#N vs psychological issues who’s winning

[indecice]

He’s going through it ❤️

[daleisgreat]

WrestleMania 35

As of this writing, WrestleMania 36 is set to air in two days, and due to the fallout from the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, will be airing taped from an empty arena a couple weeks prior, and over two nights. I have been advocating for two night ‘Manias since the WWE Network era of PPVs have caused WrestleManias having bloated cards and lasting nearly SEVEN hours when factoring in the pre-show matches. Since it is WrestleMania week, I am here to continue my annual tradition of watching the previous year’s installment on BluRay and break it all down here. I broke up watching the nine-ish hours of BluRay content over a few days, which lead for a more non-overkill experience, and I ended up enjoying the overall show exponentially more this way as you will soon read on. Now even though the BluRay has around nine hours of content on the disc, the cumulative total of content the BluRay unlocked for me was about 12 hours by including a digital copy of not only the PPV, but also a digital only copy of the Hall of Fame ceremony that preceded WrestleMania a couple days prior. For the second straight WrestleMania BluRay, the Hall of Fame is not included on the disc, and is instead replaced with the following night’s RAW in its entirety, which here is just over two hours when taking out all the ad breaks.

The Hall of Fame ceremony this year saw Jerry Lawler replaced as the host with Corey Graves & Renee Young, complete with grimace-caliber jokes of the stereotypical award show variety. The 2019 ceremony also saw a different setup with a ring in the center of the arena where all the speeches were delivered, and while it provided a nice visual, it also made it easier for an overzealous fan to run in and attack cancer and stroke survivor, Bret Hart during his speech. I recall getting the faintest look at the guy before cameras cut away and at first thinking because of the goofy hair that it was Enzo again up to shenanigans a few months after dancing in the front rows of the crowd at Survivor Series, but was then further perplexed to find out minutes later that Enzo and Cass did a worked shoot run-in at the G1 Supercard concurrently taking place. It turned out it was a fan with mental health issues, and obviously WWE cut out the run-in on the final Hall of Fame video cut, and the only thing apparent of something happening is that after a cut to the crowd, Bret Hart’s hair is suddenly tangled up. If you have not witnessed that brazen fan run-in, click or press here for fan-phone footage of proceeding to get pounced by countless wrestlers almost instantly. Bizarre fan attack aside, it was a much brisker ceremony (only three and a half hours!) thanks in part to no Hillbilly Jim speech this year (which was deservingly poked at this year), and a couple inductees not having inductions either, and the ones that did must have had strict time limits because I do not recall an inductor going longer than five minutes. Honkey Tonk Man set the stage with the fun-gimmick from the Rock ‘n Wrestling years, with a groovy entrance and exit, complete by singing his song on the way out and doing a noticeably better performance than Double J the year prior. Torrie Wilson’s speech felt more of a Ted Talk, but still heartwarming and inspirational and I will give her all the benefit of the doubt considering her father and former on-screen talent and Dawn Marie love interest, Al Wilson passed away two days prior. Also pleasant was seeing Stacy Kiebler break her 13-year WWE absence by inducting her.

The legacy class of 2019 had another ten inductees with brief 20-30 second video pieces on each. Most of them are more classic pre-cable TV era wrestlers, but some are more recently noteworthy and remembered like SD Jones, Bruiser Brody and Luna Vachon and in my opinion more deserving of traditional inductions. I hope if WWE keeps this up they will at least have a family member do a separate video induction and include it on their website for a more proper way to remember these legacy stars. The Hart Foundation was the next inductee, with Natalya accepting for her father, The Anvil. Bret and Naddie gave the successful Rock ‘n Wrestling era tag team a fitting induction, filled with classic stories from their days in one of the most successful periods of tag teams in WWE history. Brutus Beefcake gave a surprisingly good speech for his induction, as did the Hulkster for inducting him as he laid out how he broke Brutus into the business. Kind of surprising it happened considering the recent disparaging comments between the two with Brutus’s tell-all biography from a couple years earlier, but maybe it ‘was all a work brother!’ Props to Brutus for giving the Doctors who saved him from his terrible parasailing accident their kudos, and for calling out Shawn Michaels for still owing him for his barbershop window! The Warrior Award went to Sue Ajtheson, a backstage WWE official who is largely responsible for their Make-a-Wish efforts. Dana Warrior and John Cena gave heartfelt, genuine inductions for her, and Sue was a gem enlightening us about her philanthropic accomplishments.

Harlem Heat got inducted next, and after Booker T gave his brother Stevie Ray an outstanding tribute, it was then time for Stevie Ray sharing several stories of the trials of Harlem Heat breaking in before they finally found success in WCW. D-Generation X headlined the Hall of Fame, and as expected it was lengthy with X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Shawn Michaels and Triple H all giving speeches. They unleashed some vintage DX humor to start off with. Other highlights include giving Chyna her proper acknowledgement, Billy Gunn getting razzed for being with the new competition in AEW, X-Pac getting super jittery in his sea of notes and all of them busting out Super Soakers and dousing their colleagues in the crowd, especially Baron Corbin. Now onto the 16 match WrestleMania 35 card (guys….I am sorry, thank you so much for sticking with me!). If you have yet to watch WrestleMania 35 then before reading this recap, I recommend breaking it up into a two part watch, and give this strong recommendation of preferred matches for each night to make for a better experience that I guarantee you will not struggle to stay awake through: WrestleMania 35 – Day 1 Watch Order: Tony Nese vs Buddy Murphy, WrestleMania Women’s Battle Royal, Seth Rollins vs. Brock Lesnar, SmackDown Tag Titles Fatal Four Way, Miz vs. Shane McMahon, Triple H vs. Batista, Elias/John Cena ‘Concert’, Finn Balor vs. Bobby Lashley, Kofi Kingston vs. Daniel Bryan WrestleMania 35 – Day 2 Watch Order: Zack Ryder & Curt Hawkins vs. Revival, Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal, AJ Styles vs. Randy Orton, Women’s Tag Titles Fatal Four Way, Roman Reigns vs. Drew McIntyre, Samoa Joe vs. Rey Mysterio, Kurt Angle vs. Baron Corbin, Ronda Rousey vs. Charlotte Flair vs. Becky Lynch Four of those matches were on the pre-show and are included on the BluRay as extras. In a rare move, WWE had the local have a feel good moment with Tony Nese winning the Cruiserweight Title from Buddy Murphy in a nice hybrid of strong style and high-flying that got the crowd hot by the end. In the WrestleMania Women’s Battle Royal, Carmella played the surprise last second sneak-in card to eliminate Sarah Logan and win the ‘prestigious’ hip/leg trophy. In a surprising second feel good hometown hero story, Curt Hawkins snapped his 269 match losing streak when him and his fellow bro-ski, Zack Ryder won the RAW tag titles from The Revival when Hawkins got the surprise inside cradle for the electric pop! In the final pre-show match, Braun Strowman won the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal by eliminating celebrity entrants, SNL’s Colin Jost & Michael Che. A lot of hype on RAW built up the SNL stars, but the two hid under the ring until the end of the match in their failed efforts to surprise eliminate Braun.

