Greedy Goblin

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Weekend minipost: Trump is "clueless again"

This time the newly elected US president "failed" by receiving a call from the president of Taiwan, which is against the policy of "One China". Then "naively" he tweeted "Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call."

I see two options:
  1. He is an idiot who has no idea about the US policy on China and doesn't understand the difference between unofficial arms deals and official relations.
  2. He is trying to start a trade war with China which was his major campaign promise using a morally unquestionable act that will provoke China to hit first.
Of course everyone goes with #1, since Donald has obviously no clue about nothing. After all pulling the impossible feat of winning a US presidential election as a total outsider, without party support against total media consensus, is a clear proof of being an idiot.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Smoking gun on Riot rigging

I expected proving Riot rigging League of Legends to be a complicated data analysis. Instead, I just bumped into a smoking gun:
Yes, I was autofilled into Bot role, despite I picked Jungle and Top and both jungle and top players were glad to do ADC. There is no other explanation for this than the game wanted us to lose and placed everyone purposefully to the wrong lane.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Politics after the press era

This isn't a Trump-celebration post, I did that right after the election. And yes, I endorsed him when no one believed that he'll win. This post is about his very new method of connecting to the people. I wrote:
The only risk left is that the establishment will try to isolate him from the people. What they couldn't reach with "Crazy Donald can't build a wall because he'll never be president" can succeed with "Great President Trump in his infinite grace should allow undocumented people to stay". But I'm not too afraid of that. Despite he is president elect, he keeps tweeting in his unique style, to the people directly, bypassing the media, which was, is and forever will be his mortal enemy.

In the old way the connection between the people and a democratically elected leader was very limited outside of election campaigns and both direction was controlled by the press. They reported the actions of the government to the people. They also reported the problems of the people and the government had to deal with these problems, couldn't ignore them anymore. Of course this placed huge power in the hand of privately owned corporations. They could form the opinion of the voters by one-sided reporting on the government and they could form the opinion of the government by reporting only on a well-selected slice of the problems of the people. You most probably heard much more about attacks performed by white supremacists than about welfare leeches, despite there are a handful of hate murders a year compared to the dozens of "robbery turned into murder" cases every day, mostly performed by unemployed young men.

The advancement in technology allowed us to communicate directly without personal connections. You are reading my words from thousands of miles without either one of us having to pay for this. Trump was the first politician really utilizing the full power of internet communications. While everyone else mirrors his press releases and reminders on the internet, Trump sends out original communication on Twitter. If you want to know the next appointee to his cabinet, you shouldn't watch newspapers, they will know when you know on Twitter. Since Trump, the fastest and most accurate information about the position of a politician is coming from the horse's mouth.

Unfortunately - and that's what I wrote about in the quote - this only works one way. The voters can't tweet their problems to the leader since it's impossible for him to follow millions of channels. So the voter to politician communication was bound to go the old way: gatekeepers - typically journalists - talk to the people, decide which problems are worthy and communicate these few ones to the leaders, giving them power over the perceived reality of the leaders. I didn't really see how could Trump overcome this problem without a huge staff doing communication collection - a staff he doesn't have. I feared that he'll have to use the press and the Establishment Republican staff, doomed to hear what these special interests want him to hear.

I underestimated him:

Since he had no perfect direct channel, he uses the imperfect he had during the campaign: reading the crowd physically present on his rallies. While it's still a small and self-selected sample of voters, it's not selected by any special interest group. Nothing stops a US citizen to show up on these "thank you" rallies and present his opinion to the president-elect by applause, booing and chanting.

I can't wait the crowd boo out Romney, demand the wall and to "lock her up".
Update: the rally is over and they did chant these things.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Warwick's plight

People hate Warwick. They often flame when I pick him. And, I pick Warwick 80% of the time, so they flame a lot. I barely see opponents picking Warwick or this champion listed as picks for other teammates when I check their stats out. So I started to wonder what's wrong with Warwick. I believe that Riot doesn't create seriously undertuned champions as it's not their interest to effectively destroy a champion and his sales and skin sales. Sure, some champions are a bit stronger than others, but a couple % of power doesn't matter in lower leagues.

