Someone made sorting algorithms audible - so you can listen to them:

And this guy might be worse - he wrote a song about sorting!
Sung to the tune of Kenny Rogers’ The Gambler:

With all those random pivots, you’re gonna need to be quite lucky.
He said, “You might call it gamblin’, but to me it’s n-log-n”

I got two phone calls in as many days from telemarketers using words, shall we say, loosely.

I’m writing because

• These conversations amused me enough to share
• I searched for information without a lot of luck and this will provide a resource for the next guy
• It’s easier to write about this than some of the other topics in my queue

Conversation #2 - today, 9:00AM

I answer the phone.  They are already talking, sounds like I missed a couple of words…
“… courtesy call from The Rate Center … the letter you received or will be receiving … your rates have increased or will be increasing … we might be able to help with the rates.

Press 9 if you want to speak to a representative …”

What the heck.  I press 9 to see what it’s about.

“Would you like to talk to someone …”

me: “Who is this?”

“This is The Rate Center.” (the tone of voice says ‘Duh’)

me: “The ‘Rate Center’ for whom?”

<click>

Additional research says these folks are using a spoofed number in caller id and they won’t give out contact info.

“Do you have caller ID?”  “Then you should already have the number.”

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/7780006544

I received a call this afternoon (8/20/2010, 4:50 p.m.) that not only was in violation of do-not-call regulations but was also misleading and dishonest. A recorded message was worded to sound as if it was from a credit card company we do business with and said that we would be receiving a letter about a rate increase, and if we wanted to negotiate a lower rate to press 9. When I pressed 9 (so I could get the name of the company and make a complaint) I was connected to a woman who wanted to sell me a new credit card at a purportedly lower rate of interest than my current card(s)?  The number showing on caller ID, 778-000-6544, is a sham. I asked what the name of the company was and she replied, “The Rate Center”.  When I repeated the company name back to her she became rude and raised her voice and hung up.
Caller: The Rate Center
Call Type: Telemarketer

We are supposed to assume that this is a call from someone with whom we have an account, and this is their ‘rate center.’

Conversation #1, earlier this week

I answer the phone

“May I speak with Elijah’s mom or dad?”

me: “This is his dad.”  I already smell a fish, but decide to play with him.

“… I’ve been assigned to Elijah … Your son checked off a box saying he was interested in <something about preparing for the SAT or improving his scores>”

“Has your son told you about the changes to the SAT format?”

No, he doesn’t typically talk about stuff like that, though we know all about them., “Why, no.  He hasn’t.”

I can tell he’s excited.

He tells me all about the new essay portion and how that makes it harder and increases the need for preparation.

“blah blah blah … self paced lessons on CD … twenty minutes two days a week … they will arrive in about 10 days … when you get them … if you decide to keep them …. just need to confirm your mailing address …”

Waitaminnit

me: “Hold on.  I never said I wanted these.  I have a few questions.”

me: “Where would he have ‘checked’ this ‘box’?”

“Perhaps at a career day at school, or after a practice test, or perhaps in the counselor’s office …”

We homeschool, and are pretty sure our son is not hanging out with any counselors or taking practice test behind our backs.

 ”Hmm.  That sounds pretty vague, and none of those apply to my son.”  I wish I hadn’t said that - it put him on guard.

me: “So, you are ‘assigned to’ Elijah - by whom?”

he sounds a bit off guard

“Um ‘Student Services’ ” (duh.  and a good parent wouldn’t ask)

me: “‘Student Services of what? ”

<click>

This one really ticked me off.  They are preying on parents who want to believe their kids are striving to improve, and taking advantage of the fact that most of them don’t know exactly what is going on at school.  They are using words that imply association with the school without really saying so.

Again, further research shows that they don’t give out contact information, the return phone number does not work.  The cost (”$50″ or so) turns into a monthly cost, and it’s near impossible to stop the recurring charges.  If your son or daughter is around to answer questions (such as where this ‘box’ might have been checked) they will hang up.

I’d kind of like to know the law on this one - if I can get them to send me something on trial without asking for it or saying I want it, and without giving out a credit card number (duh), can I keep it?

Literacy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
• 42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
• 80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.

Wow.  That’s not the way to live.

That said, I’d better get off the computer and back to my stack of unread books.

Top of the list today:

Being Wrong.

I confess it has not really captured my interest yet, but I have high hopes.

Risk: A Practical Guide for Deciding What’s Really Safe and What’s Really Dangerous in the World Around You

Looks really interesting in light of today’s environment of Security Theater.

OK Cupid is a huge online dating site with a penchant for data analysis.  In this latest release, they found a correlation between sexual activity and smart phone brand (right).

