But, much as from BRC today, the speech was just a special case of the usual from O, a four step dance:

(1) See an issue, especially one of the his favorites.

(2) Give a speech, call it his Big Speech.

(3) Get big headlines.

(4) Forget about it until the next issue.

One of the main reasons to execute this dance step is when there are headlines he doesn’t like. Then he can execute the dance step to change the headlines.

More generally, we should say that O is POTUS by omission, not commission. Or, it’s as if Bill Ayers told his young padawan learner that it is really easy to get impaled by the press from any commission but really difficult for any omission. So, for whatever want to accomplish, do that by omission, not commission. E.g., simply decline to enforce certain laws.

Or, O — how to be POTUS without really trying. Or have a great time working on golf game and jump shot, going on great vacations, having great dinners, with lots of bros for guests, and to look good, give some speeches. Then, don’t do anything or, in some rare cases, do just a little, e.g., send 50 US soldiers to the rebels in Syria.

For 1., the “crazy person list”, at least need some due process here. Also for the “no fly list”, e.g., that apparently is the first draft of the crazy person list. Also for any other such lists without due process.

Also, it’s very much a fact that our means of detecting crazy people are really short on the crucial issue of just simple accuracy. Easily enough, the means are way short on the two biggies reliability (much the same as standard deviation in statistics) and validity. (much the same as unbiased in statistics, that is, at least on average get the right answer). Or, the means have far too many false positives and false negatives — that is, are low quality means. With these means, can take the best six psychiatrists and come up with at least eight results.

For accuracy, our means for detecting crazies are junk.

No US citizen should be at risk from such

Heck, from all I can tell, the only sane people are you and me, and sometime I wonder about one of us! junk nonsense.

E.g., I submit to the nation, Exhibit #1 — Obama. I rest my case.

On 3., you want to use big data to detect large purchases of ammo. Right away I wondered but then right away saw you want also to consider weapons and specific kinds of ammo, e.g., hollow points. Yup, suspicions confirmed: You want to consider several variables, not just one.

Now, let’s see here: Some guy is calmly going about his daily business. Then right away this detection means has two ways to be wrong — (1) false positives where we say that something is wrong where there is not and (2) false negatives where we say that nothing is wrong but there is.

So, then, necessarily, no choice, do not pass go, do not collect $100, go directly to the subject of statistical hypothesis tests.

There we will want to know false alarm rate. And if we have a detection, we want to know what is the lowest false alarm rate for which for this data there would still be a detection — in any due process, I’d sure want to know.

Mow how to do a statistical hypothesis test with just one variable, e.g., amount of ammo, already would stump a lot of people in college Stat 101. For how to handle several variables with any good sense at all, we could stump, uh, nearly everyone in the world. Sorry ’bout that. We’re talking leading edge research in applied math, mathematical statistics, computer science, etc. That is, we want a statistical hypothesis test that lets us exploit several variables — ammo, guns, type of ammo — appropriately jointly, not just one variable at a time, and where we do not have to assume we know the probability distribution of the data — not even big data has that much data.

AFAIK, and what I do know is likely correct, there is only one source for such hypothesis tests, the ones in the paper I published in the journal Information Sciences.

So, before rushing off to exploit big data, might want to talk to someone with some good ideas of what the heck to do with that data.

But using big data, as in Big Brother or Big Brother is watching, maybe as in surveillance of US citizens might be considered, in the words of the US Constitution, “unreasonable search”. Or, with any means of testing with chances of false positives, if do lots of tests, then for nearly everyone will find at least one false positive. This way we could put on some shit list essentially everyone, more specifically, everyone the list maker didn’t like. There’s a word for this — tyranny.

Lots of people saw this danger in the old DARPA program of Total Information Awareness. Heck, in forbidding “unreasonable search” our Founding Father saw it.

Hell, we’d be making hot chocolate and yodeling in a couple of years.

That’s right: The gun violence statistics for people in the US but with recent Swiss origin are likely really good. So, to evaluate the rate of gun violence in the US, do the standard, first step in statistics of social science — control on likely variables. So, control on country of origin.

Similarly for test scores of students in K-12.

Now we will hear from the PC peanut gallery — “But that would be profiling!”.

Right, a.k.a., looking at the data.

Right: PC is full of ways to keep people from doing the obvious, looking at the data. Any bright Soviet out to weaken the soft headed US — having “fuzzy, bunny play time” — would have been really proud to have hooked the US on PC.

For 7., note what I said about government by omission, not commission.

For a better explanation, maybe there’re some things going on here we don’t understand.

I carry around a beat up copy of “life planning for the ceo” from the good folks at The Wisdom of the Campfire. I feel a strong pull towards the deeper stuff and even have been known to dig through the archives by month looking for that type of stuff. The “rules” are also a favorite. I come back everyday for the political stuff as well. Probably makes up 90 percent of what I read on gun reform and the election.

My current role as Director of Business Development (only one BD person at the firm, so director of myself) is in a brand new industry for me. We work as a subcontractor on large public energy efficiency projects. I’m sure you’ve heard of performance contracting. The piece that we specialize in is weatherization and mechanical insulation. My job, which didn’t exist before, is to find these projects and get us an “at bat”. I am loving it. Great people, culture, mission, values, business model, dollar weighted org chart, etc. There previously was zero “outbound” BD work done here. They were a successful small shop getting on by installing great projects. Have 1 relationship with a larger “ESCO” where we do 60% of our busniess (bit exposed).

My job is to make 10+ more of those relationships and blow it up. I have the freedom to build my own systems and design what I think is our best strategy. Blank check book, all the support in the world, where should I focus?

Not really a topic I guess, but I’m sure you can make a post out of it. Or not. I will keep coming back everyday anyway.

What’s the best thing that readers can do for you? Share, retweet, car wash gift cards, etc?

.
Got a little sloppy at the end of 2015 and am trying to stay in the traces a bit more. For some reason, readership has exploded. Don’t know for sure why.

Send me a topic you want to hear about and have a damn good year. You deserve it.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

The President gave an inspired speech on gun control replete with heartfelt emotion and tears. See it. Oscar worthy, really!

http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/president-obama-a-pen-a-cell-phone-an-emoticon/

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com