Tuesday assorted links

Comments

I read the titles and approve of these links. Does Martina grunt to obscure the sound of her tennis racket strings? I think not, she is a true sportsman as they call them in Russia.

To each their own. I am glad that Ms. Navratilova held on to the racket, and I am equally happy that Ms. Williams was exasperated and showed it to the world. Both behaviors can be right and when we judge someone based on our personal standards, it says more about us than the person we judge.

Why are you glad that Williams showed a lack of control and acted violently? Do you act that way? Do you encourage your family and friends (and children) to act that way?

Any competent official would tell you that that it is not the job of the official to insert themselves into a game, much less an open finals. Why was Mr. Ramos watching the coach and not the court? Ms. Williams clearly broke a rule, even if it is a bad one. But the punishment was disproportionate. I bet if a cop catches you driving 1 mile over the speed limit on a downhill, you would be exasperated as well. Ms. Williams let the world know and as ugly as it turned, I am sure it will benefit the overall game of tennis. And that is why I am glad that she had the courage to confront the situation despite knowing that she will lose this battle.

A warning is disproportionate?

No, her childish and indignant response to the warning was disproportionate.

The first time it happened, Mr. Ramos flagged it as a violation. No "turn the mike off and give a warning". What is clear and cannot be disputed is how Mr. Ramos lost control of the match.

After Ms. Williams smashed her racket, both Ms. Williams and Ms. Osaka took the court thinking it was 0 - 0. Only then were they informed that it was actually 15 - 0, following a point penalty. After Ms. Williams called Mr. Ramos a thief he said nothing. Ms. Osaka took the ball thinking she would serve without realizing that she had been handed the game. Mr. Ramos could not make his calls clear and on time.

By the way, do you remember when umpire Mo Lahyani climbed down from his chair to give words on encouragement to Nick Kyrgios in this same US Open tournament during his meltdown? When you compare that incident with the one that happened in the US Open finals - it does seem disproportionate.

one thing the internet has taught me, is that somebody will defend any behaviour, including, in this case, the petulance of a fading superstar. And we haven't here even begun on the arrogance of her post match behaviour. Get out of the way, you lost, and let Osaka enjoy her moment.

making poor judgements is also being judgemental MajorEcon.

#4 - that conversations are limited to four people has empirical support: a recent paper, cited in New Scientist, (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3891) reports Daniel Goldman of Georgia Tech found ants clear tunnels most optimally by having 30% of the ants work while 70% remain idle (corporations 'work' in a similar redundant manner) and when Goldman replicated the ants with excavation robots he found the optimal number of robots was three, and four was the upper limit where productivity drastically decreased. Analogously, if a street fight it is said only three people can 'mug' a single person, and if more than three the extras have to stand around and wait their turn, hence, a karate blackbelt faced with unskilled muggers can use this fact to their advantage to defeat a team of more than three muggers, by dispatching three at a time until all the muggers are dispatched. True!

You've been watching WAY too much TV.

#3 - Nick Ban Nazis Mamatas observations on a writer's craft is excellent! I have saved all twenty of these gems. Reminds me of a book I'm reading about the art of writing. His #1 rule, a sort of Laffer curve, reminds me of how inventions are made: the true 'pioneer' inventions are made by people who are already rich and dabbling in science (say that Rockefeller biologist, or Darwin), or, the truly destitute and desperate. Nobody "normal" or "sane" risks their entire career to invent something breakthrough, instead, they focus on small incremental improvements (the middle) of established products; that's where the money is.

Bonus trivia: who invented the IC? Was it Jack Kilby of TI or Robert Noyce of Fairchild? If you believe, like apparently TC does, in 'inevitable disclosure or invention', then you could say--ludicrously IMO--that neither man invented anything, since the IC was "in the air" and the fact two people more or less invented it at the same time, independently, means anybody could have done so. This argument is used all the time by anti-patent people.

I really think #7 needs to be qualified with the fact that the data doesn't take into account that men's grand slams are best of 5 sets while women's matches are best of 3 sets.

