Based on a review of ABC’s broadcasts of the first three games of these Finals, The Wall Street Journal logged every moment when two teammates could be seen touching each other on camera, whether it was a high-five, a hug, a chest pat or a butt slap. The results couldn’t be more definitive.
The Mavericks, with 250 slaps, hugs, taps or bumps, are almost twice as touchy-feely as the Heat, who had only 134 instances of televised contact. In those three games, the Mavericks were 82% more likely to high five.
The concept of “chemistry” on a sports team has become the stuff of cliché over the years. Nobody seems to have the same definition for what it is, or what produces it. But last fall, three researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, took a serious look at one of the most obvious signs of camaraderie on a team—touching.
I’ve been playing Angry Birds lately. I’m good at it, in the sense that I’m able to beat a game that was designed to be beaten by children. I get past every level, with one, two, or three stars. After I finish a group of levels this way, I go back and try and get 3 stars on all the levels where I didn’t the first time.
One thing I do to help with this is to pay attention to my points-per-bird average (good old PPB). If I need 100,000 points to pass a level, and I have 3 birds, I need 34,000 PPB. This matters, because if I only get 6,000 on the first bird, it is probably not worth my time to keep going on that level — I should hit restart. This is a good strategy, and gets me 3 stars often.
There’s a hidden assumption here: that throws are independent. This is not always true. Sometimes I need to take a lower PPB on the first bird to set me up for the next throw. If I get 6,000 on the first throw, but that exposes a box of TNT and I can get 90,000 on the second, then my standard of “6,000 PPB is too low” is flawed for that level (even though it’s a good idea for a starting point). If I don’t get 3 stars on a level with my PPB strategy within 15 minutes, I start looking for other openings.
Question hidden assumptions. It’s what Richard Feynman did, with his belief that all problems should be solved from first principles. He’d take even the most basic and widely accepted answers, strip them down, and re-derive the answers himself. I think it’s one of the things that led to him being so effective (a lot of people consider him a modern day Einstein, except his discoveries aren’t as consumer-friendly as e=mc^2, so he doesn’t have the same pop culture awareness). In doing this, he’d run into all sorts of assumptions that people were making (without realizing it), sometimes leading them away from a useful piece of information.
I was watching movie trailers on YouTube, and was noticing style differences between the decades.
The 1995 movie Virtuosity has a narrator. To us as modern movie audiences, narrators feel very cheesy.
But how do directors communicate to the audience without them? Look at the preview for Transformers: Dark of the Moon, an equivalenty action movie. There’s no narrator, and not even any dialogue. This probably comes from the fact that it is a sequel, so we already know what to expect, and they can get by with more tease and less content (although the same could be said of the whole movie).
Inception trailer has some narration at the beginning. This is fairly uncommon among modern (2000-2010s) movie trailers. One thing about it — he’s not talking TO you, he’s just talking (but not with dialogue from the movie), and letting you figure it out. It’s less narration, and more monologue.
I think the Inception trailer is representative of what we’re seeing in modern times. The audience has to figure out what’s going on, which means they’re thinking and more engaged.
The trailer for Source Code (2011) uses a few title screens to fill in a few details.
To be fair, Inception and Source Code are more in the JJ Abrams-mystery box genre of movies. But here’s Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which again has no narrator, and uses on-screen text more heavily. If you read the on-screen text in your head with a cheesy 80s-narrator voice, it seems almost the same. It guides people through the “what’s going to happen next?”
80s movies have the same vibe as the 90s, although this seems like they tell you a bit more about how you’ll feel when you watch the movie (“with a touch of romance”), rather than the 90s one which is more narrative and descriptive. Check out the trailer from The Wizard, 1989.
Going farther back is A Clockwork Orange, 1971. There’s no narrator. This actually feels surprisingly modern, although the pacing seems older.
The Godfather, 1872 1972. No narrator, and only some dialogue. Again, this feels modern, but the pacing gives it away.
Doctor Zhivago, 1965, has a narrator. Also, notice the length of the trailer. This isn’t a movie trailer so much as an academic report.
Again, a long trailer for Lawrence of Arabia, 1962, also has a narrator. Near the end, the narrator discusses more about the actors themselves, and not just focusing on the plot. Obviously a sign of the times.
Earlier this month, Microsoft borrowed $2.25 billion in unsecured debt. What in the world possesses a company with $40 billion in cash and short-term securities to go out and borrow money?