In the official WrestleMania opener, Seth Rollins won the Universal Title from Brock Lesnar. Their follow-up match at SummerSlam is leagues better, because all there is to this is Brock getting an early attack on Seth and brutalizing him outside the ring for a few minutes, and then only a couple minutes into the actual match Seth low blows Brock and hits a few stomps for the victory. Last few years something about Randy Orton has made his stock rise higher for me. I appreciate his ring IQ and psychology that allows matches to breathe, and Orton’s skills blended perfectly with AJ Styles with some convincing sequences before Styles hit a Phenomenal Forearm for the win. The first of two four way tag title matches occurred next with the Usos, The Bar, Rusev & Shinske Nakamura and Aleistar Black & Ricochet vying for the SmackDown straps. All four teams brought it, and did not appear they were there for an easy payday with the creative spots they unleashed with an innovative tower of doom spot and Cesaro’s countless swings to the crowd’s approval until the Usos hit their double top turnbuckle splash on Sheamus for the W. I loved the buildup for The Miz and Shane McMahon’s Falls Count Anywhere match. Miz gradually won over Shane’s trust all in the name to win his dad’s precious approval, only to then see Shane turn on Miz and attack Miz’s dad! I was not disappointed with how they got Miz’s dad involved in the match with Shane shaming Miz’s dad’s ability to fight. The two had a pretty solid brawl all over the arena that ultimately saw Miz deliver a suplex from the tech area scaffolding onto a crash pad, but saw Shane conveniently laid out barely over Miz to nudge out a three count for the fluke upset. The newly established Women’s tag titles were on the line with Sasha Banks & Bayley defending against the Iconics, Nia Jax & Tamina and Natalya & Beth Phoenix. A lot of controversy was reported on the champs throwing a tantrum backstage hearing they were losing the titles, which happened when Billie Kay stole a pin with a blind tag on Beth Phoenix after she hit a top rope Glam Slam. Minus a handful of moments, Sasha and Bayley’s main roster runs have been beyond disastrous compared to their rise up the ranks in NXT.

‘KofiMania’ emerged when Kofi Kingston vanquished that vile do-gooder, Daniel Bryan to become the first full blooded African American to win the WWE title in its near 60 year history. There were a couple of extended hold sequences in the front half that overstayed their welcome, but the back half amped up big time with some creative reversals, near-falls and clever use of the New Day and Erik Rowan on the outside. I was just as happy as the WWE locker room shown celebrating for Kofi after he hit the Trouble in Paradise to win the championship. He had a killer half year run as champ….until Brock Lesnar waffled him in seven seconds for the gold and Kofi immediately went right back to the midcard in his happy-go-lucky pancake thrower days of yore and acted like his championship run never happened. Samoa Joe finally got his overdue WrestleMania debut match against a recently returned Rey Mysterio. I presumed the two had an epic match lined up, but Rey got hurt the RAW before and was only capable of performing for about a minute before Joe locked in his trademark Kokina Clutch for the submission victory. Roman Reigns was up next in his first singles match coming back after overcoming a second bout of Leukemia for the heartwarming win against Drew McIntyre. I recall dreading the buildup for this because Drew had a variety of ‘you may have conquered cancer…’ type promos and hyped himself up as deadlier than cancer, when naturally everyone knew Roman was going to win, and that is exactly what we got in a formula Roman match. The read in the ardent fan crowd throughout the match was readily apparent, they were no longer booing Roman out of the building like they normally would, because what kind of person can boo a cancer survivor (please do not answer that)? However, there was no overwhelming crowd going wild reaction either, but more of a tempered, altruistic applause instead. That has primarily been Roman’s reception for coming back since, and that is kind of how I feel too.

Elias performed a one man ‘concert’ next complete with other hologram Elias projections playing in conjunction with him until John Cena interrupted. John came out in throwback Dr. Thugganomics form and laid down some rhymes before hitting a F-U to the crowd’s approval. The presumption going in by most was that Undertaker would make his requisite WrestleMania appearance here, but 2019 marked the first time since 2000 that Undertaker did not appear or wrestle in any form on a WrestleMania. Strangely enough, Undertaker did interrupt another Elias performance the next day on RAW. Triple H and Batista squared off in a No Holds Barred brawl next, and I recall being burnt out by this point in the card and nodding off throughout it. Match held up incredibly better on second viewing with the two busting out a wide variety of weaponry in too many gruesome spots to dissect, other than that grotesque nose ring spot that reverberated throughout everyone in the crowd. The finish saw Triple H hitting probably the slickest looking sledgehammer shot ever with some added trajectory by leaping off the stairs, and following it up with the Pedigree for the pin. Kurt Angle hit the end of the line in a few months of ‘farewell tour’ matches against Baron Corbin here. I was worried for Angle as his previous few matches saw him struggling to go through the motions, but a few weeks of added rest benefitted him here with him looking remarkably better and capable of several of his vintage suplexes and throws, and even busting out an impressive moonsault….that missed and lead him walking into an End of Days that netted Corbin the pinfall. Finn Balor faced Bobby Lashley in the penultimate match of the night, and the two delivered a short, but high energy match to help inject some energy into the understandably deflated crown by this point. Balor hit his Coup de Gras for the pin.

The 16th and final match of the night saw the women headline WrestleMania for the first time ever with the Women’s titles for both RAW and SmackDown on the line in a triple threat between Ronda Rousey, Charlotte Flair and Becky Lynch. All three laid it in strong style in easily one of the hardest hitting women matches I have ever seen. All three were decorated with battle scars, especially Ronda’s leg! However, one significant botch tarnished the match, and unfortunately it happened right at the finish when Lynch countered Rousey’s Piper’s Pit slam with a crucifix for the pin. Rousey inadvertently popped her shoulder up during the pin, and the ref did not restart his count and continued with the controversial three count. Even the announcers did not turn a blind eye to it and questioned the ref’s call, and it turned out the ref was later fined for blowing the call. I am not going to recap the following night’s RAW, but I did watch it and will give a couple key takeaways since the RAW after WrestleManias are notorious for returns, and unpredictable fan reactions suffering from wrestling burnout. Rollins and Kofi teased a winner takes all title match, but it quickly morphed into a tag match after The Bar interfered to the crowd’s rightful disgust! The controversial Lars Sullivan debuted on the main roster, Sami Zayn returned and turned heel after nearly a year away from double rotator cuff surgery. Dana Brooke and Mojo Rawley both deliver bizarre backstage promos. There was the aforementioned Undertaker attack on Elias and finally Dean Ambrose’s final televised WWE match that did not officially get started because he brawled outside the ring with Bobby Lashley before getting sent through a table. There is one last BluRay bonus that has footage from after RAW went off the air, where Rollins called out Roman and Dean and brought them to the ring for one last curtain call from The Shield.

That puts a wrap on the yearly monstrous WrestleMania recap. Once again I give my heartfelt gratitude for sticking with me the whole way through this. It was a chore to get through the whole show live in one shot, but it definitely helped spacing it over a few days this second time around. Again, if there is any upside with WWE having to switch up their WrestleMania plans with the global pandemic currently happening, it is that them having WrestleMania transpire over two days will make it vastly more watchable, and decrease the burnout of trying to watch wrestling for seven hours straight. Throw in the wild cards of the empty arena and undisclosed filming locations for the gimmick matches, and well….check back with me here next year to see how it all played out.

Past Wrestling Blogs Best of WCW Clash of Champions Best of WCW Monday Nitro Volume 2 Best of WCW Monday Nitro Volume 3 Biggest Knuckleheads Bobby The Brain Heenan Daniel Bryan: Just Say Yes Yes Yes DDP: Positively Living Dusty Rhodes WWE Network Specials ECW Unreleased: Vol 1 ECW Unreleased: Vol 2 ECW Unreleased: Vol 3 Eric Bishoff: Wrestlings Most Controversial Figure Fight Owens Fight: The Kevin Owens Story For All Mankind Goldberg: The Ultimate Collection Hulk Hogans Unreleased Collectors Series Impact Wresting Presents: Best of Hulk Hogan Its Good to Be the King: The Jerry Lawler Story The Kliq Rules Ladies and Gentlemen My Name is Paul Heyman Legends of Mid South Wrestling Macho Man: The Randy Savage Story Memphis Heat NXT: From Secret to Sensation NXT Greatest Matches Vol 1 OMG Vol 2: Top 50 Incidents in WCW History OMG Vol 3: Top 50 Incidents in ECW History Owen: Hart of Gold RoH Supercard of Honor 2010-Present ScoobyDoo Wrestlemania Mystery Scott Hall: Living on a Razors Edge Shawn Michaels: My Journey Sting: Into the Light Straight Outta Dudley-ville: Legacy of the Dudley Boyz Straight to the Top: Money in the Bank Anthology Superstar Collection: Zach Ryder Then Now Forever – The Evolution of WWEs Womens Division TLC 2017 TNA Lockdown 2005-2016 Top 50 Superstars of All Time Tough Enough: Million Dollar Season True Giants Ultimate Fan Pack: Roman Reigns Ultimate Warrior: Always Believe War Games: WCWs Most Notorious Matches Warrior Week on WWE Network Wrestlemania III: Championship Edition Wrestlemania 28-Present The Wrestler (2008) Wrestling Road Diaries Too Wrestling Road Diaries Three: Funny Equals Money Wrestlings Greatest Factions WWE Network Original Specials First Half 2015 WWE Network Original Specials Second Half 2015 WWE Network Original Specials First Half 2016 WWE Network Original Specials Second Half 2016 WWE Network Original Specials First Half 2017

[sonicranticoot]

About CTR, Money, and Both Together: Part 2

Continuing from part 1.