So what's wrong with Warwick? Actually, the right question is "what's right with Rengar, Kha'zix, Vi, Lee Sin, Hecarim and Shacko?" who are so loved and feared (75% banrate!!! For Rengar, 47% for Kha). The answer is: these champions can farm noobs like Warwick cannot. Warwick is very hard to counter with his gap-close + stun + high damage ultimate, track+fast chase finisher and very high life steal rate that makes him very strong in 1v1. By the time you notice him coming, there isn't much you can do. The feared "super junglers" on the other hand are trivial to counter: place a ward and when you see them, run to your tower.

But placing wards and avoiding unwarded bushes is a skill rarely seen in Silver or Bronze. I often look at the minimap and see a situation that is a guaranteed gank for the enemy. I ping with the red exclamation mark and sometimes they run. Most times they just keep laning near the enemy tower with no ward behind them as easy food for the enemy jungler. You can see a Kha'zix doing nothing else but walking up and down on the river, getting kills left and right. If the teammates wouldn't be total noobs, or they wouldn't be totally occupied by micro-managing a champion they don't know, he would have zero kills.

Therefore Warwick is a perfect choice for my plan, to elevate ratings just by queue-dodging. No one will blame me for simply being mechanically skilled and carry games.

However if you aren't running a project, just want to get out of Bronze and Silver, just learn the "super junglers" and walk up and down the river.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

How to get rid of illegal immigrants without wall and deportations in spite of activists

Getting rid of illegal immigrants is hard. The reason for that is both stopping arrival and deportation are acts of force and therefore look bad on TV, attract activists protesting and make several officers disobeying based on conscience. Overcoming these problems have costs, making deportations and wall building expensive.

My suggestion is to ban non-critical positive trade to make the illegals leave on their own. What does it mean? The laws apply to citizens, companies and agencies, banning them from several actions and punish them for performing these. A non-complete list of actions:
  • giving illegals documents except for ones needed to return home. Illegals can't get driver's license or social security card or anything.
  • employing illegals as workers. Of course it must be supported by some electronic system that helps them filter those with fake documents.
  • admitting them to schools
  • selling them homes
  • renting them a flat
  • selling them banking and financial products (credit card, loans, insurances, investments)
  • selling them cable TV, internet services
  • selling them a car
The list is not complete but you get the picture. Please note that the list does not contain critical services like food, medical care, clothing, motel room. It also does not ban selfless help, you can legally invite an illegal to your home, let him watch your TV and drive your car. The point is that neither of the bans means act of force or harmful negligence. It's not like anyone is left for dead because of no cable. So no one will consciously disobey and rent them a flat anyway. It's easier and more "conscious" to just let them live in your flat for free. No one will form a protest because a car seller isn't selling a car to someone.

Why does it work? Because while having no cable or no car or no rent flat or no credit card or no school alone is an inconvenience, having no cable and no car and no rent flat and no credit card and no school is unbearable, but still not life-threatening. The protesters can't march around with photos of people died because of this, while there will be surely people dying when they cross the wall or get shot by deportation forces when they aggressively and disorderly resist. Also, a couple hundred protesters can make serious mess, while the same amount of selfless helpers can sustain only a few immigrants. Any remaining protesters can be dismissed as "selfish" and suggested to just help the immigrants instead of protesting.

Sure, there will be black market, but it has extra costs which breaks the point of illegal immigration. A hiding druglord can afford a straw-man renting his flat and buying his car and paying for his cable, but a genuine illegal immigrant working as a dishwasher cannot. They will simply find their stay unprofitable and surrender at the immigration office where they get a free trip home.