Looking at total number of penalties isn't so helpful a comparison when the two groups have significantly different match lengths.

If you follow the link, it does take this into account

The author originally did not take it into account - which is pretty glaring considering he is comparing two things as if they are apples to apples. (My problem here is TC advertises it also as an apples to apples comparison. It is not). The author doesn't revise the data to account for it (such as penalties per set), he just notes it in an update and provides a pretty poor excuse for why he thinks it's not a big deal:

"I’m not sure, however, if we should expect proportionally more penalties in longer matches. Coaching, for instance, would continue throughout a match until identified as a code violation, and then (one would hope) stop. "

This is unpersuasive to me - I think you should absolutely expect more penalties in a longer match. There is much more time to get frustrated and break a racquet in a longer match or commit some other impulsive penalty. There is a greater opportunity in a 4 and 5 set match to become physically exhausted and let your emotions get the best of you. He brings up coaching violations, but that is only one of many potential violations. I don't see how matches that take around 50% more time would not see increase in penalties. Although he could compare penalties issued in slams versus tournaments where men play 3 sets, and test his theory shorter matches means similar # of penalties.

They two are incomparable. Adrenaline decreases with time, but so does restraint. Testosterone will (hopefully) be significantly different, as is brain structure. I didn't read it, are the judges the same people? We CAN compare 50-60m sprints to 100 m ones, but what useful comparison can be made between the runners?

The other potential confounder here is how often men misbehave in ways that should merit a penalty. Hypothetically, imagine a world where men smash their rackets three times as often as women, but only get twice as many penalties for racket-smashing as women.

I have no idea whether men and women are treated differently in tennis judging, BTW, I'm just pointing out that deciding that is not as simple as just counting penalties, even if you account for 3-vs-5 set matches in grand slam events.

Yes, the author of the initial blog post addresses that. Here is what he says: "I’m not sure, however, if we should expect proportionally more penalties in longer matches. Coaching, for instance, would continue throughout a match until identified as a code violation, and then (one would hope) stop. That said, it is certainly true that on a per-point or per-set basis, the gender gap at majors is smaller than these numbers suggest, though it still leaves us with more point penalties against men."

Yeah, despite the lame attempts to address the glaring issues, this is a useless statistic. Worse than useless because people have to take precious time to talk about the reasons why the statistic is meaningless. One might as well say that male players in the NFL get penalized for clipping more often than female tennis players do. The statistic isn't close to being an adequate comparison.

I wonder, if you lived a thousand years ago in France, would you have been arguing against building Chartes Cathedral on the grounds that France would better spend the funds on roads?

Man does not live by bread alone.

Maybe France would have been better off?

The pharaohs soon enough realized that as awesome as the pyramids are, the cost was too great, and they stopped even trying to match the great pyramid and for that matter the lesser pyramids.

"...soon enough realized..."

This is one of the great socio-economic "chicken/egg" questions for all human civilizations. Did they really realize that they were better off and decided to stop building or did they realize they lacked the resources, capability and energy to measure up to their forebears?

From the cathedrals of medieval Europe, to the pyramids of Egypt, to the ruins at Chichen Itza the question of "better off" is already answered when the structures are going up. "Of course we're better off!!!" "What? This isn't important to you!?!?!" Taking Chartres as an example, the society that built it was much more homogenous, local, and with an entirely different value system than ours. "What value roads compared to your immortal soul and the glorification of almighty god!!!" is what they would have said in response to your question.

The cost was not too great when the structures went up because something other than cost was more essential in their construction. The Pharaohs stopped building pyramids because that "something other" wasn't there anymore. They could have been built, but the cost, as you said, would be ruinous. Failing civilizations do experience a phase of "spiritual death" where entropy exceeds will. I wonder if the pharaohs looked at the pyramids and felt ashamed at all....

My understanding was that they stopped building pyramids as the tombs were too easy to find and then rob. The later Egyptians moved to hidden tombs underground. There is also an argument that the later Pharaohs invested more of the time/resources in fancier buildings like temples and palaces - pyramids are not very usable for living or worshiping in, even if they are very durable.