Somehow it has been brought to my attention many more things that just...don’t say any good things, any good things, about the situation of the game and possibly the entire Crash and Spyro franchises going forward. I’m known to keep a very positive image here and I want this to continue, but sometimes, life sucks and then you die. So yes, this one is a lot angrier than the one before. You got to let it all out sometimes.

First thing is how these are actually out now, and boy are they terrible. Not just the fact they exist, but you can make 2500 in about an hour each day with online play. Or just pay Activision (not Beenox) $2.49 for that. A lot of people have been talking about how ridiculously overpriced the bundle for the Probulot 2000 is, and that can take a while to grind out even for online players (I have the dearest sympathies for people who don’t have their console’s online service and are stuck with offline payrates). Or, you could just hand that nice old Activision marketer (not Beenox) $9.99 for coins that disappear as soon as you buy them. I remember years back when Capcom got major slack for selling people costumes in Street Fighter IV for $3.99 a pop. Except there, you got a costume for five characters, and each costume had ten palette swaps. And that’s not going back to before that game, where you could get those in games at the low, low price of being earned as an in-game reward like beating the game on a certain difficulty or whatever.

It just goes back to how it used to be. Crash Team Racing is a 20-year old classic game that had a wealth of content you did not have to pay a cent for past the initial purchase of the game. Some people may say, “well, nothing in the original CTR can be unlocked with microtransactions”, and although that may be correct, it is completely missing the point. Content shown heavily before launch, like all the characters from Crash Nitro Kart and the new karts taken from Tag Team Racing, the stuff that was used to show “hey, look, it’s a little more than just CTR”, that stuff is locked behind an in-game store that allows you to spend real money. That’s not even going into the people who want to put N. Tropy or his digital skin in the shop. I actually commend Beenox for putting in something that, unlike the Pit Stop, forces players to get better at the game to have in their possession. The whole thing takes some pride out of the game. It barely feels like it’s a reward for people who didn’t pay up anymore because now people can go out and buy it with real money. Maybe.

That goes back to the fucking Fortnite store layout. Yeah I know this shop was problematic before, but didn’t go into as much as detail on why it is. Let’s say someone wants that one special skin, they want to buy Crunch that badly, that special car, or paint job. The store is set up to force players to wait, or buy things to roll again and hope what they get shows up. And with the addition of microtransactions, now, you can brute force, but even that still doesn’t help you if the Pit Stop gods don’t feel like playing nice and that special skin you wanted is the very last one in rotation. Some people aren’t that patient. This especially goes for offline players who have to spend hours trying to spend up for even one item. This type of impatience leads to kids stealing daddy’s credit card and spending $1,300 on gambling in FIFA. That’s really where this whole shit stops being “optional”, and feels like a deliberate part of the game. Because it is. It is a deliberate decision made on Activision’s part to make a predatory store. The paid solution now exists to a problem they created, and said paid solution doesn’t even fucking work.

Yes. Some people saw microtransactions coming. Some of these people like the game. Others didn’t like it, and are rubbing it into the former’s face. That doesn’t actually solve the issue here. What is the issue is that they weren’t there. People played the game for over a month without them. All the reviews were out, they were great. YouTubers praised it, both Crash-oriented and otherwise. The ESRB didn’t have to put a warning on the box. It’s all nice and cozy.

Then they do this. I’ve seen the review bombing of Metacritic. I’ve seen many Youtubers who have loved the game before either turn against it, or just express endless disgust over it. The ESRB can’t even do their fucking job of warning people that they are in the game, because there are a lot of copies out there that don’t have the “contains in-game purchases” label on them without glancing at one sentence in size 2 text on the back of the box as if Activision is playing their own twisted game of “ok, how can we tell people they’re in, but in such a way they won’t know it”, so someone, let’s say said person has a gambling problem, can buy the game, hear the good word of mouth from people who played it when it did NOT have MTX, and all of a sudden, they found a game that can prey upon them. I mentioned last time Activision did not make the message clear to consumers. Activision doesn’t want their message clear not just to consumers (and that goes for all consumers, from kids, to people with impulse buying problems, to genuine gambling addicts), but ratings boards either.

In short, all that goodwill Activision built up with this game, Spyro Reignited, Crash N. Sane, it’s gone. Not all of it is. But denying it’s done a crippling blow to things would be foolish. This game has a ton of issues. They’re all still here. MTX are though. It doesn’t give me, or anyone, a reason to trust them about what they do with these franchises, because they aren’t immune to any of the MTX bullshit that regularly plagues Call of Duty or whatever. I like the Crash and Spyro games for many reasons, but one big thing is that their newest release were free of this shit, they were old school ways of making people sold on games: by being really, really good games. You payed for a game. It’s good. Simple. Sweet. To the point.

You know what? Like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon, Activision’s own Call of Duty sold millions and reviewed very well when it didn’t have microtransactions as well. FIFA did too. Grand Theft Auto did as well. Mortal Kombat also did. Deus Ex did. 2K sports games did. Fallout did. Elder Scrolls did. Plants vs. Zombies did. Quality games make money by being that. Quality games. Who would’ve guessed. Obviously Activision didn’t make all these games. And that’s the problem. Crash isn’t even new to this shit, it’s just one of countless classic, acclaimed franchises now subjected to the scummiest predatory practices that again, were initially made for free-to-play games that didn’t cost a dime to start playing. You didn’t see these in console games because they weren’t build for that practice. Yes, they make money, but console games could again, make money in a way a F2P mobile game can not: straight-up buying the game.

One of the worst (that’s a drinking game at this point) things is that let’s say people do get the message: everything in CTR can be earned in-game, not all the hard to do at that, the MTX coin rates are terrible, and thus, most people don’t buy the MTX. As in 99% of people don’t buy MTX. But you have whales, that 1% of people who these types of business practices specifically are psychologically engineered to pander to, spending literal thousands of dollars on coins for a cartoon kart racer and Activision can get the idea from them and only them of how to make money. And those types of practices become more accepted because of this, rinse, lather, repeat. There’s no winning scenario except for not having them in the game.

In short, Activision is the single slimiest, greediest, dirtiest, most absolutely fucking disgusting money-lusting pig of a company in the video game business and I am very, very disappointed in how corrupting classic games and franchises with pure filth meant to destroy bank accounts has consumed the industry. Activision is obviously not the only company that does this, but I can’t say many of the others are willing to do things like lie to the people who’s job is to warn people about these things. Fuck. Straight. Off.

Let it be known despite all that I am still a big Crash fan. I love the game. I’m eagerly anticipating Beenox to confirm Pasadena as a playable racer, I want to see how Brio looks in the game as well as what kind of race track the game will see when he is introduced, I want to see the Spyro stuff, I want to see what kind of crazy costumes they make or old school vehicles make a return, etc.  I payed $40 for it. That’s the only money I’m giving it because that’s the point. I’m just disappointed. And that’s severely underselling it.

