This chap has been commenting for a while now that the ‘possibility’ the other chaps talk about is (shall we say) an ‘optimistic spin’ at best and that ‘possibility’ should be spelt C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y. By itsself, the article is not so interesting, but when seen in the light of something Stowe Boyd wrote in his newsletter this morning, its worth a post. …
He had read the NYT’s piece about WeWork’s upcoming ‘offer you can’t refuse’ – AKA – IPO – noting that their losses as measured against their profits were on the high side (but nothing new there – its table stakes!). But he went on …
My follow-up question is this: What happens to WeWork in an economic downturn, when many of its thousands of short-term renters may opt to move out, while the company still has to pay on its long-term leases?
What indeed? AirBNB, Uber, Lyft none of them have such commitments.
It’s as if the founders of WeWork have no experience of a down market …. oh wait …
“The Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act of 2019, recently introduced in the Senate by New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall and in the House by California Democrat Anna Eshoo, would do that. No single person should be able to commit the lives of our young men and women to war without full debate by our elected representatives.”
This was going to be just a test – but I have a feeling it could be more – like a whole new workflow that is emerging … and could reinvigorate this sadly abandoned blog – let’s see how it goes and if it works … well who knows – this chap at least will be back in action.
This Chap is led to ask the question by his recent international travel experience, which involved TSA’s “Random” testing, of some sort, both departing and returning. And while the Chap was standing there watching his handbag being swabbed, he began to wonder — what are the odds that true “Random” testing would lead to two “Random” checks in a journey? Flattering though it may be for someone in the Gubmint to consider the Chap warrants additional scrutiny, the statistician in him got to wondering… Or to put it another way, at what point on encountering yet another request to “step to the side” might a Chap question the uniformed person’s assertion of “randomness”?
Just as a side note – my spell checker just suggested that uniformed was incorrectly spelt and suggested uninformed. This chap thinks that in many cases they might be synonyms?
To continue! Now, this Chap’s statistics are of a more specialized, psychological-type thing. Fortunately, the Other Chap, being a certified Math Whiz, may be presumed to have the Chops to figure this one out. We have every confidence. So, take it away, Maestro!
No pressure there then ….
No. None at all.
Have to see that this chap was immediately reminded of another chap, back in the 70s when hijacking was prevalent – including bombs on board. Turns out his knowledge of stats was – to say the least – rudimentary.
Well, I wasn’t intending to stop!
Anyway, suffice to say, said chap had yet another chap as a good friend who was very fearful of flying in these times. To quote him ….
I am so afraid of flying these days. I just don’t want to fly knowing there is such a high probability of a bomb being on board the plane and that I might die.
The statistician had a think and came up with his solution, suggesting that all the other chap needed to do was always carry his own bomb with him …. because though the chance of one bomb being hidden on a plane was getting higher every day … the chance of two bombs … well now – that was close to zero. Problem solved.
Wow. Brilliant. Did it work?
Graham. Seriously? Now I see why you reached out!
As far as I can see, the stats support the idea that as far as random selection is concerned there is indeed reason to be suspicious, but still in the area of possibility. Now – next time you go through LHR – and you are pulled aside, it might well suggest that there is something more than randomness going on.
The greatest thing we can do as citizens of the world is to go and visit other cities, learn about their cultures, see different landscapes and experience something else.
Makes total sense to this chap …in fact couldn’t agree more.
Confused therefore as to why she then she goes on to write;
We got into town, dropped off our bags and went to lunch at Kiln.
and then went on to write a long boring post about Kiln, complete with pictures of what they all ate.
This chap pursued the post to the end … expecting to find deep revelations and / or a connection to how the food, drink, company and ambiance all connected to her opening paragraph.
This was the final paragraph ;
We walked around a bit before meeting friends for dinner at Hide, a new spot across the street from Green Park. Big on wines and flowers. Nice seeing friends and drinking many bottles of wine before walking home for the evening.
The signs were very clear, any small containers with liquids needed to be removed from the luggage and put into a separate see-through plastic bag – duly provided below said signs. You then – and only then – move on to the security check line.
A woman, four places in front of this chap must have missed the signs and is asked to unpack her luggage and ‘decant’ right there in the security line.
You would have thought that seeing her going through this might have jogged the woman three places in front of this chap into action.
Maybe seeing two women unpack their bags on the inspection line might have reminded the woman two places in front of me.
The woman immediately in front of me turned to look at me and said
“Could I apologize on behalf of my gender.”
Apology accepted. We watched, without movement, along with the small line behind us as the other lines moved through at a pace.
Mr. Bojangles stands across the bar from me, waxing lyrical about the inadequacy of his manager.
Tight 3 piece suit. Windsor knot on his Pink tie. Large Gold (colored) watch on one wrist, large Gold (colored) chain on the other. He needs to understand that more meaningful language and less profanity is a good thing to use when communicating. There is more F’ing and Blinding in his sentences than Chris Lochhead fits into his Legends and Losers podcast.
More even than this? Maybe he should take the challenge.
With all due respect, Doctor Watson, what the video above – and the other doctor is talking about is fluency in swearing ….. that is the number of different swear words used … and with that I have to agree and ‘caaaaaan’t’ argue – it is not ‘cock’ and bull. Then again, have a gander at this!
“All due respect…” — such a reliable sign you’re about to be dissed.