geekiness(josh lubarr)

Geeky, nerdy, dweeby fun

dweeby baseball fun

For some of us (including me), there is a particular pleasure near the end of the baseball season watching the magic numbers and wild card races and so on. (It’s much easier, of course, when your team has clinched the division and is likely to have the best record in either league.) The fun, also of course, lies in all the math, so that something like this:

NL Central	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10	POFF
St. Louis	90	64	.584	-	48-27	42-37	745	582	+163	Won 1	6-4	99.9
Cincinnati	88	66	.571	2	48-26	40-40	674	559	+115	Won 4	6-4	99.6
Pittsburgh	88	66	.571	2	49-30	39-36	599	551	+48	Lost 1	5-5	99.0
Milwaukee	68	85	.444	21.5	36-43	32-42	607	664	-57	Lost 2	6-4	0.0
Chicago Cubs	64	90	.416	26	29-47	35-43	588	654	-66	Lost 1	2-8	0.0

is very intriguing. (These are the NL Central standings as of the morning of 9/21/13.*)

First of all, this is the perfect explanation of why it’s good to have two wildcard teams. Now, in ye olden days (i.e., 2011), if the Reds and the Pirates had ended up tied for the season, they would have had their one-game playoff, and that would have been fine, but, given the current state of affairs, what if they have slightly different records? Then, look at the whole league (again, as of this morning):

NL - combined	W	L	PCT	GB	HOME	ROAD	RS	RA	DIFF	STRK	L10	POFF
Atlanta		91	62	.595	-	52-22	39-40	655	521	+134	Won 2	5-5	99.9
St. Louis	90	64	.584	1.5	48-27	42-37	745	582	+163	Won 1	6-4	99.9
x-LA Dodgers	88	66	.571	3.5	46-32	42-34	624	569	+55	Lost 1	3-7	100.0
Cincinnati	88	66	.571	3.5	48-26	40-40	674	559	+115	Won 4	6-4	99.6
Pittsburgh	88	66	.571	3.5	49-30	39-36	599	551	+48	Lost 1	5-5	99.0
Washington	83	71	.539	8.5	46-33	37-38	633	601	+32	Won 2	8-2	1.4

(BTW, all these layouts are from ESPN, mostly because those are the easiest to mess with and then post. I wish I could claim it was because Nate Silver‘s going to have his new site there, but, alas, no.)

I am only including teams whose POFF (percent chance of making the playoffs) is above 0%. Now, let’s assume that the Nationals don’t do anything miraculous, so we have the top five teams in the league. Now, what if the Dodgers lose the rest of their games while both the Pirates and the Reds have some wins. We could easily end up with something like:

NL - combined	W	L	
Atlanta		97	65	
St. Louis	95	67
Cincinnati	93	69
Pittsburgh	92	70
x-LA Dodgers    88      74
Washington	88	74

And here’s the point: that little X next to the Dodgers is because they’ve clinched their division. That means, as we all know, that they’re in the playoffs, period, regardless of what happens with them or anyone else for the rest of the season. This means, that, in this scenario, which — aside from the Dodgers’ final record — is entirely plausible, then, with the old system, the Pirates aren’t in the playoffs. And, just to say it explicitly, if they had been in the same division as the Dodgers, they’d have been up by four games. So, in spite of my quasi-political grousing that the second wildcard is just an excuse to extend the playoffs, sell more tickets, and televise more games, I’m happy that it will give the Reds and the Pirates a chance.

Second, this is extra fun (for my version of fun) because the two wildcards are very likely to be in the same division (see also the sad 1.4% likelihood of the Nationals making the playoffs). Partly this is nice because it does something to rectify the famous situation where some good teams are punished for splitting their games and a weaker team ends up with a better record. However, I really just like it because it could lead to my ideal scenario, in which there’s a three-way tie for NL central. Then I get to read the explanations of why, say, the Cardinals are still considered the divisional winners for playoff seeding.

Finally, speaking of the Nationals, their logo calls the wrong kind of attention to itself. It’s almost like something from Idiocracy.