[elcorreodetorreon]

“IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle”, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Background : “IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent, a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects. It is via negativa not via positiva. Designed for learning disabilities, it ends up selecting exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots), ill adapted for “real life”. The concept is poorly thought out mathematically (a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails, fails to properly deal with dimensionality, treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seemed to be promoted by

racists/eugenists, people bent on showing that some populations have inferior mental abilities based on IQ test=intelligence; those have been upset with me for suddenly robbing them of a “scientific” tool, as evidenced by the bitter reactions to the initial post on twitter/smear campaigns by such mountebanks as Charles Murray. (Something observed by the great Karl Popper, psychologists have a tendency to pathologize people who bust them by tagging them with some type of disorder, or personality flaw such as “childish” , “narcissist”, “egomaniac”, or something similar).

psychometrics peddlers looking for suckers (military, large corporations) buying the “this is the best measure in psychology” argument when it is not even technically a measure — it explains at best between 13% and 50% of the performance in some tasks (those tasks that are similar to the test itself), minus the data massaging and statistical cherrypicking by psychologists; it doesn’t satisfy the monotonicity and transitivity required to have a measure (at best it is a concave measure). No measure that fails 60–95% of the time should be part of “science” (nor should psychology — owing to its sinister track record — be part of science (rather scientism), but that’s another discussion).

Some argue that IQ measures intellectual capacity — real world results come from, in addition, “wisdom” or patience, or “conscientiousness”, or decision-making or something of the sort. No. It does not even measureintellectual capacity/mental powers.

If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists. Traders get it right away: hypothetical P/L from “simulated” paper strategies doesn’t count. Performance=actual. What goes in people’s head or reaction to a screen image doesn’t exist (except via negativa).

Fat Tails If IQ is Gaussian by construction and if real world performance were, net, fat tailed (it is), then either the covariance between IQ and performance doesn’t exist or it is uninformational. It will show a finite number in samplebut doesn’t exist statistically. Another problem: when they say “black people are x standard deviations away”. Different populations have different variances, even different skewness and these comparisons require richer models. These are severe, severe mathematical flaws (a billion papers in psychometrics wouldn’t count if you have such a flaw). See the formal treatment in my next book.

But the “intelligence” in IQ is determined by academic psychologists like the “paper trading” we mentioned above, via statistical constructs s.a. correlation that I show here (see Fig. 1) that they patently don’t understand. It does correlate to negative performance (as it was initially designed to detect learning special needs) but then any measure would work there. A measure that works in left tail not right tail (IQ decorrelates as it goes higher) is problematic. We have gotten similar results since the famous Terman longitudinal study, even with massaged data for later studies. To get the point, consider that if someone has mental needs, there will be 100% correlation between performance and IQ tests. But the performance doesn’t correlate as well at higher levels, though the psychologists will think it does.(The statistical spin, as a marketing argument, is that a person with an IQ of 70 cannot prove theorems, which is obvious for a measure of unintelligence — but they fail to reveal how many IQs of 150 are doing menial jobs).

It is a false comparison to claim that IQ “measures the hardware” rather than the software. It can measures some arbitrarily selected mental abilities (in a testing environment) believed to be useful. However, if you take a Popperian-Hayekian view on intelligence, you would realize that to measure it you would need to know the mental skills needed in a future ecology, which requires predictability of said future ecology. It also requires the skills to make it to the future (hence the need for mental biases for survival).

Real Life: In academia there is no difference between academia and the real world; in the real world there is. 1) When someone asks you a question in the real world, you focus first on “why is he/she asking me that?”, which shifts you to the environment (see Fat Tony vs Dr John in The Black Swan) and detracts you from the problem at hand. Only suckers don’t have that instinct. 2) Real life never never offers crisp questions with crisp answers (most questions don’t have answers; perhaps the worst problem with IQ is that it seem to selects for people who don’t like to say “there is no answer, don’t waste time, find something else”.) 3) It takes a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems. These are lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation. Some people can only focus on problems that are real, not fictional textbook ones (see the note below where I explain that I can only concentrate with real not fictional problems). 4) IQ doesn’t detect convexity (by an argument similar to bias-variance you need to make a lot of small inconsequential mistake in order to avoid a large consequential one. See Antifragile and how any measure of “intelligence” w/o convexity is sterile edge.org/conversation/n…). To do well you must survive, survival requires some mental biases directing to some errors. 5) Fooled by Randomness: seeing shallow patterns in not a virtue — leads to naive interventionism. Some psychologist wrote back to me: “IQ selects for pattern recognition, essential for functioning in modern society”. No. Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life. 6) To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently.

Functionary Quotient: If you renamed IQ , from “Intelligent Quotient” to FQ “Functionary Quotient” or SQ “Salaryperson Quotient”, then some of the stuff will be true. It measures best the ability to be a good slave. “IQ” is good for @davidgraeber’s “BS jobs”.

Metrification: If someone came up w/a numerical“Well Being Quotient” WBQ or “Sleep Quotient”, SQ, trying to mimic temperature or a physical quantity, you’d find it absurd. But put enough academics w/physics envy on it and it will become an official measure.

Notes And Technical Notes

“IQ” is most predictive of performance in military training, with correlation~.5, (which is circular since hiring isn’t random and training is another test).

There are contradictory stories about whether IQ ceases to work past a threshold, since Terman’s longitudinal study of “geniuses”. What these researchers don’t get is these contradictions come from the fact that the variance of the IQ measure increases with IQ. Not a good thing.

The argument that “some races are better at running” hence [some inference about the brain] is stale: mental capacity is much more dimensional and not defined in the same way running 100 m dash is.

I have here no psychological references for backup: simply, the field is bust. So far ~ 50% of the research does notreplicate, and papers that do have weaker effect. Not counting poor transfer to reality (psychological papers are ludic).

How P values often — rather almost always — fraudulent: my paper arxiv.org/pdf/1603.07532…

The Flynn effect should warn us not just that IQ is somewhat environment dependent, but that it is at least partly circular.

Verbalism: Psychologists have a skin-deep statistical education & can’t translate something as trivial as “correlation” or “explained variance” into meaning, esp. under nonlinearities (see paper at the end).

The “best measure” charlatans: IQ is reminiscent of risk charlatans insisting on selling “value at risk”, VaR, and RiskMetrics saying “it’s the best measure”. That “best” measure, being unreliable blew them up many many times. Note the class of suckers for whom a bad measure is better than no measure across domains.

You can’t do statistics without probability.

Much of the stuff about IQ of physicists is suspicious, from self-reporting biases/selection in tests.

If you looked at Northern Europe from Ancient Babylon/Ancient Med/Egypt, you would have written the inhabitants off... Then look at what happened after 1600. Be careful when you discuss populations.

The same people hold that IQ is heritable, that it determines success, that Asians have higher IQs than Caucasians, degrade Africans, then don’t realize that China for about a Century had one order of magnitude lower GDP than the West.

Mathematical Considerations

CURSE OF DIMENSIONALITY A flaw in the attempts to identify “intelligence” genes. You can get monogenic traits, not polygenic (note: additive monogenic used in animal breeding is NOT polygenic).

The Skin in the game issue

How social scientists have trouble translating a statistical construct into its practical meaning.

Psychology

Data Science

Black Swan

Racism

Alt Right

5.8K claps64

FollowNassim Nicholas Taleb

FollowINCERTO

Chapters from Skin in the Game

More from INCERTOThe Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

20K

More from INCERTOThe Intellectual Yet Idiot

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

18.3K

More from INCERTOThe Logic of Risk Taking

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

22KResponsesWrite a response…Applause from

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

(author)

John Gordon

Jan 2

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the book, “IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea,” by Stephan Murdoch. I read it recently and recommend it. Even without Taleb’s math prowess excoriating it, IQ’s legitimacy is unconvincing.

