a birthday to share

It's well known that, if you have a room with 23 randomly chosen people*, there is a greater-than 50% probability that at least two people share a birthday. If there are 22 or fewer people, then the chances of a shared birthday are less than 50%. Demonstrating this is a simple exercise in first-semester probability.

So I was wondering how many people you need for the probability of at least three people sharing a birthday to be >50%? Or at least four people? Or at least five people? To the best of my knowledge, there's no elegant closed-form expression for the generalized case of n people. But I think I have the answer for three people: 88.

Rather than go through all the arithmetic, I built an Excel file to simulate it. For these purposes, a trial consists of selecting 88 integers from 1 to 365 (with replacement) and determining if there was a number chosen at least three times. A trial is successful if there was an integer chosen at least three times.The success rate is shown in cell A94. One can run the 1000 trials by clicking on any empty cell. The file is here.  No, I didn't pretty it up. It would be easy enough to build it to perform more trials in one run -- in fact, I originally created it to go through 2500 trials. But file-size is a concern. If you want more trials, just run it repeatedly and write down the success rates. The average of the success rates of five runs is the equivalent of the success rate of one run with 5000 trials. Anyway, when I ran this repeatedly, I got success rates above 50% more than half the time. When I modified the file to look at the case where you choose 87 integers, I got success rates above 50% less than half the time.

If any mathy types are reading this, I'd be interested in knowing:
1) Is there an elegant closed-form solution for 3? For n?
2) Assuming so, does it confirm or deny that it takes 88 people?

*Assuming that birthdays are uniformly distributed across the calendar, and ignoring leap year.

cinema history class: the mad executioners

Session: Krazy Krimis -- Get Your Krimi On, Week 1
Movie 1: The Mad Executioners (1963)
Directed by Edwin Zbonek
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A mysterious secret society is trying, convicting and executing people who they believe have escaped the justice system. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
Watching this movie, I couldn't help thinking of some people -- Al Sharpton, George Zimmerman, Bernie Getz, OJ Simpson...

There's something appealing -- in a purely fantastic sense -- to the thought of vigilantes serving justice where the system can't. That was a big reason for the success of the Death Wish movies and The Punisher (in its various incarnations) -- though the action did, admittedly, help. The problem, of course, is that society can't actually condone vigilantism; if it does, then it falls into chaos. Who gets to decide who is truly guilty? The four names above are the subject of some controversy over their parts in, uh, disputed events. But we have courts to adjudicate these things, and as a society we live with their decisions.

But this topic is the main issue underlying The Mad Executioners. And we see in it police feeling torn about whether the vigilantes are performing a service or tearing the fabric of society.

But enough of this philosphizing...

MadEx was, I believe, the first krimi I've seen, so it's hard for me to put it in context. I think the rest of the class was in the same boat. But, all things, considered, it was very entertaining, and you could see how these were stylistic precursors of the giallos. We see the murders happening -- there's no real mystery there. But the killers are all masked, so we don't know who they are, and that's where the mystery is. That's very similar to a lot of the giallos I've seen.

It did a good job of keeping us guessing, and the red herrings were well-done. I do have to wonder why a movie such as this never gained more widespread popularity. Hell, it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. Oh well...

Ratings:
Me: 9
Dave: 9.7-9.8
Ethan: 8
Joe: 9.8
Sean: 2 out of 4

volokh, hinderaker ... whinston?

A year or so after I put ads on this blog, I finally join the pantheon of professional bloggers.

OK, that may be a bit over the top. Bit I got the first payment for ad revenue on my blog. I can't quit m,y day job, but it's more than enough to pay for a round of Slurpees for the whole family. So I am saying I'm a professional blogger.

This is sort of how I felt when I first was able to say I was a professional writer, a professional songwriter, a professional pornographer, a professional humorist, a professional photographer.

Thanks to all those who clicked on the ads. Please do it again.

defensive driving boredom

I devoted more than six hours this weekend to taking an online defensive driving course. Yeah, it's my triennial ritual. For those who are unfamiliar, in New York you can get 10% off on your auto insurance if you take the course. Once you take the course, the discount applies for three years. I know that other states have similar programs.

