Language: English

Ukraine at the football European Championship had the following matches, in this order – Romania, Slovakia, and Belgium.

To be almost sure of qualifying, they had to win at least one game and draw one. Of course, winning two or more matches is great, but it is not mandatory.

Now, it might seem that the match against Romania had no stake.

But if you consider there were only three matches, and Belgium is probably hard to beat, they had to get a win and a draw from the first two matches.

Sometimes, people say, “It’s not in the knockout stages.”

That’s fine, but Ukraine still had to win/get a draw.

Of course, winning against Belgium is mathematically possible, it’s not a zero chance event, but even if it wasn’t a knockout, Ukraine still had to win.

Citește mai departe

There’s a debate on what this symbol represents: 🙏🏻.

It’s long been thought that it’s a “prayer” or “thank you with gratitude”—something along those lines.

It might mean “high five,” so two different people join hands.

Some articles on this:

Prayer, high five? Users confused over emoji’s meaning;

People baffled after discovering what this hands emoji actually means – Mirror Online.

My view on it? If both parties in the communication acknowledge the same symbol, I think we are fine.

On the other hand (pun intended), using symbols with their intended meaning would also be fine.

Citește mai departe

Some people tend to be libertarians or capitalists when they need to offer others help—”each for their own, I need capital, it’s your duty to help yourself.”

The same people, when they need help, tend to be communists/socialists – “I deserve to be helped!”.

There’s a funny saying in Romanian:

“Eu când zic că iau, iau! Dar când zic că dau, numa’ zic!”

“When I say I’ll take, I take! But when I say I’ll give, I’m just saying!”

Citește mai departe

I have this algorithm:

• If both teams are equal or close, bet 0-0;
• If one is a bit better: 1-0;
• If one is much better: 2-0;
• Only when I know almost for sure that there will be lots of goals, I will bet either 1-1 or 2-1.

With this algorithm, I got in the top 15% of players at PC Garage. At Nwradu league, I was in top 1/3.

At times, I trusted my gut more. For example, although the odds were that England would win the cup, I bet on some matches against them.

The conclusion of this story? Don’t bet. Even if you think logically, you can’t beat the odds the platforms give you. You’re much more likely to lose.

Another conclusion – try to think rationally, not emotionally. If the odds are for England, don’t bet on the Netherlands. Go with the math, not with metaphors.

Also, I generally avoid betting; I tried my luck this time.

I like to read about sports; it motivates me. Sometimes, I watch people scoring goals. But to watch entire matches? Not so much.

Also, when betting – most likely, there will be some people pushing their luck more than you. You’ll be better than some of these players by using logic, but it’s very, very hard to be a winner.

Finally, I consider betting to be very damaging to society as a whole. I would forbid all advertising in any form and limit their availability as much as possible.

On my blog, I refuse to write about chess championships in Romania, due to the fact that they tend to be sponsored by betting companies. It’s like I would endorse them, which is not the case.

I didn’t link to the Nwradu league above because a betting company sponsored it. I thought quite a bit if I should even participate or not. It was a free contest – why not?

Citește mai departe

You organize an event. Who is likely to need planning for that event, a long while ago? Likely, the people for whom time is important. Are these people important? Yes? Are they a majority? No, quite the contrary, I expect them to be just a few.

So, organizers look at the numbers and say, “This event will have 100 participants. For around 5% of them, time is important, and it would be better to announce the event in time.

But for 95% of them, it’s better to announce the event close to the date/time of taking place.”

What comes naturally is that people announce events only a few days before they take place.

Who loses? The most important people for whom time organizing is the most important.

GPeC always announces events many months ahead. Others are announced a few days before an event, sometimes even on the event day, and sometimes 2–3 hours before the event.

“See you this evening!”

“OK, since I’m an important person, I understand that you, the event organizer, might not like me so much, and prefer to have people who get notified hours before the event as participants. Sorry about that.”

Citește mai departe

Ask someone who likes sports to see a sports match after it ends. (to see a recording)

Ask someone who likes to bet each week to bet a larger sum once a year.

Ask someone who likes to bet to bet the number “8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 38”.

For all of these, you’ll almost surely get a surprised look and a negative response.

Now, why is a football match so important to see live? The end has almost zero value at the end. In this situation, can’t we assume you want to find out the match result quicker? Is this the only reason to watch games, to know the result quickly?

Why would you put much more effort into betting each week when you can bet more rarely, with less effort? Oh, you derive satisfaction knowing you could win. But this is all in your head.

Finally, the numbers “8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 38” have the exact same chance as any other combination. They have an advantage, though – most likely, people wouldn’t pick this combination, so it’s less likely to split the win in case they are winning numbers. If you don’t think these numbers have any chance, don’t play at all.

We tend to do irrational things.

I prefer not to watch sports or bet. I think this is much more rational.

Citește mai departe

There’s a meme:
Source »

Unfortunately, the Society would be great in the following conditions:

• If things would always be updated in time;
• If there were no possible misunderstandings from the communicator;
• If there were no possible misunderstandings from the receiver;
• If every possible unspecified thing were clear.

Sometimes, by asking obvious questions with obvious answers, you get surprising answers.

I wouldn’t be so hard on people making sure they understood correctly.

Sometimes, you can ask stupid questions and get smart answers.

When someone asks you “How’s the weather in Năvodari?”, surprisingly!, they might not care about the weather itself.

“I trust I make myself obscure” – from the play “A Man for All Seasons”

A favorite quote of Nicolae Steinhardt.

People might ask obvious questions to get non-obvious answers.

Citește mai departe

Many careers differ in the first year or two vs. what you can do after 10–20 years.

Yet, people “try” careers for a few months, when they will likely not get nearly as much satisfaction from their work as they’ll do after they get to senior roles.

The answer is that my dream career is a senior role first.

(via »)

Citește mai departe