Taleb drives a stake through the IQ corpse and helps unveil the shame of 20th

[aldridge]

Close tennis matches are long tennis matches

Last night, Emma Raducanu won her 19th and 20th consecutive sets at the US Open since the first qualifying round 18 days ago, and in doing so became Britain's first British woman to win a grand slam title since 1977.

It was also the first time I've watched a tennis match from first shot to last in quite a while – and probably the same for lots of other people too. And, of course, tennis scoring can be a bit complicated for the casual viewer. As someone I follow on Twitter wrote:

Whoever invented tennis scoring was definitely on acid.

— Hannah Al-Othman (@HannahAlOthman) September 11, 2021

This reminded me of a pretty famous maths problem: If you have a probability p of winning a point in tennis, what's the probability that you win a game?

Recall that a "game" is, starting from 0 ("love") the first person to 4 points (denoted, for obscure reasons, "15", "30", "40", "game"), but you must win by 2 clear points. To keep track of the two clear points, if the game gets to 40-40 (that is, 3 points each), that's called "deuce". The player who wins the next point has "advantage" ("Advantage Raducanu" or "Advantage Fernandez", calls the umpire); if they win the next point, they win the game, while if the opposing player wins the next point, it returns to deuce again.

(I say a "pretty famous" maths problem, because I remember coming across it a couple of times in my teens, probably in pop-maths books. Then in 2002, it was a question in my Cambridge entrance interview. I hadn't memorised the exact solution or anything, but I could remember enough of the general process to be able to work smoothly through to the solution without errors or needing help. I aced the question, and I got in. It's interesting to wonder in what ways my life might be different now if I hadn't come across this tennis problem before the interview. There's got to be at least a chance I wouldn't be a maths lecturer now without it.)

Game

What makes this an interesting maths problem is the "two clear points" rule, as tracked by deuce and advantage. This means that there's, mathematically speaking, no limit to how long a game might last: it could go deuce, advantage, deuce, advantage, deuce, advantage, ... (each advantage to either player) for an arbitrarily long time. (The second game of last night's Raducanu–Fernandez match had five deuces and five advantages before Raducanu broke serve.) So the non-boring part of the question is: Once you get to deuce, what then is the probability that you win the game?

Remember that p is the probability you win a point; it will be convenient to write q = 1 - p for the probability you lose a point. Let d be the probability you win the game starting from deuce. So from deuce, three things can happen:

You win the next two points, with probability p × p = p2. You then win the game.

You lose the next two points, with probability q × q = q2. You then lose the game.

You win one of the next two points: either win then lose or lose then win, with probability p × q + q × p = 2pq. You then return to deuce again, so your probability of winning the game is back to the d that you started with.

Putting all this together, we have

d = p2 + 2pqd.

We can then solve this for d, to get

d = p2 / (1 - 2pq) .

That solves the difficult/interesting part of the problem, Then it's straightforward but tiresome to turn this probability of winning a game from deuce into probability of winning the game from the start. A graph of the answer looks like this:

Note that having just a slightly better than 50:50 chance of winning each point gives you a much better than 50:50 chance of winning the whole game. For example, Raducanu won 54% of points last night (81 points out of 149), which would give you a 61% chance of winning each game – Raducanu actually won 63% of the games. (This is ignoring the very important issue of serving vs returning.)

Set and match

You can similarly stretch this out to a whole set, again ignoring serving/returning, which is again mathematically tiresome but not mathematically difficult. Here, the effect that a small superiority in winning points leads to a bit superiority in winning sets is even more pronounced.

Unsurprisingly, for the whole match it's more extreme still – a 54% chance of winning a point gives you an 87% chance of winning the match, or 92% for a men's five-set match.

Close matches are long matches

So why bother with the complicated scoring. I guess the main reason is a sort of psychological one. A "first to 81 points" match would get pretty samey, and when one player is at 80 points to 68, it's pretty clear who's going to win. Instead we have the excitement of who's going to win this game, then who's going to win this set, as smaller bits of excitement within the match. It also gives a player that falls behind a chance to catch up – a 6–0 set loss is no worse that 7–6, so you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get started again.

But one other reason, is that ensures that matches where one player dominates are over very quickly, while tight balanced matches will go on for longer. This extends exciting close matches, and also makes it more likely that the genuinely better player will win. (A slightly worse player has more chance of snatching a lucky win in a shorter match.)

That picture shows the average number of games in a match. We see that close matches, where the probability of wining a point is close to 0.5, are the longest games, on average.

My own solution: Start playing a minimum number of points; maybe 100. From then, as soon as one player has scored n/2 + sqrt(n) points out of n, we say that they're two standard deviations above 50:50, reject the null hypothesis that p = 0.5, and declare them the winner. I don't think it will catch on.

[This article was helpful for cheacking my calculations.]

[s5078305-blog]

Part 2...

Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation

Jean Baudrillard was a French sociologist, philosopher and cultural theorists. He is most famous for his work on post-structuralism, early post modernism and his ideas help shaping the idea of hyperreality. In his book Simulacra and Simulation (1981) he talks about the idea of us living in the age of simulation. In our postmodern culture society, we are servant to maps, symbols and models, making us lose all contact with the real world outside of the map. We wouldn’t be able to distinguish from the what is real and what is simulated, the map becomes what’s real "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory" ("The Precession of Simulacra" 1). He stated when it comes to postmodern simulation and simulacra, “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” ("The Precession of Simulacra" 2). We have lost all ability to make of the distinction between nature and artifice.

Image from https://baudrillardstudies.com/baudrillard-scrapbook/

Photo by Richard Avedon

jean Baudrillard and The Matrix  

The matrix is about a computer hacker Thomas Anderson, learns about the true nature of his reality and the role he plays in the war against it’s controllers. (Kenneth Chisholm). In one the scenes of the movie Thomas picks up a book: Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and simulation. The inclusion of the book holds great meaning as the movie takes a lot of influence from his idea of hyperreality, and hyperreal. Thomas learns about him living in a hyperreality, a simulation- everything he knew wasn’t really real. The Matrx itself is used as a virtual realty medium to illustrate the concept of hyperreal. The Matrx is an illusion created by the AI for a purpose.

image from https://mikesyear2uni.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/authenticity-baudrillard-wilde-and-benjamin/

A shot from a scene in The Matrx

Hyperreality

‘Hyperreality’ was coined by Baudrillard, meaning a social reality in which a reality is created or simulated from models of reality that is generated from ideas. (Robinson, 2012). Our reality gets simulated and heightened and which causes us to be in a hyperreality. With technology like AR and VR and the growing MR, we can now truly enter a simulated world at any moment, with apps, game or headset.  

image from Google images

The headset: 2018

New developments of apps for the VR, has added to the real life real to the headset. Now you can watch YouTube with the YouTube VR, receive messages, meditate, check emails, watch Netflix. Interact with other user’s avatars, communicating through the headset in a game called VR chat.  

A man named Jack Wilmot did an experiment where he ‘lived’ in a VR headset for a week. He always made sure to have a headset on, blacking out his windows blocking the outside world, switching headsets for different activities. On his experience he says “...this headset allows anyone to create their own environment”.  If you’re feeling stressed, you can switch to being submerged into a natural environment. “Everything is in the headset”. With the incorporate of everyday activity in the Virtual world, our generation can spend more time in a simulated reality than our actual reality. His experiment shows how we could live a sustainable life in the simulacra that is the headset as it still allows us to function normally.  

Video from Youtube - I spent a week in a VR headset, here’s what happened

Will VR replace real life?  

According to Jean Baudrillard’s theory, reality is a simulacra. He argues in the age of media we already are living in a virtual reality. His theories stand correct precisely in today’s society. I believe that there are and always have been simulants in the world that proved the experience of a hyperreality. From natural things outside of our control, like our brain hallucinating to meditation. To more man-made simulants like books, movies, social media, Disneyland.  