With this summary from Wired:

“According to OK Cupid’s survey of 552,000 user pictures iPhone users have more sexual partners than BlackBerry or Android owners. By age 30, the average male iPhone user has had about 10 partners while female iPhone users have had 12. By contrast, BlackBerry users hover around 8 partners and Android users have a mere 6.”

“Anonymous Coward” at Slashdot concludes that “Numbers Show iPhone Owners Get More Sex.”

Meanwhile, the folks at Flowing Data points out that this is no more than correlation (never to be confused with causation, as every scientist and statistician should know) and that, just as likely, “iPhone users are more promiscuous.”

The whole thing is just packed with interesting discussion points about worldview, bias, and wishful thinking,

There’s more from OK Cupid - your online date will be 2 inches shorter than he claims, will make 20% less than he states, and that picture is at least two years old, especially if it’s good.

(more…)

(click for the video if you don’t see it)

The following excerpt is from my favorite investing blog (membership required, but lots of information is also available for free).  The added emphasis is mine.

SMI Weblog: Bear alert? Bah humbug.
The Hays methodology is to closely monitor three main market components — Psychology, Monetary, and Valuation. The “health” of these three components, measured by numerous indicators for each, is boiled down to a score of 1-6, with 1 being the best and 6 the worst. The interplay of these three scores gives them an idea of how attractive the market is at any given time, and by extension, how committed their clients’ assets should be to the stock market.

On Friday, Dodson wrote that their psychology composite had hit P1 last week, which is their most bullish reading. Here’s his comment:

“P1s are extremely rare. A P1 is bear market killing level of fear. Looking at our monthly tabulations of sentiment, a P1 has only occurred a couple of times since 1990: in October 2002 and October-December 2008. Both are on the who’s who list of market bottoms. For October 2002, it marked the ultimate low. In October 2008, it marked the market’s internal low and good entry point, but you really had to sweat it out until the ultimate market low in March 2009. That we have been able to hit P1 after a correction of 16% is astonishing. Investors sit on pins and needles.”

So, a “bear market killing level of fear” is a good thing!

This article, When it comes to research, we live in interesting times, make some really interesting points about popular science sources, and about more serious systematic reviews.  It’s a short article and worth clicking through.

The bottom line is that, for most of us, the information we have access to has already been filtered multiple times, with biases for availability, popularity, political correctness, and most of all, interestingness.

Quite apart from the fact that nobody wants to read all the evidence, there is a deep problem with the way evidence is selected throughout academia. Even a studiously impartial literature review will be biased towards published results. Many findings are never published because they just aren’t very intriguing. Alas, boring or disappointing evidence is still evidence. It is dangerous to discard it, but let’s not blame Malcolm Gladwell just because he doesn’t stick it on page one.

There’s a hierarchy of evidence here. The systemic review tries to track down unpublished research as well as what makes it into the journals. A less careful review will often be biased towards results that are interesting. A peer-reviewed article presents a single result, while a popular social-science book will highlight a series of results that tell a tale. The final selection mechanism is the reader, who will half-remember some findings and forget the rest.

Those of us who tell ourselves we are curious about the world are actually swimming in “evidence” that has been filtered again and again in favour of interestingness. It’s a heady and perhaps toxic brew, but we shouldn’t blame popularisers alone for our choice to dive in.

Flowchart Helps You Decide What Cereal to Eat(I got Grape Nuts - what did you get?)

(more…)

The New York Times bestseller list is even more easily manipulated than Billboard ever was. It doesn’t cost much to scam it and it’s pretty straightforward to buy your way onto the list (I know authors who have done this and consultants who sell this service.) You can hire a bunch of old ladies who will go into the ‘right’ stores and buy books on the right day. As a result of this distortion, the books on the list get more promoted, and thus sell more copies. It’s not pretty but it’s true. The Times is well aware that this is going on, that the list isn’t accurate, but they persist in publishing lists that are demonstrably wrong. (I still find this amazing, but it’s true).

There are firms dedicated to manipulating social networks and a whole industry dedicated to manipulating search engine results (Search Engine Optimization, or SEO.)

While the increasing torrent of information today makes “Best Of” and “Top N” sources more important than ever, they are all subject to manipulation to some degree.  Be skeptical.

Not too long ago, I was reading news at Yahoo.  The default view shows headlines grouped under “most recommeneded” and “most emailed”as well as several other categories of “Top”.  At one point, the actual number of recommendations or emails comprising “most” was available.  I was shocked to see that my viewing choices were seeded by three people.

Three.

And they probably all knew each other.