Yeah, I'd be like, "Le Dude! The Romans were pagans and even they had sewers! Many may not live by bread alone, but we certainly die a lot from cholera."

man does not live by bread alone...... only said by people who already eat bread.

3. Does one ever forget one's college literature class, reading and deciphering what the "best" writers wrote. Does one ever forget the humiliation of being called on in class to decipher a single endless sentence written by one of the "best" writers. Why not simple, short, declarative sentences, the kind that Ernest Hemingway wrote. Joan Didion wrote that she taught herself how to write by typing out Hemingway stories. "I mean they’re perfect sentences. Very direct sentences, smooth rivers, clear water over granite, no sinkholes." This is an age when Dan Brown sells over 200 million books, books that are a travesty of both history and the written word.

#7: The amazing thing about this "controversy" is that people are focusing on the umpire being a man. Do people realize his calls (right or wrong) have not really gave him any benefit? The benefit was given to another woman (another minority woman, btw). This trend of trying to make everything about race or gender is perhaps the most destructive and annoying thing that the left has come up with since communism...

Did you see that Australian cartoonist's depiction of the event? The Serena opponent was a pig-tailed blonde girl, and Serena, well, you have to see it to believe it.

Ms. Osaka does have a blonde ponytail in real life. Her character in the strip is in shadow so it's tough to decide if she's supposed to be white or not.

I doubted this but then looked on Google images and indeed she does (in this event)

It's called a "caricature." There isn't anything racist about it.

There are historical reasons to avoid certain black stereotypes. The artist is Australian, not American, but they have aborigines and I suspect similar issues.

I do not know how to draw Serena without invoking those caricatures, but I am not a professional cartoonist. A professional could probably figure out a way of doing it. (Such as by swapping the foreground and background characters?)

yes he could have drawn the Japanese girl having the tantrum. Or better still - the man!

The depiction of Serena throwing a tantrum and stomping is classic cartoon technique and so is the exaggeration of facial features. I don't think the cartoon was racist at all, but I am a white, male Caucasian so my opinion doesn't count. I would like to hear the opinion of someone with African background.

"I am a white, male Caucasian so my opinion doesn't count."

People will never know your pain, will they? White boys are the new snowflakes.

"White boys are the new snowflakes."

Black boys are the new people with overactive sarcasm detectors?

He made a joke. I found it funny. I do think white people are too touchy these days making themselves out as victims when they aren't. A lot of Trump supporters act like this. Like something sacred was taken from them. I'm white btw.

Are you claiming that there is a racial or ethnic or religious or political group which DOESN'T "[make] themselves out as victims when they aren't"??? Or are you implying that only selected groups have any moral claim to victim-hood?

Thad, you are missing out on the context. In Australia black people used to be murdered a lot. The murdered black people weren't African Americans, but I don't think the people doing the murdering would have cared. So the cartoon is similar to, but not the same, as a German newspaper portraying a semitic person with an exaggerated hooked nose as was often done in Nazi propaganda.

Of the course, the paper that published the cartoon pissed in the stew pot quite deliberately in order to get site views and are now complaining that their freedom is somehow being taken away from them because people are free to complain about a cartoon they don't like.

I'd mail them some smelling salts, but under our current anti-terrorism laws that would probably count as a chemical attack.

Ha. Or, the paper is free to complain about people complaining about the cartoon.

'another minority woman'

No, she is quite in the majority of the country she is a citizen of. You, however, are extremely likely to be considered a 'minority' if you were to reside in her country by all of Osaka's fellow citizens.

She's an American citizen (dual Japanese-American citizen) and has lived in the USA since age 3.

Interesting, and shows that checking is important - all of the coverage I have read has called her the first Japanese Grand Slam champion, which seems less than accurate then.

Her wikipedia article seems to indicate a fascinating personal history. To call her Haitian-Japanese American would seem to be most accurate, if a bit wordy.