And now AR, VR and MR.  

A fair critic of Jean Baudrillar was from N. Katherine Hayles in her book ‘The Borders of madness’, she argues  

“Every existing simulation has boundaries that distinguish it from the surrounding environment. Disneyland sports a fence, dense hedges, and acres of parking lots. Virtual reality environments are limited by the length of the cables attaching the body apparatus to the computer.”  (1991)

This is true. We have the option to disconnect.  

But what if the technology develops to perfection, and it give us everything we need in it’s virtual world?  

And we truly are not capable of distinguishing VR from realty.  

AR vs and MR are ‘escapes from reality’, but what if they become reality?

Image from https://uploadvr.com/high-end-vr-future/

Imagine …in the distant future...

A SONY super high-tech headset that lets you experience anything you want. And it feels real. Life like.

- It takes away all your worries  

- Brings all pleasure  

Once you plug in, you won’t know that you’re plugged in.  

Would you plug in?  

This idea is based on Robert Nozick 1974 book: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Where he proposes the experience machine. He stated “Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience that you desired... All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain.” …A VR headset... Nozick assumes that most people would not plug in.  

With the advancements in today’s technology, the machine isn’t hard to imagine for the distant future...  

Most people would argue that we would be able to plug in and out (if there was that option) like the stimuli from video games. But with the game being able to give you every desire, returning to the ‘real world’ where you can’t be given everything you want, could cause a feeling of sadness - would people be able to control and self-discipline to not spend to not plug in once and never plug back out. What if all their friends and family are already plugged in too?

Why wouldn’t you plug in?  

There are some issues with posing this question, one being that it’s a big generalization to make, even with all the pleasures that would be provided inside the headset, we wouldn’t be able to truly experience it because we wouldn’t be able to feel it. The virtual experiences that we would have can only be replicated to a certain extent. Playing in the world cup and scoring the winning goal is an experience that cannot be replicated because of the emotions.  

Another issue is assuming that we would pick the pleasure offered to us over the issues the real-life experience of the real world. Maybe it we would miss the feeling of living, that again cannot be replicated.  

The influence of social media

I think VR technology has the capability to cause a societal shift. If the technology was developed enough to offer us a better reality to our own. It is capable of a causing a shift. However, I don’t believe that it could cause it alone. Social media would play a big part. Social media is new age technology, but it would play its own sperate part.  

Social media has taken over our world. It is inescapable in my generation, generation Z. My generation live our lives on social media, people post about every detail of their lives everyday on a platform such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook... but they only show us what they want us to see, social media allows you to have no filter and use filters at the same time. People can present their best image to you and you won’t be able to tell the difference. This is problematic as it could lead to depression and anxiety. There are inconclusive research on weather social media is a direct cause of depression and anxiety, but it does seems to be a cause. The chair of the psychology department at Stanford University, Anthony Wagner states “... our media use behavior is actually altering our cognition and underlying neurological function or neurobiological processes? The answer is we have no idea.” (Resnick, 2019)  

Although, we don’t know if the official cause, our obsession with it does play a major part in the cause of depression and anxiety. According to experts “almost 20% of people with social media accounts cannot go more than three hours without checking them” (Fader, 2018). It is not hard to miss the amount of people walking around with their heads in their phones, we’ve all been guilty of doing it. But (for the most part) my generation are able to distinguish from social media and real life. But what about the generation after us?  

Children are using social media just as much as adults are causing growing concerns on its effects on their development. “One of the biggest differences in...current teenagers and young adults... is that they spend much less time connecting with their peers in person and more time connecting ...through social media.’ Recent studies show that teenagers and young adult who spend the most time on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and other platforms “...were shown to have a substantially (from 13 to 66 percent) higher rate of reported depression than those who spent the least time” (Miller, 2017).  

I think Social media has become too problematic itself, with people not having the consciousness to distinguish reality from the simulation of reality that is social media. Social media is a hyperreality.  

To conclude, I think that the in this moment in time the technology isn’t powerful enough to cause a societal shift, but with the rate in which it is enhancing, it isn’t so wacky to think that one day AR, VR and MR replace reality, therefore changing our cultural and societal values. Technology (and social media) could be the main deciding determinism for the shift.   

[fitnesswomenshealth-blog]

Senate Defeats Measure That Attempted To Reign In Health Insurance Choices

New Post has been published on https://cialiscom.org/senate-defeats-measure-that-attempted-to-reign-in-health-insurance-choices.html

Senate Defeats Measure That Attempted To Reign In Health Insurance Choices

Democrats have shifted their concentration from their try to impugn Brett Kavanaugh to health and fitness treatment. Even so, earlier today, their plan was dealt a blow when a invoice to overrule a President Trump wellness treatment law fell flat.

On Wednesday, a leftist evaluate to overrule President Donald Trump’s enlargement of shorter-time period well being coverage strategies was defeated on a slim, just about bash-line vote. Lots of speculated that the remaining pressured the vote in hopes that they could campaign off of it. Even though Susan Collins defected to the democrats, but the leftists continue to couldn’t win.

President Donald J. Trump expanded short-time period wellness insurance programs, which did not meet ‘Obamacare’ ‘qualifications,’ and which did not have to protect pre-current disorders, or go over psychological overall health solutions or prescription medications, hunting to supply an selection for people who couldn’t pay for the highly-priced ACA-approved choices.

Democrats sought to overrule Trump’s prepare to offer far more possibilities to shoppers.

The vote finished up an evenly break up 50-50, thanks to Senator Susan Collins, a ‘republican’ (or a republican in name only) from Maine who voted in a stable bloc versus the idea of letting wellness insurance policies customers to have a lot more choice when it arrived to their health choices.

When democrats brought ahead the evaluate, they argued that the plans ended up “junk” insurance policies programs, and they appeared to consider that they could use the options to ache the republicans as completely wrong on well being treatment in the community eye.

Senate Minority Chief Chuck Schumer of New York proclaimed from the flooring of the Senate that in a several months, the American individuals would be ready to pick out concerning candidates like him who would “safeguard protections now in place” in the American insurance industry, or republicans who he said would “gut our wellness-care system.”

It is weird to hear somebody recommend that far more solutions, primarily solutions that could operate for men and women who are limited on hard cash, in some way qualifies as ‘gutting’ a health and fitness-treatment procedure.

On top of that, the thought that it is ‘our’ wellbeing treatment technique is a dishonest 1. Schumer, like every single other politician on Capitol Hill, does not use the very same well being system as the standard general public.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a republican from Tennessee, pointed out that the limited-expression ideas provided customers a more affordable decision, and that for all those who didn’t want this sort of a prepare, Barack Obama’s government healthcare was nonetheless out there, even more raising issues as to how the wellness coverage choices were ‘gutted.’

Senate Greater part Chief Mitch McConnell, the senior republican Senator from Kentucky, mentioned that his constituents deserved much more choices when it arrived to their well being coverage selections, not much less, and that the democrat prepare to damage one of the selections that was nonetheless “actually doing work for American families” was a very poor just one.

Once again, ‘republican’ Susan Collins confirmed that she is a republican only when she feels like it, and that when push arrives to shove, she is quickly confident to vote from her social gathering.

In this case, she caved due to the fact remaining-leaning ‘experts’ claimed that the audacious concept of permitting men and women alternatives would get revenue out of the fingers of the ‘insurance pools’ for Obamacare strategies, which would elevate rates on folks who chose to take part in them.

In other terms, simply because leftists know improved than consumers what amount of insurance policies they require, other solutions, not accepted by the ‘Affordable’ Care Act, which passed without a single republican vote, should not be permitted to exist.

It seems to most persons the only ‘choice’ that democrats are truly in favor of is the ‘choice’ to abort a youngster.

Shorter-time period plans allowed all those who utilized them to have insurance policies, for a a lot reduce price than the ‘approved’ designs, in trade for decreased protection.