*9/21/13 as an equation is 9 = (2+1)*1*3

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr
Favorite movies – The Pantheon

Advertisements

Where technology and politics meet, courtesy of Kevin Roose

This is a really interesting article in light of everything going on with the NSA: The Surveillance-Free Day (Part I) in today’s New York Magazine. BTW, I enjoy this magazine more and more, especially because of Jonathan Chait and Frank Rich.

Cross-posted on Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr).

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

more old ones — March 2013

For background, see equationizing.

When in the course of human events, one drops the ball for a while, there is the chance to pick it up. Hence, equations for March of 2013, not including 3/1/13 which is both obvious and covered elsewhere.

3/2/13:  (√(3^2)) ^1 = 3

3/3/13: √(3*3/1) = 3

3/4/13: √(3^√4)/1 = 3

3/5/13: √(3√(5-1)) = 3 (I’d rather have done something involving the simpler and more elegant 3 + 3 – 1 = 5 but I’m more into preserving the order of the digits these days.

3/6/13: 3 = 6*1-3

3/7/13: 7 – 1 -3 =3; lame, breaks the order

3/8/13: ³√8 + 1 = 3; that thing at the beginning is the cube root of 8

3/9/13: √(3*√9)*1 = 3

3/10/13: 3 + 10 = 13

3/11/13: 3*1*1*1 = 3

3/12/13: 3+1-2+1 = 3

3/13/13: just enjoy the pattern

3/14/13: 3+1-√2+1 = 3, remember this one from two days ago? als0, if you live until 2059, remember this day

3/15/13: √(3*(1+√(5-1))) = 3; also, speaking of remembering, how about those Ides of March?

3/16/13: 3-1 = 6-1-3; also 3 = 16-13

3/17/13: 3 = 1+√(7-(1*3))

3/18/13: 3+1 = 8-1-3

3/19/13: 3*1 = 9/1/3

3/20/13: 3-2-0 = 1*3

3/21/13: 3 = 2+1 = 1*3

3/22/13: 3-2 = (2+1)/3

3/23/13: 3*2 = 3*1+3

3/24/13: 3*2 = 4+1-3

3/25/13: 3^2 = 5+1+3

3/26/13: √(√(3^2)+6)*1 = 3

3/27/13: 3^2 – 7 + 1 = 3

3/28/13: 3*2 = 8+1-3

3/29/13: √(3^2) = √9 = 1*3

3/30/13: 3 = 3 = (0+1)*3

3/31/13: √(3*3*1*1) = 3

Voila!

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Places in the real world – Good Things around Boston (according to Josh Lubarr)
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

the sad tale of my not posting equations for months

First, let us happily acknowledge that others now are using their minds for this activity. We (that’s the royal we, of course) hope they enjoy themselves.

Second, to return to the title: Yes, I haven’t posted for months, and now it has been pointed out. Actually, it’s not a sad tale, though some might find it lame. Here’s a fresh start, in honor of tomorrow’s palindromic date:

3 + 1 = 1 + 3

And here’s one with some fancier stuff than usual:

3! = 3 * (1+1)

And, since it’s still 2/28/13, we have the pleasure of:

2 + 2 = 8 – 1 – 3

which is in order, and makes me realize that the factorial equation above should have been

3! = (1 + 1) * 3

to get those “leaving the numbers in the order in which they were already” bonus points.*

 

 

 

*Bonus points have absolutely no value. They cannot be redeemed anywhere, under any circumstances. All rights reserved.

equationizing partial catch-up

No editorializing, folks, just the facts.

6/1/12 — √(6-1-1) = 2

6/2/12 — 6 = (2 + 1) * 2

6/3/12 — 6 = 3 + 1 + 2

6/4/12 — 6 * √4 = 12

6/5/12 —6 – 5 + 1 = 2

6/6/12 — Left as an exercise for the reader.

6/7/12 — 7 + 1 = 6 + 2 [Points off for breaking the order]

6/8/12 — 6 / √(8 + 1) = 2

6/9/12 — Nice sequence.

