Slashdot Mirror
Nate Silver, Microsoft Research Predict the Oscars
Nerval's Lobster writes "Nate Silver, famous for applying rigorous statistical methods to U.S. political elections, has focused his predictive powers on a somewhat more lighthearted topic: this weekend's Academy Awards. As part of his predictive analysis, Silver rounded up the various awards that precede the Academy Awards, including those from the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild; in his calculations, he gave additional weight to those awards with a higher historical success rate, and doubled the score 'for awards whose voting memberships overlap significantly with the academy.' But he isn't the only statistician predicting this year's Oscar winners: David Rothschild, a member of Microsoft's massive research division, has also developed a data-driven model. What does their number-crunching predict? That Argo will win Best Picture, and a bunch of people will win other things."
"That Argo will win Best Picture, and a bunch of people will win other things."
No shit!
Because I could predict "a bunch of people will win other things."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
He could use his powers of predicition to devine when the Azure SSL cert needs to be renewed.
hey! they admit it. newspapers and movies.
Anonymous Coward, famous for anonymity and cowardice, doesn't care.
So having a guess from our Microsoft Research expert's blog:
1. Grabs the odds from Intrade, Betfair and HSX
2. Sources data from 'user generated data' ie social networks
3. Does a little a maths
4. Claims to be a forecasting guru
And with no real detail on #3 beyond being heavily weighted towards the betting/prediction markets and effectively just picking the favourites in every market, this is kind of useless.
The only interesting aspect is that the certainty for high likelihood winners is higher than any individual predictor ...
For example, Spielberg for Best Director with Lincoln:
Intrade: 75%
HSX: 51%
Betfair: 76%
User-data: 81%
Forecast: 88%
That suggests either:
- historically these prediction markets have under-estimated the numbers for popular favourites, which is consistent with inefficient betting markets where people will back long-shots more than they should due to the perception of good odds
- his model concludes that if 4 data points to a win, then the likelihood is even stronger
He could use his powers of predicition to devine when the Azure SSL cert needs to be renewed.
sicky note. I would say outlook, but its not very good.
if you can't vote for CowboyNeal
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
[quote]...Microsoft have had there behinds kicked around so badly, that when they describe new technology they describe the pack of 4 "Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon", you would have thought with all this analysis, they could done better with the internet[all of it], social media, smartphones, mp3 players, tablets...all their money still comes from Office/OS.[/quote]
How is any of this even remotely relevant to a story about statistics?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
... and as a Canadian, inaccurate to the point of being offensive, I think.
It is hardly unprecedented for a a movie to attribute credit to the US where it was not deserved. The movie U-571 substituted an American crew for the British who captured the Enigma machine. On the other hand, the British 2001 film Enigma, about the cracking of the device at Bletchley Park whitewashed Poland's earlier cracking efforts and how they advised the Brits on how to do it (although the British did take this effort much further).
So it is not just a US phenomenon to cast themselves in the starring role. The easiest way to deal with this is to assume that all war films are propaganda films, and will always skew the facts for reasons of patriotism.
that his performance on this is closer to his political prognostication and not his NFL predicitions.(You know, where he said the Patriots would go on to win the superbowl.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Agreed. I saw it and thought It was OK, but that I should have waited til it came to cable.
I don't know the accurate story, so perhaps I'm missing something here, but I did see the movie - and the Canadians (i.e., the ambassador and his wife) are depicted as caring, compassionate, and entirely willing to take significant personal risk in order to help out six random employees of their neighbor to the south when no other English-speaking nation would. That's offensive?
I read because he has that rare geek skill to actually explain how he gets there with his result - and he does it masterfully, entertaining me. Right or wrong, his prediction for Oscars made sense and almost all fell in place, except he did not see Christoph Waltz coming. Also he agrees that this is not similar to predicting politics or sports, because lot of unknown data involved.
On unrelated note still lot of good cinema comes out every year, even in Hollywood - and not giving any movie clear victory this year is evidence of that. While I hate it for what I see as control obsession over their produce, I still loud artistic victory where I (subjectivelly of course) see one. And I celebrate all kind of good cinema.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Argo is offensive (to Canadians) because almost every plot point in the movie is utter fiction and the true story is a Canadian one, not CIA. Just for example, CIA Agent Mendez was in Iran for less than 36 hours. "Argo" wasn't his idea, it was a Canadian's. Research this all on the Internet for yourself. You'll see.
Argo should be offensive to all filmgoers because it's fiction being sold as truth. Affleck said the story was tweaked just a bit to maintain audience interest--and that's another lie on top of the lies.