This isn't my punditry, it's the de facto system in Hungary and it works like a charm. Those immigrants who get through our "wall" (actually multiple lines of barbed wire fences) get the message fast and keep moving to Germany. Sure, we have some wealthy fugitives hiding (it was quite funny/embarrassing that an Interpol/FBI wanted business criminal was living literally as the neighbor of the prime minister's weekend home), but we are free of the typical immigrant leeches.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Is a win a week too much to ask?

I greatly improved my "teammate evaluation method". My last 20 games contain 11 wins, 5 losses and 4 remakes. Actually they should be 11-3, but I had a promotion chance to Silver 2 and queue dodge counts as a loss, so I took those two games despite the team was bad with "maybe the opposing team is even worse". What was the magical update?

I look for the last 14 days of games of teammates and consider everyone "bad" who doesn't have 2 wins with his chosen champion in two weeks. Also those who have horrible winrate with their chosen champion. I mean, is it too much to ask to have two damn wins in two weeks with the champion you pick? I have 30 wins and 13 losses with Warwick while 5 wins and 7 losses with Nunu last two weeks. So it's not like I expect something I don't deliver. Those who have 4+ wins and good winrate are considered "good". I take the game if the team if good - bad > 1.

Let's get back to the statistics. Last season the average players had 207 ranked games. That's less than one per day. OK, there are non-ranked games too, so let's double it. That means 20 games over 2 weeks. That's about 1/3 of what I'm doing. Yet, people don't focus on a few champions but have dozens in play. The result: they can easily pick a champion they didn't play for weeks because "it's a counter" and they look stupid when they end up dead. What did you expect punks, playing an unknown champion in a twitch game on ranked?!

Anyway, this new evaluation method will help me climb pretty well. And once I'll be lucky with promotions! It will need some luck as I'm currently rejecting 70% of the games, since asking for a win a weeks with the champion he just picked seems to be over-the-top elitism.

PS: at the time of writing this, my last game was a Warwick win with 8 / 8 / 20.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Why democracy export worked in Germany but not in Syria

Democracy export to the Middle East didn't work, no one doubts that. However it worked in Japan and Germany after WW2. So something must have went wrong. But getting the consequences of the last failure and doing it "better" next time ended up with just another failed state filled with head-chopping madmen.

I believe the problem is more systemic. Not democracy export failed. Democracy itself did. I believe that no method could create democracy in Syria, while Japan would have ended up democratic even if they won WW2.

I believe the key to democracy is single identity electorate. I mean that (the vast majority of) the voters see themselves as "us" and this includes the voters of the other party. Hungarian people see themselves and each other as Hungarian. We see the other party voters as misguided good people and try to persuade them to join the "right way". We might see the other party leaders liars and con-men and agents of Soros/Putin but we believe that their voters want the best for the Nation as a whole. So democracy can thrive in Hungary.

On the other hand if the electorate have several major identities and see the voters of the other party as "them", you have trouble. Since the voters vote for their "own" party (Hutu votes for Hutu, Tutsi votes for Tutsi), there is no point for the government to even attempt to govern well. Hutus will always vote for Hutu party, even if it governs horribly and Tutsis don't vote for it even if it's awesome. The result is of course horribly corrupted government and failures, which will be blamed on "them". The result is well-known.

There is no "Syrian" identity, so there won't be democracy there. The country must be split up into several small ones or must be governed by a dictator. Any attempt to democracy can only end up in what we see: civil war.

How to determine if a country can operate as a democracy? Simple: "can I guess someone's vote without talking about politics with him?" If not, the country is democracy-capable. If you see a Hungarian on the street, you can't tell how he voted. Actually if you talk to him you'll have trouble to pull anything political out of him until he accepts you as a friend. But in less fortunate places where the color, race, religion, language, tribal membership, gender or other identity marker can tell how he's voting, you are better off forgetting democracy.

Before you'd think this is an ironic piece about the failed identity politics of the USA, no. The USA is fine because the groups whose vote are predictable from their identity are tiny minorities who can't determine the election outcome. Hillary assumed that women will vote for her en masse and they didn't. Most voters are are ready to switch votes or don't even bother to vote. Politics is not tied to their identity.