6/10/12 — √(6 – 1 – 0 – 1) = 2

6/11/12 — 6 = (1 + 1 + 1) * 2

6/12/12 — 6 = 1 + 2 + 1 + 2

6/13/12 — 6 = 1 * 3 * 1 * 2

6/14/12 — 6 + 1 – 4 – 1 = 2

6/15/12 — 6 + 1 – 5 = 1 * 2

6/16/12 — 6 + 1 – 6 + 1 = 2

6/17/12 — 6 – 1 + 7 = 12

6/18/12 — 6 – √(1 + 8) = 1 + 2

6/19/12 — 6 + 1 = 9 – (1 * 2) [Cheesy multiplying by 1, though]

6/20/12 — 6 = (2  + 0) * (1 + 2)

6/21/12 — 6 = 2 + 1 + 1 + 2

6/22/12 — 6 / 2 – 2 + 1 = 2

6/23/12 — 6 + 2 * 3 = 12

6/24/12 — No equation needed, just interesting to think about six being multiplied by the powers of 2 out of sequence…

6/25/12 — 6 – √25  + 1 = 2

6/26/12 — 6 * 2 = 6 * 1 * 2

6/27/12 — 6 + 2 – 7 + 1 = 2

6/28/12 — (6 + 2) / 8 + 1 = 2

6/29/12 — 6 * 2 – 9 – 1 = 2

6/30/12 — 6 = 3 + 0 + 1 + 2

July en route soon…

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Places in the real world – Good Things around Boston (according to Josh Lubarr)
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr

Mental Reunion at Geeky U (actually, geeky me)

Mental reunion sounds like the Vulcan mind meld to me, which is strangely relevant in this context.

I watch a lot of movies and I like John Cusack a lot, so when someone handed me a copy of Martian Child, I decided to watch it. It wasn’t bad (see my mini-review here), but I probably wouldn’t have thought about it further, until I noticed that it was adapted from a novelette by David Gerrold. “Okay, whatever,” you say. But I, a geek, say “David Gerrold? The author of the Star Trek episode, The Trouble with Tribbles? And the author of the book, The Trouble with Tribbles, about the making the episode, which I devoured when I was ten or eleven?” And you say, “Wow, Josh, you are a geek.”

And, of course, the answer is, yes, the same David Gerrold, who now has his virtual residence at gerrold.com. Now, I haven’t read any science fiction in decades (“Heretic! NON-GEEK!”), but, if I’d had this blog back then, there would have been a page for every Star Trek episode as I counted down seeing them (The Tholian Web, meh, was the last one). And there would have been extensive admiring prose about Mr. Gerrold’s book, which I loved. Even now, I smile at the anecdote he recounted about how revisions to the script were printed on different colors of paper, and Nichelle Nichols commented on how colorful the shooting script for The Trouble with Tribbles was.

 

A few backlogged equations, part two

The one that I really want to note is 5/24/12, as in

5 * (2.4) = 12

and if the fact that I like that doesn’t prove I’m a geek, I don’t know what does.

Just to be thorough, here’s what else we’ve missed since I last posted:

5/20/12 — 5 = 2 + 0 + 1 + 2 — pleasantly simple

5/21/12 — 5 – 2 – 1^1 = 2 — a little cheesy

5/22/12 — 5 – 2 – 2 + 1 = 2

5/23/12 — 5 = √(23 + 1 * 2) — going in order but treating the 23 as a full number; can you live with it?

5/25/12 — 5 = √25 * 1^2 — meh

5/26/12 — √(5 * 2 – 6) * 1 = 2 — frankly, multiplying by 1 always bugs me

5/27/12 — 5 * 2 = 7 + 1 + 2 — not bad

5/28/12 — 5 * 2 – 8 ^ 1 = 2 — not too keen on the “^1” either

5/29/12 — 5 – 2 + 9 = 12  OR  5 * 2 – 9 + 1 = 2 — both fine

5/30/12 — 5 – 3 – 0 = 1 * 2 — ecch

5/31/12 — 5 – 3 + √(1 + 1 + 2) — at least it doesn’t multiply by 1, put to the power of 1, or have the dreaded “+ 1 – 1” in it

 

 

The places to hear from me:
Food – josh lubarr food stuff
Geekiness – geekiness(josh lubarr)
Movies – Old Movies and New with Josh Lubarr
Places in the real world – Good Things around Boston (according to Josh Lubarr)
Politics – Progressive Politics (per Josh Lubarr)
Silliness and comedy – Le Repository du Silliness, avec Josh Lubarr