Obamacare was pushed by leftists in the governing administration in part due to the fact they determined that insurance designs essential to meet up with their ‘requirements,’ since, yet again, people and plebs naturally could not be trustworthy to make decisions about their well being insurance coverage desires on their personal.

Nonetheless, people who pushed for larger options, and a wider variety of possibilities for consumers, arrived out on best.

!perform(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)returnn=f.fbq=functionality()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.use(n,arguments):n.queue.press(arguments) if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=nn.press=nn.loaded=!0n.model='2.0' n.queue=[]t=b.createElement(e)t.async=! t.src=vs=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0] s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, doc,'script', 'https://link.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js') fbq('init', '323488158144055') fbq('track', 'PageView') (operate(d, s) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], load = functionality(url, id) if (d.getElementById(id)) return js = d.createElement(s) js.src = url js.id = id fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs)

load('//connect.fb.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1', 'fbjssdk') load('https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js', 'gplus1js') load('//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js', 'tweetjs') (document, 'script')) Supply connection

[liveonlinematches]

Through Ben Inexperienced Created on: December 21, 2017 2:31 pm Closing Up to date: December 21, 2017 2:31 pm

101 Nice Objectives prediction: Leicester 2 – Manchester United Three

Manchester United to overcome Leicester Three-2 is 28/1 with Guess365

Each Leicester and Manchester United are getting into this sport off the again of a Carabao Cup go out.

Leicester historically give the larger groups a run for his or her cash and Jamie Vardy has an ideal report as opposed to the highest six.

Manchester United may well be 11 issues in the back of Manchester Town however a excellent Christmas duration may exchange the dynamics and they have got to win at Leicester.

Leicester vs Manchester United soccer making a bet guidelines

Leicester are 16/five lengthy pictures to overcome Manchester United at house.

Manchester United are rated as robust favourites to win this Premier League fit at five/6.

Draw at half-time and Manchester United to win is 15/four.

Guess on Leicester vs Manchester United with Guess365

For extra soccer making a bet guidelines click on right here.

Leicester vs Manchester United fit preview

Leicester face Manchester United in the beginning of the greatly busy Christmas duration in English soccer.

Successfully, this can be a fight between two Carabao Cup quarter-finalists who went out in excruciating type.

In the end even though, with Manchester Town stringing 16 Premier League wins in combination, it’s right down to Manchester United to stay successful to position some force on.

Again Manchester United to overcome Leicester at 25/1 with Betfair

Leicester lose on consequences to Guy Town

Leicester have been using the “new supervisor soar” of Claude Puel up till remaining Saturday. And it’s been a chastening week on the King Energy.

Manchester United will have to beware that Leicester are a “wounded animal” and will likely be prepared to take a scalp at house.

Leicester misplaced Three-Zero at house to Crystal Palace remaining Saturday after they have been anticipated to win. And, then misplaced to Manchester Town on consequences after drawing 1-1 with the Premier League leaders.

Manchester United embarrassed at Bristol Town

Manchester United’s midweek hard work glance prone to have value them psychologically.

The holders of the League Cup (Carabao Cup, remaining season it used to be known as the EFL Cup…) are out after dropping within the ultimate seconds at Championship facet Bristol Town.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic scored a loose kick within the 2-1 defeat which is a good after the Swede’s lengthy damage lay-off.

Once more even though, Manchester United’s fringe avid gamers failed to fireside when given the risk and Jose Mourinho bemoaned the truth his facet have been not able to stand up for the cup tie.

Can Leicester beat Manchester United?

This has all of the makings of a vintage fixture because the 2015/2016 champions take at the facet that has gained the English most sensible flight probably the most instances.

Leicester and Jamie Vardy are hardly ever petrified of the massive groups and beneath Puel have performed an attacking facet in all their suits.

With The Foxes going for it, Manchester United will most probably hit at the ruin, with Paul Pogba a key guy for Mourinho after getting back from a three-game suspension.

In August, when Manchester United have been flying, they beat Leicester 2-Zero at Previous Trafford.

Again Manchester United to overcome Leicester at 25/1 with Betfair

Leicester group information vs Manchester United

Leicester have two longer term absentees in Robert Huth and Matty James. Adrien Silva stays ineligible.

Claude Puel threw on Jamie Vardy and Riyad Mahrez past due on in opposition to Manchester Town. Each avid gamers ultimately ignored within the shoot-out however shouldn’t be jaded to stand Manchester United.

Wilfried Ndidi returns from suspension after his purple card in opposition to Crystal Palace.

Manchester United group information vs Leicester

Jose Mourinho made 10 adjustments to his Manchester United facet at Bristol Town. This will likely be reversed on Saturday.

Manchester United stay with out Michael Carrick, Eric Bailly and Marouane Fellaini.

Again Manchester United to overcome Leicester at 25/1 with Betfair

Leicester predicted line-up vs Manchester United

Leicester predicted line-up vs Manchester United

Manchester United predicted line-up vs Leicester

Manchester United predicted line-up vs Leicester

All odds discussed on this article are proper on the time of publishing and are matter to modify.

GAMBLING CAN BE ADDICTIVE, PLEASE PLAY RESPONSIBLY

!serve as(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)(window, report,’script’,’http://ift.tt/2B7CqrW;); fbq(‘init’, ‘1821170621460215’); // Insert your pixel ID right here. fbq(‘monitor’, ‘PageView’); (serve as(d, s, identity) (report, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

http://ift.tt/2BWBWJp football

[taxattorneyc-blog]

Chicago Tax Attorney – The Superman For Taxpayers!

The hiring of a Chicago Tax Attorney is not a difficult thing at all. We are having plenty of good firms and freelance lawyers operating around us. However, what all we need is to keep ourselves stick with talented lawyers only. The hiring of a lawyer is as critical for ourselves and our lifestyle as the recruitment of a doctor. We cannot trust on mere chants and slogans. We are not supposed to chase those who have nothing to do but to make big claims. Being a realistic taxpayer you have to keep your case and the ground realities in mind. Now let us proceed with some useful information about this subject. We are sure, almost all of your issues can be resolved with the hiring of a Chicago Tax Attorney.

Like on FB: https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoTaxLawyerFirm/

It is going to be a Useful Hiring

The hiring of a Chicago Tax Attorney is a simple thing, and there is no question about the benefits of their hiring. We are well aware of the difficulties related to the tax matters. In fact, those who are not learned and don’t have a background in the law cannot even understand what is written there in the tax code. We are sure this article is going to provide you all with a fair bit of assistance. In our view, the way to deal with the IRS or the Internal Revenue Service is not to deal with them directly. They are not as friendly as we believe. They have their motives and targets. We cannot expect any extraordinary relief from them as they are operating under certain laws and regulations.

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/taxlawyerfirm

It’s your Right Legally

As far as the American taxpayers are concerned, they also have some rights. No one can force them and cannot stop them from the hiring of a Chicago Tax Attorney. When we hire a Chicago tax attorney, things start getting better for us. They are the people who come with an incredible understanding of the law. Most of them are practicing and are helping the taxpayer in seeking resolutions for decades. That is why we always support those who are used to hire specialized tax lawyers on the contract basis. Don’t worry you can hire them for a short period as well. In this world where everyone is quite busy and no one has enough time to waste in reading and understanding of the tax laws, the hiring of a Chicago Tax Lawyer remains one of the topmost options.

Connect on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chicago-tax-lawyer-firm/

Other Options vs. Chicago Tax Attorney

Yes! One can also seek a certified public accountant, an accountant or an enrolled agent for acquiring some help and support.  There is nothing as important as our peace of mind. We are a nation that is degrading as far as the psychological health is concerned. More and more Americans are becoming the victim of malignant some disease just like anxiety and depression. There is a direct interlink between taxes and our mental wellbeing. Those who are earning a little amount of money and are paying their taxes through their employers are n peace somehow. But those who are more privileged and are earning more and from different resources can feel real heat. The IRS remains active and more interested in cases where they believe they have more chance to win.