I took the one offered by American Safety Council. There are others. I chose that one because, well, because. As expected, it was an exercise in excruciating boredom. But I assume that's true of the other available classes, but I can't say for sure, since I didn't take the others. Ah, hell, who am I kidding? I'm sure the others are also terribly boring.

What I'd really like to know is whether these classes actually improve highway safety -- and how much. I suppose there's some positive effect, since I know that I am more conscious of some highway safety issues for some amount of time after I take that class. But I doubt that the classes improve safety enough to actuarially justify a 10% discount. If they did, then the insurance companies would, of their own volition, give the discount for taking the class; there'd be no need for the DMV to require it.

A couple other observations:

• The ASC needs to improve their biometric confirmation system. Before the class begins, you have to call in and read a bunch of numbers from which they create some kind of voice profile. Then, while taking the class, you will occasionally be told to call a phone number and read more numbers. Their system uses that to confirm that it's really you taking the class.The first three times I went through it, after I read the numbers, a recording informed me that I had failed the biometric screening. But it continued as if all was well. The fourth time I failed the screening, I was locked out of the class and had to call to talk to a real person to get unlocked. This raises a question: Those first three times that it said I failed, did I actually fail (which means there's a four strikes rule), or is there a glitch in their software that makes it sometimes say you failed when you passed? I say sometimes because there were a couple times that it said I passed.
• Whoever put the thing together got sloppy. The narrator's voice was, almost always, reading the words that were on the screen. But I noticed a couple places that there was a URL displayed, but the narrator read off something different. Also, there were a couple words (chassis and susceptible) that were consistently mispronounced.
• I am in no hurry for the next three years to go by. I don't look forward to taking this again.

cinema history class: the player

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 5
Movie 1: The Player (1992)
Directed by Robert Altman
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A high-powered Hollywood exec is getting threatening postcards. So he kills the guy he thinks is sending them. And shtups the guy's girlfriend for good measure. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
I actually came into this session expecting to not like the movie. But I was pleasantly surprised by a tense, dramatic thriller with humor.

As a group, we had a bit of a lively discussion as to what genre the movie fits in. It's been characterized as a dark comedy, but that doesn't seem quite right. It has elements of film noir -- especially the way the camera is used. But the dialogue never really achieves that staccato nature that I associate with noir. There was some discussion of Hitchcock, and we did agree that this is something that Alfred Hitchcock would have put out -- had he been putting out movies in 1992. Altman himself seems to have thought as much, as he stuck in a sort of Hitchcock cameo.

One of the most notable things about The Player is the cleverness of some of the lines. My favorite is "You took her to a party...with several hundred of my best friends." Another came near the very end of the movie: "You can guarantee me that ending, you got a deal." Out of context, it's not so great. But in the context of the conversation, it was sublime. And, thing is, I didn't even catch the meaning until after the film was over and we were discussing it.

I am left with one question. Are guys, generally speaking, so wierded out by menstruation that they get unnerved by the sight of a policewoman twirling a tampon (an unused tampon, still in its wrapper)?

Ratings:
Me: 9.85
Dave: 10
Ethan: 8
Joe: 8.7*
Keith: 10

*Joe explained his rating as follows: 1 for Whoopi Goldberg, 10 for Tim Robbins, 10 for the struggle of writers, 10 for dialogue, 10 for the ending he was thinking of, 10 for the actual ending and 10 for Hitchcock. He specified that these seven ratings should be equally weighted. Thank God I majored in averages.

ethan comments on rdr2

Ethan's third video for his Youtube channel.* The first two were cooking videos. This time, though, he turned his attention to the world of video games.

Rockstar Games is releasing Red Dead Redemption 2 this fall. By all accounts it's a game-changer -- I know Ethan has been looking forward to it for a while. So when Rockstar put out a Youtube video showing actual gameplay (with their commentary over it), he was all over the video.

For his video (above), Ethan added his comments -- generally observations about the gameplay. I won't spoil it by parphrasing, though I will say that this has upped his sense of anticipation. Once the game comes out, I doubt I'll hear much from him until after Thanksgiving.

*He made a prime rib for my birthday dinner. He and Sharon videotaped the process for a video -- which would become his third video. Now if they'd only edit the dang footage and upload it...

stupid rules yield stupid outcomes

I heard at work about two interesting things that happened in minor league baseball. You can read details about the events here.