I think the media tries to go with what the player identifies as - and I think she makes the choice to compete as a representative of Japan in grand slams. Calling her the first Japanese grand slam champion is accurate, given she won a grand slam and is a Japanese citizen. Plenty of media also go onto mention her dual-citizenship or residence status or parent's nationalities.

#2 is interesting, mostly because it has an audible version. What is the cost of getting a good professional narrator, compared to the cost of doing the journalism in the first place?

4: The upper limit is really three people.

First, there is Person 1, who is the one who won't shut up -- he/she always needs to be talking, or at least the first one to speak after someone else finishes. 90% of the conversation is a ping-pong between P1 and someone else.

The person playing ping-pong with P1 can alternate between two others, P2 and P3, but really not more than that. P2 and P3 have to compete for speaking time with each other, and there won't be anything left for anyone else.

As an aside, if P2 and P3 ever start talking to each other, leaving P1 out of it for more than 10 seconds, P1 will always change the subject.

And if you're talking to p1 over the phone, she invariably cuts you off multiple times during the conversation, usually between the opening article and the subject of a sentence.

A 4-person Scrabble game, while a little boring as Scrabble, is a good mediator of conversation, as each person is quiet about 25% of the time. That is, if you don't mind some of the conversation invariably being people complaining about their tiles, or that somebody else played where they were going to play.

The last time I played Scrabble with relatives, it was unusually quiet, though. It turned out my competitors were simultaneously playing Words With Friends with each other on their phones during our game.

On 1 -

a) Why does a 36 year old with 23 grand slam singles titles need coaching at all during play?

b) Why should standards be the same for men and women? Should it not be relative to the "normal" levels of misbehavior among players of that sex? By the same token do you apply the same standards by having best-of-five set matches in WTA?

b) is fair - men have more testosterone so they can't really help getting more hot tempered. I have noticed this especially when an authority figure is involved. Men have more problems deferring to the police, for instance. It's like this wierd dominance/submission thing - guys don't want to submit to authority.

Says WHO?!!?

You?? Well who the hell are you to say that?!?!?

Correct, which is why men account for 95% of people killed by police despite being 49% of the population.

And why Blacks account for 25% of people killed by police despite being 13% of the population.

You cannot examine the fairness of penalties without also examining the incidence of prohibited behavior.

That said, I'm not sure I agree that if men are more aggressive by nature that their bad behavior should be excused more. Many sports are far less forgiving of the type of behavior we saw in Williams or McEnroe. Red cards, 15 yard penalties, ejections, forfeitures are all very common for that level of disrespect.

In the military or in courtrooms, such outbursts are crimes, sometimes felony crimes. In an employment context it can get you fired.

Well, I don't mean to say "excused" just that as far as social norms are concerned people tend to be a little more tolerant of men having a more aggressive (but not violent) attitude. You could also argue the other way - that the penalties should be higher for men *because* they are more likely to break the rules.

From a welfare-maximising perspective, aim for harsher penalties, despite the affront to natural justice.

If m is a member of group M with higher group innate recidivism for whatever reason, then increase the punishments to m in order to condition future behaviour of m, deter other members of M, and incapacitate m for longer.

It's the same logic for punishing second offences more heavily.

on 1) umm...what has age and success got to do with anything? She is human, could miss things, could get tired / frustrated. The coach could realize that and provide coaching.

on 2) I normally appreciate your ideas, but in this case you are comparing apples and bananas. Movie tickets are not priced based on the length of the movie. So the idea that you should enforce different standards in women's games because it is a 3-set match or "normalize" based on "acceptable behavior standards" is ludicrous.

aargh...you had a) b), I typed 1) 2). Long day...

Seriously? So if men are naturally more aggressive than women, some violence on their part should be overlooked?

Just to be clear: what SW did was wrong and the treatment meted out to the (quite graceful) winner was disgraceful. But we shouldn't be addressing double standards by continuously defining behavior down. It was right for SW to be punished the way she was, and it would be right for, say, Djokovic to be punished the same way if he lashed out at an umpire like that.