It's not an awards show. It's an advertising campaign. Nothing but a big event various studios fund to slap a 'Go watch this!' stamp on their own products. The big awards have little if anything to do with the actual quality of the movie - it's all business.
As evidence of this claim, I just point out that Transformers won three oscars. Two of them for the sound.
Even those doing nature documentaries often set up stuff or even fake things!
You're not kidding.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Offensive? as in rewriting history and presenting it with an air of truthiness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)
In a CNN interview, President Carter addressed the controversy by stating: "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck's character in the film was... only in Tehran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."
Upon its wide release in October 2012, the film was criticized for its claim that the New Zealand and British diplomats had turned away the American refugees in Tehran. Diplomats from New Zealand had proved quite helpful; one drove the Americans to the airport. The British hosted the Americans initially, but the location was not safe and all considered the Canadian ambassador's residence to be the better location. British diplomats also assisted other Americans beyond the six. Bob Anders, the U.S. consular agent played in the film by Tate Donovan, said, "They put their lives on the line for us. We were all at risk. I hope no one in Britain will be offended by what's said in the film. The British were good to us and we're forever grateful."
In the film, the diplomats face suspicious glances from Iranians whenever they go out in public, and appear close to being caught at many steps along the way to their freedom: while pretending to scout for filming locations at a bazaar; while purchasing plane tickets to Zurich; while trying to board the plane; and finally before the plane takes off, when Iranian guards try to stop the plane in a dramatic chase sequence. In reality, the diplomats never appeared to be in imminent danger: the six never went to a bazaar, Taylor's wife bought three sets of plane tickets from three different airlines ahead of time, there was no confrontation with security officials at the departure gate, and there was no runway chase at the airport.
The film contains other historical inaccuracies:
The climax of film is a chase down an airport runway, as gun-toting members of the Revolutionary Guard try to stop the plane bearing the American refugees from taking off. "Absolutely none of that happened," says Mark Leijek. "Fortunately for us, there were very few Revolutionary Guards about. It's why we turned up for a flight at 5.30 in the morning; even they weren't zealous enough to be there that early. The truth is the immigration officers barely looked at us and we were processed out in the regular way. We got on the flight to Zurich and then we were taken to the US ambassador's residence in Berne. It was that straightforward."[28]
The part of the plot about the Revolutionary Guards discovering the diplomats' identities is fictional. They had left Iran with their fake identities with no hassle. So the scenes of trouble with the bearded guard at the last check point, the scene of the commander raiding the Canadian ambassador's residence, and the entire chasing scene at the airport and even on the runway are fictional.[29]
The character of the guards commander, Ali Khalkhali is fictional.[30]
There is a sequence in the film where the six go on a location scout in Tehran to create the impression they are movie people. According to Mark Lijek, the scene is total fiction.[31]
"It's not true we could never go outside. John Sheardown's house had an interior courtyard with a garden and we could walk there freely," Mark Lijek says.[32]
The screenplay has the escapees - Mark and Cora Lijek, Bob Anders, Lee Schatz and Joe and Kathy Stafford - settling down to enforced cohabitation at the residence of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor. In reality, after
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
So Nate Silver does politics, and slashdot is all over it, and the /. article about it gets many many responses [currently shows that it had 576 responses in all, with 144 scoring at or over 2, 79 at or over 3, 56 at or over 4, and 32 scoring 5 /. poll asking about tonights Oscar Awards ceremony asking who was watching, who would be attending Oscar-watching parties, who even cared about who might win awards. The winning poll entry would probably be "crickets chirping", because since there are only 7 postings thus far that score over 2 points (and only 49 postings at all [!!!] at 2 a.m. PST the morning after), it's obvious that this is not the topic for /.
.
Now, Nate Silver predict-o'matics the Ocsar Awards and it become obvious that the slashdot crowd is definitely not the Oscar-watching, red-carpet fawning, entertainment-industry-drooling set of consumer-bots that Hollywood really wants to advertise to.
:>)
There ought to have been a
Only real miss: Best Supporting Actor (Swartz vice Tommy-Lee ... prediction was off by a good margin)
Other miss but too close to call: Best Director (Lee vs Afleck but they margin between the two in the prediction was so close as to be noise)
Good enough.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
How awards shows work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmMCbsaiuNQ
Wow, I'm shocked. You mean the movie about how the world was saved by movie makers was the favorite among people who make movies for a living? How did that happen?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.