But first, some background. This year some of the minor leagues instituted a stupid rule that extra innings begin with a runner on second base. That has allowed for some previously-impossible occurences.

Retiring the side on two pitches
In a game between the Rome Braves and the West Virginia Power, Rome's Hayden Deal retired West Virginia on two pitches. The first pitch resulted in a line drive double play. The second pitch was also hit for a line drive out. Here it is.

Pitching a perfect game and losing
The Tampa Tarpons pitched a perfect game against the Clearwater Threshers and lost. Their pitchers didn't allow a baserunner, but the runner who started on second base came around to score.

Now, at the risk of playing devil's advocate, I don't know for sure if this counts as a perfect game. Did the powers that be ever sit down and decide, given the rules change, what constitutes a perfect game? The classic definition is that no one gets on base. Here, the runner didn't "get" on base through play. He was placed on base to start an inning. That said, he managed to advance, and it seems to me that, by definition, a perfect game entails not letting the runner advance. But I don't make the definitions, and I have heard the event referred to as a perfect game -- even if the article I linked above didn;t call it one.

cinema history class: the kennel murder case

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month 2018, Week 4
Movie 1: The Kennel Murder Case (1933)
Directed by Michael Curtiz
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A rich, but hated, man has apparently committed suicide. But all is not as it appears. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:
Before we watched the film we had some discussion as to whether it counts as a noir -- or maybe a proto-noir. The thing is, Ethan was the only one in the room who had aseen the film before. So Keith (and the rest of us) could only guess on the basis of reputation.

My thinking -- and I think the others agree -- is that it's not a proto-noir. It's easy to see how this influenced film noir, and it does have lots of elements of noir. But it doesn't have the same use of shadow or quick dialogue. And the tension isn't ratcheted up the same way as in a good noir. It is, however, a good whodunit.

One of things I found really interesting is the way, early on, we have several vignettes to establish why and how everyone hates Archer Coe (the victim). It's sort of a parade of suspects. Almost enough to make you think everyone ganged up on the victim to do him in together.

On the other hand, I was kind of put off by the way Phil Vance (the detective), at the end, walks us through the murder and subsequent events. He neatly ties up all the loose ends, but it leaves me scratching my head in disbelief. It's all really too much for him to put together.

As a father, I was really proud that Ethan chose this movie. A big reason that we first met Keith was that I was bothered by Ethan's interest in modern ultra-violent and ultra-gory horror movies, to the exclusion of other films. I was hoping we could get him a different perspective. The fact that he chose this just means that, well, Mission Accomplished!

Ratings:
Me: 9
Dave: 10
Joe: 10
Keith: 10
Sean: 2 out of 4

ich bin ein d'foogy

So, I've been thinking recently about the possibility of changing my name to Heeblewenzinko D'Foogy. No, there isn't really a realistic possibility of my doing it. But I will admit to getting some amusement from the thought of going in to HR at work and telling them that I've made such a change. And of having such a name on the plate by my office door. And on memos.

But I can't do it. There are two main reasons:

• Blair wouldn't like it, and my plan is to stay married to her until I die.
• I need to keep my job. I wouldn't get fired for such a name change, but I don't think it would be a good career move.

So, unless I find myself single and financially secure enough that I can afford to be laid off, I'm not doing it. That said, I have, over the years, used variations of the name (e.g., Hobart Del Foogy, H.D. Foogy, Heeby Der Foogowitz).* But "Heeblewenzinko D'Foogy" is the gold standard of potential new names for me.

And if my friends don't want to learn how to say "Heeblewenzinko," I'll tell them they can call me "Zinko" for short.

For other examples of ill-advised name changes, see this article.

*I have also used a variety of other names -- usually for writing letters to newspapers -- that were unrelated to the phenomenon that is "Heeblewenzinko D'Foogy." The following is a partial list of ones that I remember offhand:

Ling Soo O'Reilly

Ken Thister

Joseph E. Thumpe

Millicent Dixon

Tyrone Laces

Q. Winston Brockmoore

Masanori Murakami

Jonathan Schmeckelieber

Angel Mavet