April 2nd 2010
I'm currently studying for an investment exam so I couldn't help but think about some of the maths I'm learning when listening to Jenson Button talking about the joy of winning when you are driving a car that isn't the fastest.
One of these equations is the Information Ratio. This measures the extent to which a portfolio manager has added performance, measured against a set benchmark, as a ratio of the risk (volatility of returns) when compared to the benchmark.
To put it in simpler terms, if the benchmark performance is 7% year on year, then the amount by which the portfolio's results differ from 7% is the risk (called tracking error), and the net result of those differences is the return.
Result - Benchmark Result / Tracking Error
If you aren't mathematically inclined this might seem complicated so I'll get to the Formula 1 bit quickly.
First we need to establish a benchmark. It is a little quick and dirty but if we take as a benchmark the average fast lap time (excluding in and out) performed by a Mclaren for each 10 competive laps. So we are measuring the average every 10 laps irrespective of who set those laps.
Now we need to establish how the drivers differ from that. Some laps will be better, some worse, so we'll take all their lap times, find out how they differ from the mean expected lap time and calculate the standard difference (Standard deviation). This is the tracking error, but we'll call it Dv - Driver variability.
Finally, we need to take the best lap time out of all the practice sessions. We'll call that Td - The driver lap time, and the best average lap time, we'll call that the Tm - The McLarent lap time and measure the difference.
The final formula looks like:
Td - Tm / Dv
Of course all of this is off the top of my head, full of a massive number of problems* and assumptions, and about as water-tight as a collander, but, just possibly, this kind of calculation might give some kind of insight into the amount of benefit a driver gets given the amount of mucking about he does with set-up over the course of a weekend.
That might be interesting, right?
Other ratios might be more relevant of course. Points over a season compared to variance in a drivers racing lap perhaps? Whether these are relavant or not, I'm sure there are metrics out there that can help put a number on and compare drivers with their team mates, their competitors, or even their historical idols.
These I would like to see.
*Problems: data sharing between team mates, fuel loads, tyre performance, temperature, rain, etc ad nauseum.
0 Comments
January 28th 2010
I find it really interesting to see how many forward thinking techies are disapointed at the new Apple iPad. Stephen Fry suggests this is because they haven't tried it yet and one play with it will instantly transform their opinion but I don't think that's the issue.
Look at all the criticism and it has a lot in common. For the most part, that I've seen, the problem is that it is too big to replace the iPod touch, too restricted to replace a real Mac, won't let me do X or Y, etc. All of which, in my opinion, completely misses the point.
What I love about the iPad is that this is a genuine consumer device. It is a lifestyle device. This is what all those science fiction devices were about. If you know what CSS is, this isn't for you.
The fact that this is coming in with iBook is no coincidence as its method of use is exactly like a book, newspaper or magazine.
In my mind is a family; A real family in their sitting room, and they are all there. No one is sitting alone in a cramped back bedroom checking e-mail, shouting down the stairs every-so-often to ask what date such-and-such is happening or whether we are still speaking to cousin Millie after the you-know-what. They are all sitting watching TV.
From time to time someone asks "what else has he been in?" and the iPad is picked up from its position leaning against the side of the sofa, a quick search is done, a list found, perhaps the iPad is passed to the person who asked or the Pad Hog just reads out the list (why is it that men always have to have the iPad).
A presenter mentions some news event and "that reminds me, John e-mailed some photos of his new place"...and so on.
This device is a game changer. It is the fire and forget, ubiqutous computing, device for the masses that we've always imagined.
The fact that it is basic is exactly the point and plays a part in why this will succeed where Microsoft et. al. failed. People don't want small computers; computers are difficult and complicated and go wrong and give you confusing messages; they want information to be on hand like an encyclopedia in the book case in the corner or the TV guide lying on the nested tables.
This is everything that techies don't care for. It is easy, friendly, basic, and does its job. No sk1llz required. It doesn't need tweaking, it isn't supposed to have POWER, it isn't sexy, hell, it probably won't be cool, but it will do its job and change the world.
What I love about the iPad is that it is mean't to be anonymous, not cool.
0 Comments
October 27th 2009
Both the BBC and Daily Mail are reporting on an IPSOS MORI survey, the results of which suggest that over half the population of the World think that alternative points of view should be taught in addition to evolution and the theory of natural selection.
It's really easy to jump to conclusions about this survey. Certainly the implication in these stories appears to be that the debate is clearly polarised between those who believe the alternatives are valid and those who don't, but the survey doesn't necessarily mean that.
My main issue is that there is a massive difference between a discussion to explore the arguments with the intention of showing why they are not science and why they are inadequate, and teaching that they are viewpoints that are equally valid.
There is also a big difference between suggesting something should not be discussed because it is not science, and therefore doesn't belong in science classes, and suggesting it not be discussed so that the point remains valid and can still be argued from a theological perspective outside the science class.
The articles aren't clear on whether the survey sheds any light on the meaning behind these statistics and unfortunately I've not been able to find a copy of the full report on the IPSOS MORI website. This means I haven't been able to look at what the questions were and what, if any, follow up questions or information was recorded. I am however clear on my view.
60% of Britains (based on a sample of a 1000) said that alternatives should be taught and I certainly agree with that.
You can argue that the alternatives are bogus, that they are history, that they are an attempt to inject religion into science through subterfuge, but while there are students who will close their mind to the official dogma of the west, while there are people actively pushing lies instead of fact under the banner of these alternatives, we need to make sure the next generation has all the facts so they can see things the way they really are.
With all the facts at hand it really isn't possible to decide that the alternative views are real alternatives at all.
The question that actually matters is not whether the alternatives are taught, it is how they are taught.
2 Comments