100%. The goal in jury trials is to achieve as close to certainty as possible. Should that not also be the case in Supreme Court decisions? The goal is to increase certainty, not decrease it. A 5-4 opinion which overturns a 7-2 opinion decreases certainty. It does not increase it.

Dominance is BACKWARD looking. Certainty is FORWARD looking. Is there any wonder that MAGA  (where the second “A” stands for “Again”) wants to return to Trial by Combat which can only show dominance? This was abandoned in the Middle Ages which is longer than even MAGA generally considers.

 

Old Joe Biden?

 

Lavender Blue

Great-grandfather met great-grandmother
When she was a shy young miss
And great-grandfather won great-grandmother
With words more or less like this

Lavender blue, dilly, dilly
Lavender green
If I were king, dilly, dilly
I need a queen

You are voting for someone to represent you, NOT to be you.

Joe Biden is old. That is a fact. But when you vote in November remember that you are voting for someone that you trust to represent you, NOT to be you. The question should NOT are be how old  are each of the candidates, but whether you trust your grandfather to represent you, not to be you, and if so which of the candidates would you most like to be your grandfather.

Republicans VII

 

Battle Hymn of the Republic

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on! 

It would be very hard to argue that Abraham Lincoln was a RINO.

When the US Constitution was adopted, a citizen supposedly asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government he had given us . He is supposed to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." That is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, …where the people elect representatives to serve them. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, but he was also the 16th republican president. He was assassinated  serving that republic.

When the Republican party was founded, it welcomed the self-serving Whigs and bigoted Know-Nothings into their party as long as they opposed the expansion of slavery into federal territory. Unfortunately, the selfish descendants of Whigs and the bigoted descendants of Know-Nothings are ascendant at the moment in the Republican Party to the detriment of the republic. This is not the first time that this has happened. It happened during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson partly because the Republican Congress could not abide a Democrat serving as President. It happened during the Electoral Crisis of 1876 when the Republican Congress agreed to end Reconstruction to preserve their federal power. It happened when the Republican Mugwumps opposed the corruption of Republican James Blaine and resulted in the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland as president. Each time the Republican party eventually came to its senses, backed away from the cliff, and did not destroy itself and/or the republic. Let us pray to God that this another of those times.

Hush Money Verdict

 

 

Shake it Off 

'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo)
Heartbreakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo) 

And I guess pundits gonna tout, tout, tout, tout, tout 

I admit to being a tout myself but unlike pundits, I know that a single event like a jury verdict is random and can not be determined. Still I can't resist the opportunity to make a prediction, to tout, the verdict of that little trial in NYC.   

Did Trump have an affair with Stormy Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford?   I admit to benefiting from the testimony of Ms. Daniels.  I could not understand the context of the transaction before, but I did after that testimony.  It is no more an "affair" than E. Jean Carroll had a "affair" with Donald Trump.  It was a sexual encounter, not an affair. 

Did DJT benefit from Stormy Daniels not disclosing this before the election?  Almost certainly, and the testimony of Hope Hicks was that this was the reason for the payment. 

Was a transaction with Stormy Daniels even too sleazy for the National Enquirer, and if so how sleazy must that be 😆  and was any transaction to "catch and kill" a campaign contribution? That was David Pecker's testimony. 

Was Stormy Daniels paid for her silence and did this happen before the election?  Yes. That is the testimony of Michael Cohen and confirmed by corroborating evidence. 

Did DJT falsify business records to hide this transaction?  Yes, but after the election. 

Is this falsification of business records a misdemeanor under NY law and not the felony as charged?  Unfortunately, IMHO, yes.  The falsification happened after the election, and the statue of limtaions on any misdemeanor has passed, so it was technically not a campaign contribution and thus I expect the jury to find DJT "Not Guilty" as charged. 

