If you were wondering why the Outliers post was, ehem, a little rough I accidentally posted an initial draft rather than the final version. I’ve now released the right one.
When good voting algorithms go bad
Thinking about the QF72 incident, it struck me that average value based voting methods are based on the calculation of a population statistic. Now population statistics work well when the population is normally distributed, or otherwise clustered around some value. But if the distribution has heavy tails, we can expect that extreme values will occur fairly regularly and therefor the ‘average’ value means much less. In fact for some distributions we may not be able to put a cap on the upper value that an ‘average’ could be, e.g. it could have an infinite value and the idea of an average is therefore meaningless.
I realise that you are not directly responsible for the repeal of the carbon tax by the current government, and I also realise that we the voting public need to man up and shoulder the responsibility for the government and their actions. I even appreciate that if you did wish to retain the carbon tax as a green surcharge, the current government would undoubtedly act to force your hand.
But really, I have to draw the line at your latest correspondence. Simply stamping the latest bill with “SAVINGS FROM REMOVING THE CARBON TAX” scarcely does the benefits of this legislative windfall justice. You have, I fear, entirely undersold the comprehensive social, moral and economic benefits that accrue through the return of this saving to your customers. I submit therefore for your corporate attention some alternatives slogans:
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax…you’ll pay for it later”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax…buy a bigger air conditioner, you’ll need it”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax…we also have a unique coal seam investment opportunity”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax, invest in climate change!”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax, look up the word ‘venal’, yep that’s you”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax, because a bigger flatscreen TV is worth your children’s future”
- “Savings from removing the carbon tax, disinvesting in the future”
So be brave and take advantage of this singular opportunity to fully invest your corporate reputation in the truly wonderful outcomes of this prescient and clear sighted decision by our federal government.
A report from Beecham research on challenges in securing the IoT, my favourite quote from the press release, “Security in the Internet of Things is significantly more complex than many system designers have previously experienced...”.
I’ll be interested to see whether they put the finger on Postel’s robustness principle (RFC 793) as one of the root causes of our current internet security woes or the necessity to starve the Turing beast.
An interesting post by Mike Thicke over at Cloud Chamber on the potential use of prediction markets to predict the location of MH370. Prediction markets integrate ‘diffused’ knowledge using a market mechanism to derive a predicted likelihood, essentially market prices are assigned to various outcomes and are treated as analogs of their likelihood. Market trading then established what the market ‘thinks’ is the value of each outcome. The technique has a long and colourful history, but it does seem to work. As an aside prediction markets are still predicting a No vote in the upcoming referendum on Scottish Independence despite recent polls to the contrary.
Returning to the MH370 saga, if the ATSB is not intending to use a Bayesian search plan then one could in principle crowd source the effort through such a prediction market. One could run the market in a dynamic fashion with the market prices updating as new information comes in from the ongoing search. Any investors out there?
Just saw a sound bite of our Prime Minister reiterating that we’ll spare no expense to find MH370. Throwing money is one thing, but I’m kind of hoping that the ATSB will pull it’s finger out of it’s bureaucratic ass and actually apply the best search methods to the search. Unkind? Perhaps, but then maybe the families of the lost deserve the best that we can do…
Enshrined in Australia’s current workplace health and safety legislation is the principle of ‘So Far As Is Reasonably Practical’. In essence SFAIRP requires you to eliminate or to reduce risk to a negligible level as is (surprise) reasonably practical. While there’s been a lot of commentary on the increased requirements for diligence (read industry moaning and groaning) there’s been little or no consideration of what is the ‘theory of risk’ that backs this legislative principle and how it shapes the current legislation, let alone whether for good or ill. So I thought I’d take a stab at it. :) Continue Reading…