Another chap – Joe Jenett has implemented Web Mentions over there – something I have been trying to get going on this site … so as I learn – maybe I can reverse it back to here ….
Anyway … in particular, thought I might draw your attention to this post which is all about a brand new Progressive Rock Band coming out of Brazil. Listened to the album over the weekend – most excellent.
He is of course right … particularly when he writes…
“This common misconception of Apple is why it continues to be valued at a deep discount to not only peer companies who are services oriented (Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon) but also at a discount to the overall market (the S&P 500). Apple, since its inception, has always been oriented around its customers, not its products. The questions asked by management are “what can the company do to deliver experiences and satisfaction” rather than “what products can the company build”. Every company is bound by its capabilities but the best companies re-shape these bounds because they are defined by priorities.”
A long long time ago some chap once said … and this chap paraphrases … ‘the punter doesn’t want a drill … they want a hole in the wall’ … see what I did there?
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.