No. No double standards, just petulance punished.

Women consistently get lower prison sentences, presumably for the same reason (less aggressive, less likely to repeat). I'm shocked that no one complains about sexist bias in our criminal justice system.

Correct, but it is impossible to judge the aggravating, mitigating, and extenuating factors just by looking at outcomes by sex (or race). Men are much more aggressive and their crimes are more shocking to the conscience. Depending on state laws, a myriad of factors contribute to sentencing.

Women may very well get off easier, holding all else constant, but I've seen no persuasive studies that account for other factors.

Men make up 95% of people killed by police? Unfair or deserved?

#1 & #7 I've been hearing a lot about race, and sex, and even class and culture but not about the difference in age. Serena is facing the twilight of her career and Naomi the dawn. That is a factor both in behavior and capability.

#5 Snapshot attention, retention and speed recollection of minute detail is what they teach on the farm at Camp Peary. X-ray vision is unnecessary when so many ("dumb f*cks...", - Mark Zuckerberg #2) leave so much information available in the open. They're literally asking for it don't they know?

#6 If the religious popularity of the idea and their power is growing there's no reason not to use community gathered religious funds for the purpose of building it. As I recollect the same was done with many of the great cathedrals of Europe where much of the money was privately given by guilds, powerful noblemen, and wealthy individuals as a benefaction or in search of an indulgence.

I thought #6 was going to be about college football.

manchmal gehe ich auch gern um die ecke in der nahe. Viele Leuten glaube dass man ist was er nicht ist. Nihil Nihil Nihil

1. I don't watch tennis, but I did watch the replay of the confrontation between Ms. Williams and the umpire. Ms. Williams kept going back to the accusation that she cheated (by being coached during the match). What everybody admitted, including her own coach, is that she was being coached. The experts (Evert, McEnroe, etc.) all stated that players are coached on almost every point, but the umpire chose to enforce a violation on Ms. Williams. I would make the analogy to golf and the penalty for the ball moving while the player is about to putt. The ball moved? So what? The most ridiculous penalty, that cost Lexi Thompson a win, is the penalty for improving the player's lie by not placing it in the exact spot on the green where the player marked and picked up the ball. I mean, really, Ms. Thompson placed the ball one tenth of one inch closer to the hole? Both cases (Williams and Thompson) are examples of the zero tolerance movement that has swept across the country, which is at least as harmful as the PC movement. Are umpires supposed to exercise good judgment, or are they enforcers of zero tolerance.

The key point is whether this particular umpire has let coaching go in the past but decided to enforce the rules solely on Serena for some bizarre reason. Until we see some proof of this, I'd say Serena mainly got what she deserved for acting like an entitled brat for the entire second set.

" The experts (Evert, McEnroe, etc.) all stated that players are coached on almost every point, but the umpire chose to enforce a violation on Ms. Williams. "

In that case, the press is asking the wrong questions. The right question is: Why is the coach present in a spot visible to his pupil?

If coaches were excluded, it would be trivial for them to operate a "puppet" amongst the spectators.

Coaching is common, commonly missed, and commonly penalized

TL;DR about the "controversy" at the US Open this year:

1. It was great for tennis. This was the most watched tennis event in history. This is pure gold.

2. The behavior of the media has been utterly astonishing. I have high hope that it will help get more tax cuts enacted in 2019.

3. This was great for all parents with younger children. An example of exactly how not to behave works wonders.

#1 Martina starts her article with "There is a huge double standard for women when it comes to how bad behavior is punished — and not just in tennis." and doesnt even feel the need to elaborate on that, let alone prove her point.

But unless she can back that central argument up with facts, the rest of her article is moot. Stop applauding.

I wonder if ANY of this talk would be happening if the umpire was a woman. I doubt it very much. It is truly sad that we keep wasting our time with these useless controversies.

The double standard works in their favor usually, she doesn't want to get into that I guess

“You would think that the O.C.R. would have their hands full these days, and instead they’re using their limited resources” to reopen a case “that the Education Department spent years investigating, and had been closed.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/us/politics/rutgers-jewish-education-civil-rights.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

> that central argument

That "argument" (or as you point out, claim) is not remotely central to her article, so the article is in no way moot.