Rock-bottom interest rates are one reason. But the bizarre, byzantine U.S. tax code seems to be another.
The U.S. is the only major country that taxes foreign earnings of its own companies this way. American investors may not come out ahead either.
Microsoft declined to comment on whether its recent borrowing was partly driven by tax considerations. But, like many purportedly cash-rich companies, Microsoft can’t bring home much of its cash without writing a fat check to the Internal Revenue Service.
Politicians have been carping about the more than $2 trillion in cash sitting idle in corporate coffers even as unemployment remains high. But much of that cash isn’t in the U.S.; it is abroad. And it isn’t likely to come back home unless U.S. tax laws change.
David Zion, a tax and accounting analyst at Credit Suisse, estimates that the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index have “north of $1 trillion” in undistributed foreign earnings, or profits that have been parked overseas to avoid U.S. tax. Not all of that is cash; some is in the form of inventories or other assets.
U.S. companies are taxed at up to 35% when they bring home the earnings generated through the operations of their overseas subsidiaries. They get a credit for any taxes paid to foreign governments—but, since the corporate-tax rate in the U.S. is one of the world’s highest, most companies are in no rush to bring the money back onshore. By keeping those earnings abroad, U.S. companies can indefinitely defer their day of reckoning with the IRS.
That can put firms in the peculiar position of having tons of cash offshore that they might need but can’t use at home without taking a tax hit.
The U.S. is the only major country that taxes foreign earnings of its own companies this way. American investors may not come out ahead either. In a 2007 survey of executives at more than 400 companies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Michelle Hanlon found that the desire to avoid the repatriation tax led to a variety of distortions, most of which end up making companies less efficient.
For example, among the companies that had brought some profits home to the U.S., 30% had invested in lower-returning foreign assets rather than pay additional taxes to bring overseas profits back onshore. Another 56% had borrowed money in the U.S. rather than bring cash home. And 6% said they had declined to invest in a profitable project in the U.S. when funding it with foreign earnings would have triggered a tax hit.
These perverse effects can extend even to smaller companies. Consider Waters Corp., a laboratory-instrument manufacturer based in Milford, Mass. At last count, Waters had approximately $1.4 billion in earnings locked up at foreign subsidiaries. Of the company’s $830 million in cash and short-term securities, around 80% sits abroad.
Waters borrowed $200 million last year to pay down higher-cost debt and “for general corporate purposes.” Like many U.S. companies, Waters is “building up cash outside the U.S. while borrowing in the U.S.,” says Eugene Cassis, its investor-relations director.
“We’d certainly like to be able to bring some of that money back,” he says. “We would have a greater ability to invest here if we didn’t have to pay a ‘tollgate tax’ to bring the cash home. Current tax policy creates a slight bias towards acquiring technology or assets outside the United States.”
As the great financial analyst Benjamin Graham long argued, shareholders are usually better off when companies hold less cash, rather than more. Too much cash can lead to reckless acquisitions and a fat-and-happy culture of waste.
But, in this case, it isn’t just management that is making companies sit on too much cash. It is tax policy, too. Congress and the White House are discussing whether the U.S. should follow the rest of the world and stop taxing repatriated offshore earnings from companies that already have paid taxes to foreign governments. Some gnarly technical details will have to be worked out if the repatriation tax is to be reduced or eliminated.
Meanwhile, investors should remember that a big chunk of cash on the balance sheet may look tempting but isn’t necessarily there for the taking.
“Collapses are perhaps more apparent than real,” … A closer look demonstrates that complex societies are remarkably insulated from single-point failures, such as a devastating drought or disease, and show a marked resilience in coping with a host of challenges. … “The rarity of collapse due to the resistance of populations to environmental changes or disease is considerable,” …
Let’s play a game. We’ll each name three consecutive outcomes of a coin toss (for example, tails-heads-heads, or THH). Then we’ll flip a coin repeatedly until one of our chosen runs appears. That player wins.
Is there any strategy you can take to improve your chance of beating me? Strangely, there is. When I’ve named my triplet (say, HTH), take the complement of the center symbol and add it to the beginning, and then discard the last symbol (here yielding HHT). This new triplet will be more likely to appear than mine.
The remarkable thing is that this always works. No matter what triplet I pick, this method will always produce a triplet that is more likely to appear than mine. It was discovered by Barry Wolk of the University of Manitoba, building on a discovery by Walter Penney.