blueollie

Trump’s win: in part, due to sophisticated data mining…

No, I am not a fan of President Trump. I am not surprised that stuff like this is happening:

But Godat was surprised by the utter chaos that came with the president’s first month. He said it often felt like Trump and his staff were impulsively firing off executive orders instead of really thinking things through.

“I didn’t think he would come in blazing like he has,” said Godat, 39, who has three kids and works at the same aluminum rolling plant where his father worked. “It seems almost like a dictatorship at times. He’s got a lot of controversial stuff going on and rather than thinking it through, I’m afraid that he’s jumping into the frying pan with both feet.”

Uh, anyone who is surprised by Trump’s impulsiveness has not been paying attention.

However I have to give him credit for employing some very sophisticated technology to get his voters to the polls. This is a long read, but very interesting. In short, they could tell from my Facebook “likes” that targeting me would be a waste of time, but they knew exactly WHO to target for ads, and where, and what type of ads to use.

Give the Devil his Due: this was a very impressive operation.

Advertisements

February 28, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, social/political | , , | Leave a comment

Why I usually don’t like math/science movies that *should* interest me

I kind of cringed when my wife wanted to take me to see Hidden Figures, a story about 3 black women who worked as engineers/mathematicians/programmers for NASA.

Oh do not get me wrong; these women were crazy-good; they would not have had their jobs at that time in US history (or at any time for that matter) if they weren’t, and their story deserves to be told to a wide audience. No argument there.

And yes, movies are not documentaries; there is going to be some embellishment, rearranging incidents to make a better story, and of course the “mathematics” that they would show would be mostly math jargon used out of context. And I was not disappointed though one scene showed Schrodinger’s equation on the blackboard (and ironically, I often teach Euler’s method in differential equations class, as well as Graham-Schmidt in linear algebra).

But there were many other errors; they described NASA as being segregated at a time when it was not, and they showed that one of the ladies as not being allowed to author a report, as she actually did. And the computer supervisor got that title in 1948, not 1961 (so here, real life was even more impressive than the movie).

And yes, a small kid factoring a polynomial with integer coefficients is moderately impressive, though not what most would call a prodigy; my guess is that the real person was able do much more than that.

But with all that being said, it was still a good movie (plot, excitement, suspense, relationships, and gives a reminder of our painful past). So by all means, see the movie; it IS well done. But expect some “liberal feel good, White Savior” bullshit, and remember that the real life women were actually *more* impressive than the movie shows. And if you know math, expect to wince from time to time.

You can find a “fact check” here.

Workout notes: Monday, easy 1 hour 5 mile hilly run (gentle pace)
Tuesday: same course, this time a walk after weights:

rotator cuff, pull ups (5 good sets)
bench press: dumbbells, 10 x 70, 10 x 75, 10 x 80
incline press: dumbbells, 7 x 50, 10 x 45, 10 x 45 (standing)
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110 machine
incline press: Hammer machine, 2 sets of 10 (45, then 70 each arm) then 1 sets of 7 with 90 (each arm; 180 total)
lots of sets of 5 squats, most with 45 pound plate…maybe 6-7?
2 sets of 10 x 250 leg presses
abs( 2 sets of 12 twist crunches, 10 leg lifts, 5 moving bridge
head stand (sort of unsteady for a while)
side planks: 30 seconds each.

February 28, 2017 Posted by | mathematics, movies, running, social/political, walking, weight training | Leave a comment