Will DJT lie, er...present the "alternate fact",  that a finding of "Not Guilty" (or a hung jury) is a finding of "Innocence"? DJT did after his two impeachments.  He did after his E. Jean Carroll criminal rape trial.  He claimed after the Supreme Court's Colorado opinion that he was found innocent of insurrection.  But just as speed is not acceleration, "Not Guilty" is NOT "Innocence". A "Not Guilty" verdict only means that the law as charged was not violated and as Dickens said long ago, "The law is an idiot.  An ass" 

This means that DJT might win in this Court of Law, but hopefully the testimony has meant that he lost in the Court of Public Opinion, and his strategy of delay, running out the clock, only works if he also wins in the Court of Public Opinion.  

IOW, DJT may have won the battle, but he lost the war. Get ready for bad things in November.  But DJT's behavior in the NYC tabloids years ago was Bob Gale's inspiration for Biff Tannen in Back to the Future.  And remember that had a happy ending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvacBzZtYag

Commandments

 

At Your Command

I had you, I held you, you gave me your all
Your love dreams I shattered beyond recall
Now that I've lost you, please understand
I'm here forever at your command 

Not commandments, warnings 

As a parent, I remember warning my then toddlers not to touch a hot stove.  It might have sounded like a commandment to a toddler, but it was only meant as a warning that the toddler would not like the consequences of touching a hot stove. 

By the same token, the Ten Commandments might be warnings from God that not following these would bring bad consequences.  And what if “Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” to Adam in the Garden of Eden was a warning, not a commandment.  We need warnings as toddlers just as much as we need handrails in bathtubs as we get older.  They are there for our safety, protection, not to restrict us.  Commandments are ONLY there to restrict us. "Danger, Will Robinson' is a warning, not a commandment. 

Variance

 

It Ain’t The Meat It’s The Motion

It ain't the meat, it's the motion
Makes your daddy wanna rock
It ain't the meat, it's the motion
It's the movement that gives it the sock

And it ain’t the average, it’s the variance.

“The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System
The Daily ( a NY Times Podcast)

Across the United States, more frequent extreme weather is starting to cause the home insurance market to buckle, even for those who have paid their premiums dutifully year after year. Christopher Flavelle, a climate reporter, discusses a Times investigation into one of the most consequential effects of the changes.

Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000655653194”

In the climate change crisis, much attention has been given to the increase in AVERAGE global temperatures. That will certainly impact the most vulnerable areas. But since weather is a random event, it depends on two parameters: the location, which corresponds to the average; and the VARIANCE, the range of those random events. It is the variance that is at the heart of the insurance industry. Insurance is a means to deal with the unlucky by using insurance payments from many to pay the claims of the very unlucky. But as the variance increases, the proportion of wealth of the very unlucky increases and this affects everyone, not just the very unlucky. If the variance becomes too extreme, and it has, the insurance system may collapse, which is the subject of the podcast above. While the effects of Climate Change, and the effects of sea rise from average temperature rise, may impact only those in coastal areas,  if the variance also increases, then it impacts everyone, including those NOT in coastal areas.

The increase in variance is also why reducing government expenditures as close to zero as possible may NOT be wise in a growing economy. By fixing the average starting wealth as close to zero as possible, if there is any growth, then the variance must increase to capture this growth. But variance increases for the unlucky too, not just for the lucky.  A foolish fixation on NOT keeping the variance the same when the economy grows and instead increasing the Universal Basic Expenditure for all, requires that more of the growth be distributed to the lucky. But increasing the variance in this manner, also increases the number of the unlucky. By pretending that is a zero-sum game in an increasing economy, a decrease in the share of income of losers will be balanced by the share of income going to the winners. This was discussed in a previous post. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2023/09/distribution-of-income-ii.html

There is a joke among statisticians that is intended to illustrate variance. A good variance is one where your head is the same temperature as your feet, in which case your body has the same average temperature. You might have the same average temperature if your head is in an oven and your feet are in a freezer. In the latter case the variance is much, much greater, even if the average is the same and your situation is much worse.  IOW, it ain't the average, it's the variance.