On the other hand that claim could not be omitted -- she is writing in the NYT after all.

"The lead statement or 'lede' is the introductory sentence at the beginning of an article that summarizes the key details of the story or comment."

Both her lead statement and first paragraph consist of the claim mentioned above so those are her "key details".

I, too, couldnt help but wonder if it's just required virtue signalling to the feminist crowd and overlords but that would reflect even worse on the rest of her article.

Terrible times (no pun).

It would be very surprising if women were punished more harshly for the same rule violations in sports given that in the criminal justice system (where we have data), they are punished much less harshly for the same crimes.

I can try his patience - and naturally I do! - by reading out to him either local news (crime, crashes) or celebrity gossip.

So the other day I told him about the brawl of some people called Nicki Minaj and Cardi B. You should watch this video, I said, a little devil in me. An assortment of big burly men "couldn't" control them. He reacted with his usual savage indifference.

So I was surprised when yesterday he looked up from his computer and said, "Nicki Minaj says Carli B. is going down, she's going to die."

? - You're following Nicki Minaj and Cardi B. now?

He explained: CNN. It's all they care about today.

All in the same week that we learned women are disparately punished for acting out (certainly not rewarded with publicity, music single sales, etc.), and - for the very first time; you haven't come a long way, baby - aren't going to behave anymore.

A lot of "No true Christian..." in #6. We need a mans-plaining/whites-plaining equivalent term for others lecturing Christians on how to be good Christians.

What's the word for Christians lecturing non-Christians on how to be good Christians?

"Family values"?

Evangelization.

#4 - I’m confused. If a person can’t mentally model more than 3 people at once, how do you explain a 2nd grade teacher or an office meeting or any of countless other examples. I understand that these don’t count as “conversations” by their definition, but that seems arbitrary.

To me, the obvious reason that we tend to not have more than 4 people to an informal conversion is that when you have more, there isn’t enough opportunity for everyone to contribute as much as is natural. The dyad explanation seems to be just a fancier way of saying the same thing. On the other hand the mental model explanation seems like a bizarre stretch of an answer to a question that most people don’t have in the first place.

On the other hand the dyad explanation makes sesneanother way of saying

My definition of "politics" - Any interaction between more than 2 people.

Oops- that last non-sentence was supposed to be deleted

Nick's comment # 20 is unportuantely so true.
One (of many) advantage of POD is everyday flip open your published book to a random page, find one or more typos, fix and re-upload.
Of course, if you go the trad route, a copy-editor/proof-reader might pitch in, but for that you will foot the bill.
My lessons learned: If you want money, get a job at a convenience store. If you want to be liked, join the fire department. If you want people to read your book, pay them. In the case of academic articles, write about what grad students are writing about and be sure your article is on google scholar and available free.

The very fact that women's tennis exists is overwhelming evidence of bias in the sport. The highest ranked women cannot beat the lowest ranked men and yet they get to make careers and millions from the sport. This is only because they are born with the right sex, not because of their ability.

All the other talk about bias in the sport is speculation, but that is fact.

Not only does women's tennis exist, but prize money is on a par with men's tennis. This is evidence of the fact that human beings are interested in watching and supporting women's tennis. Period.

You are correct that comparable wages are justified by the revenues of women's tennis. In contrast, the WNBA doesn't do nearly as well.

Chrisare's point, if I may judge, is that Williams and others see themselves as victims of sex discrimination without measuring the actual differences between themselves and men. Chrisare is pointing out that in a meritocratic world without gender discrimination, no women would even compete in these championships because they are inferior tennis players to men. They have a league of their own because they carved out their own, gender discriminatory, niche.

If white women carved out their own niche, banning non-white women, and were financially successful, the Williams' of the world would be screeching and mocking. Yet these hypocrites can't realize that is exactly the type of world they built and thrive in.