A few Important Points to Keep in Mind

A tax attorney is way better than an enrolled agent and a certified public accountant

An attorney cannot stand against you and your rights in future

A tax attorney can be hired on case by case basis

Follow us on G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/110433338298585816642

Want to know more?

Dial the telephone number of ChicagoTaxLawyerFirm.Com now!   They are welcoming phone calls and are offering free consultation via phone/email and their web chat module. Stay assure – no one else but an educated and well-trained tax attorney is going to receive your phone call.

Follow Us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chicagotaxlawyerfirmofficial/

[topinforma]

New Post has been published on Mortgage News

New Post has been published on http://bit.ly/2pDFurn

Should you rent or own a home in retirement?

Whether you rent your home or buy, it’s always good to start saving for retirement as soon as possible. (Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)

During my live online chat last week, two questions came up about retirement.

I put the questions to the team of Color of Money retirement coaches that I’ve assembled to help me help you with your retirement concerns.

Retirement for renters Q: Do you have any advice or suggestions regarding saving for retirement for renters who don’t have plans to buy a home? I’m in my 40’s and have been satisfied with renting thus far. I am wondering what strategies one should consider in my situation. I am not sure if/when I will buy a home. Is this a huge mistake on my part?

Jean Setzfand is a senior vice president of AARP Programs that produce interactive educational programming designed to address health, wealth and personal enrichment concerns for consumers 50 and over.

Setzfand: Whether you rent your home or buy, it’s always good to start saving for retirement as soon as possible, especially if your employer provides a matching retirement plan.

Regarding your decision to rent or buy, though your personal preference may be the main driver, a recent study Out of Reach 2016 (nlihc.org) by the National Low Income Housing Coalition highlights the lack of affordable housing across America and the high cost of renting, especially in the DC metro area. Of the states ranked most expensive to rent a two-bedroom apartment, DC ranked 2nd; MD ranked 5th and Virginia ranked 11th.

Not only is affordable rental property harder to find, you don’t have the advantage of building home equity when you rent vs. buy a home, which is an asset that may provide you some financial support in the long run.

Why the decline of the homeownership rate is good news

Fidelity Investments published an article that outlines five questions you should ask yourself when you’re debating renting vs. buying. They are:

· How long are you planning to stay where you are? · Do housing prices always go up? (This addresses the misconception that housing prices only go up, not down.) · Are you “throwing away money” on rent? (Addresses many of the hidden costs of owning a home.) · How much will you save on taxes? · Are you comparing apples to apples? (Stresses that you should factor in the complete cost of ownership, not just rent vs mortgage.)

Check out the interactive calculator that lets you plug in your own numbers to see the difference that buying or renting might have on your long-term finances.

Here’s another good article on the topic: Retirement living: renting vs. home ownership

Michael Edesess is an economist and mathematician and chief strategist of Compendium Finance. He is a co-author of “The 3 Simple Rules of Investing: Why Everything You’ve Heard about Investing Is Wrong ― and What to Do Instead” and author of “The Big Investment Lie.”

Edesess: It’s not a mistake not to buy a home. If you have been satisfied with renting, there’s no reason not to continue in that fashion. Investing in buying a home has risks and potential rewards just like any other investment. The rewards to home buying have actually been considerably less than those of investing in the stock market. Nevertheless many people prefer to own, though the reasons could be circumstantial or psychological.”

If you own a home, check out these articles:

— Retirees, should you buy or rent when downsizing?

— Is it better to buy or rent in retirement?

Send your questions: Join Michelle Singletary Thursday at noon for a weekly financial chat

Saving during retirement Q: My husband and I have safe pensions that will cover all our expenses in retirement and a considerable nest egg, but we probably won’t be able to continue to save like we have all our lives. Do people usually continue to save in retirement or is that the time to draw down our savings (or leave it alone in case of emergencies)? I can’t get my head around this because I’m so used to saving. We don’t have anyone to leave the money to if that’s a consideration but, of course, hope to leave some to charities.

Carolyn McClanahan is a physician turned certified financial planner. McClanahan, who founded the fee-only Life Planning Partners based in Jacksonville, Fla., concentrates on how health intersects with personal finance, including long-term care issues.

McClanahan: Your savings habit is serving you well. It is not uncommon for great savers to have difficulty when it comes time to start using the resources they have worked so hard to obtain. For some, money becomes the object when it really should be considered a tool to help you enjoy life.

After you’ve consulted with an hourly financial planner to determine if you have enough for emergencies, health care costs, and potential long-term care costs, decide how the money left over can bring you the most joy.

You mentioned charity — instead of waiting until you die, start giving to charity now! That way, you’ll get to see the fruit of your hard work. In my experience, clients enjoy giving to local charities and small organizations where their dollar can have the most impact and where they can potentially become involved in volunteering for the charity. Giving improves our sense of well-being, and a better sense of well-being leads to better health, so it is a win-win for all involved.”

Edesess: “From what you say the only reasons for continuing to save would be to bequeath more to charity, and because you have psychologically gotten used to it. It might be hard to change and become a spendthrift, even if you can financially — and after all, there’s no reason why you have to spend money, just because you can.”

Here’s an article from Fidelity “How long can I make my savings last” with a section on setting up a portfolio to allow you to spend and save.

Retirement rants & raves In this feature your voice matters. This is a space in which you can rave or rant about anything related to retirement. So what’s on your mine about your retirement or your planning for retirement? (I would especially love to hear from young adults.)

Send your comments to colorofmoney@washpost.com. Please include your name, city and state. In the subject line put “Retirement Rants & Raves.”

Last week I asked: What’s been your experience with buying or using long-term care insurance?

“I was one of those federal employees who purchased long-term care insurance several years before retirement in 2010,” wrote Raylene Canby of Sammamish, Wash. “There were very modest premium increases until last year when my monthly bill went from $155 to $351! Needless to say, I’m glad I was sitting down when I opened that letter. The choices were to pay it, quit the policy or to change the policy to one providing significantly less care. I chose to continue the existing policy, which provides care for an unlimited number of years, which is no longer offered by any long-term care insurer.”

Cindy Estep from Annapolis, Md., wrote: “The firm I work for offers long-term disability insurance for which I pay a monthly premium. The only reason I signed up for LTDI is because the policy is convertible into long-term care insurance without having to have a medical exam. Of course I will need to continue paying the premium after I retire — assuming of course I can afford the premiums. I would like to pay off my mortgage. Instead of a monthly mortgage payment, I’ll be paying for health insurance and other medical expenses.”

Live chat this week Join me on Thursday, April 27 at noon (ET) for a live discussion about poverty in the U.S.

I’d like to continue the conversation I’ve been having with readers about some recent columns I’ve written on the topic, including an essay I selected for this month’s Color of Money Book Club. Read the review: The next face of poverty could be yours

What do we as a society owe the poor?

I spent my childhood on Medicaid, and Trump’s plan to roll it back is disastrous

I wrote about being a child on Medicaid. A reader called me the N-word.

Click this link to participate in the discussion.

Newsletter comments policy Please note it is my personal policy to identify readers who respond to questions I ask in my newsletters. I find it encourages thoughtful and civil conversation. I want my newsletters to be a safe place to express your opinion. On sensitive matters or upon request, I’m happy to include a first name and last initial. But I prefer not to post anonymous comments (I do make exceptions when I’m asking questions that might reveal sensitive information or cause conflict.)

Have a question about your finances? Michelle Singletary has a weekly live chat every Thursday at noon where she discusses financial dilemmas with readers. You can also write to Michelle directly by sending an email to michelle.singletary@washpost.com. Personal responses may not be possible, and comments or questions may be used in a future column, with the writer’s name, unless otherwise requested. To read more Color of Money columns, go here.