As a father of two athletic daughters, I support women's athletics. I recognize the value in not having purely meritocratic competition. After all, baseball has major and minor leagues separated by skill level. But when women start complaining that the rewards of their self-created leagues aren't as large as those of higher-performing men, they lose me.

Williams was complaining about disparate treatment. I didn't see her tantrum, but I've seen John McEnroe embarrass an entire stadium (except himself) for minutes on end without this kind of retribution. Maybe it's a crap argument, but it's not the straw man you have set up. Why would she be complaining about differential rewards anyway since they don't exist in tennis, as already pointed out, cuz economics?

John McEnroe has a very long list of warning and fines, and expulsions.

"On January 21, 1990, at the Australian Open in Melbourne, American tennis player John McEnroe becomes the first player since 1963 to be disqualified from a Grand Slam tournament for misconduct."

This doesn't appear to be true - see below.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ng-interactive/2018/jul/14/tennis-pay-gap-shouldnt-be-gender-based

What would be more interesting is whether or not ticket receipts are the same for men and for women. The NBA, for example, heavily subsidizes the WNBA. Does that happen in tennis?

One thing that probably matters here is that womens' tennis is about as much fun to watch (to me, anyway) as mens' tennis. All else equal, I'd be about as happy with a ticket to a womens' final as a mens' final. This is true, even though the best womens' players couldn't stay on the court with the best mens' players. Something similar is true of ice skating and gymnastics, but those are more subjective sports.

By contrast, when I've seen womens' basketball, it seems like a very different, and much less fun-to-watch, game than NCAA or NBA mens' basketball.

The willingness of fans to pay for tickets (and sponsors to pay for endorsements) is a huge driver in how much the players get paid.

#5: this topic is so new that applications are still unknown.

But one speculation was fascinating: what if this is applied to LIDAR and your car can see behind obstacles or around the corner?

The first time I totaled a car it was because I changed lanes to pass a slow semi-trailer just to find an even slower car in the left lane. No time or large distance enough to brake, I turned the wheel to avoid crashing others but lost control of my own car. A couple spins later I ended up above the lane dividing structure, with a destroyed car but totally unharmed. A bit more of bad luck and I finish crashing on the incoming traffic on the other side of the highway.

What if my car could have detected the obstacle behind the trailer?

Perhaps this is the path for car technology development. DO what humans CAN'T do, instead of trying to do what humans already are capable of doing.

I doubt that many 'dynamic' uses of this or similar technology will ever be feasible - at least, not in 'real world' environments such as the constantly changing, infinitely variable surfaces that make up a car moving in traffic. The computational burden goes up exponentially as the surfaces increase in complexity. I didn't read it, but the question that occurs to me is that if we can do this horizontally, then can we use light reflected back UP (and then down again) to see OVER (and not just around) things? (I use "light" in its broadest sense, some electromagnetic frequency...)

@Chrisare you are right on the money and yet no one else has mentioned it in this thread. My understanding is that it actually happened.

Serena (and her sister) got the bright idea to challenge a male tennis player( ranked around 230th in the world). Result; he beat Serena 6-1,6-0 and then turned right around and beat Venus by the same score.

7. The 900 lbs gorilla in the room is that Williams has ZERO evidence that women are penalized more than men. As nearly every racebaiting feminist does, she just makes up her facts and conclusions based on her non-random and biased casual observations.

It is not the job of Williams' critics to show that reality is the opposite of what Williams claims (although it is a powerful rejoinder). It is up to Williams and her co-conspirators to prove their assertions.

Her outburst was completely unjustified. First, she was actually cheating and then got indignant about being caught. Second, she was only warned so her hysterical fit had no consequences other than damaging her fragile ego. Third, she wouldn't let it go. Fourth, and most importantly, she was getting her ass kicked despite the warning and penalty, and she knew it.

The moment she accused the umpire of being a thief she should have been ejected from the tournament. No matter how good she is at tennis, she is a shameful competitor and representative of the sport.

Willitts wishes John McEnroe had been banned from tennis.

Comments for this post are closed