Deflategate

Tom Brady's 4 game suspension was reinstated today.  On twitter Brady is trending, and "Free Brady" is also trending.  There is obviously plenty people who think that the 4 game suspension is stupid.  I want to largely deal with the facts of the situation.  Did Tom Brady know about the football being deflated, and the answer to that is yes.  I think it's pretty damn obvious Brady knew about that.  Why would those Patriot ball boys deflate the ball without the knowledge of the quarterback?  How could Brady handle those deflated footballs on a regular basis, and not know they were deflated?  While those questions don't provide actual evidence, it is still hard to believe that Brady, at the least, didn't have any knowledge of the footballs being deflated.  Jim McNally called himself the deflator, and the Patriots didn't even deny that.  They just said he was called that because he was trying to lose weight.  If you want to believe that one than you can keep drinking the Tom Brady Kool-Aid.  There were plenty texts sent back and forth between John Jastremski, and McNally in which they chat about Tom Brady, and the footballs.  One text states 'Tom is acting crazy about the balls'.  In another McNally seems to joke about the idea of inflating balls as revenge against Brady for his complaints.  Brady and Jastremski began speaking to each other on the phone more frequently after the January 2015 AFC Championship Game.  There is no real smoking gun.  They didn't find any text from Brady admitting that he asked for the balls to be deflated.  There is nothing of that sort, but why should there be.  You should expect Tom Brady to do a pretty good job of covering his tracks. 

There is also the "coincidence" that Brady destroyed his phone right before meeting Ted Wells.  Now why would Brady do such a thing?  It could have been for privacy but a Deadspin article stats, Wells only wanted someone to search the phone for Brady's text with certain key words in them.  He didn't want to dig into Brady's personal life.  Adding more suspicion to the destruction of cell phone is that Brady gave a forensic examiner two phones that he had used around the time, that he would have used the phone he destroyed.  The Deadspin article mentions one phone probably being active between May 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014.  The other was active from March 6, 2015, until April 8, 2015.  March 6 is the date that Brady met up with Ted Wells.  So he started using his new phone, on the same date he met with Wells, and not long after destroying the other phone.  If Brady could hand over those phones, why wouldn't he hand over the phone that he destroyed, or at least give that to the forensic examiner?

There are still some people who hold on to the belief that Brady didn't know about the deflating of the footballs, but many arguing for Brady don't even bring up that point.  They think that the 4 game suspension was too much.  I think that a four game suspension is fair enough.  It seems to me that the NFL players union is becoming more like social justice warriors, while the league can be seen as representative of the system.  The players union bickers, and complains, about so much shit, and they often seem to get their way.  The NFL seems to lose in court quite a bit, and Roger Goddell for some reason, seems to make the perfect whipping boy.  I don't think Pete Rozell, and Paul Tagliabue had their authority stepped on the way that Goddell has.   Players appeal even the most obvious suspensions, in which their actions are caught on camera.  There are complaints about CTE, and the risk players, but then you hear a bunch of complaints about how they won't let the defenders be physical anymore.  The league just can't do enough to make the players union happy.






References
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25185129/patriots-attendant-called-himself-deflator-because-he-was-trying-to-lose-weight

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=evidence+against+tom+brady

http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4420576-richard-sherman-seattle-seahawks-suspension-overturned-appeal-adderall

The Bernie Sanders Guy

Bernie Sanders lost New York.  I mean he got some delegates, but he is way behind
Hilary Clinton in terms of delegates.  Looks like he has a slim chance of becoming
the Democratic candidate for president.  Sanders is a favorite of some of my facebook
friends.  I think of him as a Social Justice Warrior running for president.  Back in
the day, like 50 years ago, he was marching for desegregation.  Nowadays though, I have
no problem considering him an SJW.  One example of what I don't like
about Sanders comes from when he was confronted by Blacks Lives Matter protesters. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV-ZSP0zAuI

The women rudely interrupted Sanders during his speech, and got right in front of the
podium.  They were completely disrespectful to whoever it was in the hat, that tried to
calm things down.  What did Sanders do in this situation.  He pandered to the women,
 and kissed ass.  He even offered a handshake at first, which wasn't accepted. He moved
aside, and let them speak.  He let them take over what was supposed to be his time. 
Even Bernie's ass kissing wasn't enough to get him out of this one.  While some people
may see this as some great act of restraint , I thought that it went to far.  They talked
down to him, and he didn't even speak to defend himself.  This seems like the SJW way of
dealing with blacks.  As many white SJWs appear afraid to criticize blacks, unless that black person is an extreme conservative.

I can see why some of my SJW facebook friends like Bernie so much.  He wants to raise
minimum wage to 15$ an hour.  I've read articles from financial experts on the topic, and none of
them thought that this was a good idea.  It isn't a good idea to raise minimum wage that
high anytime in the near future.  It would lead to massive layoffs, and even greater
economic inequality.  He wants women to get equal salary, but hasn't addressed the main
causes for that wage gap.  Women work less hours than men, and are more likely to work
in lower paying fields. 

It isn't that Hilary Clinton is great.  She's a liar, an opportunist, and her idea of
raising minimum wage to 12$ isn't realistic either.  Still Clinton has an understanding
that change is brought about slowing.  Sanders seems to not give a fuck.  He wants to
change minimum wage to 15 bucks.  He wants to change up Wall Street in a way that seems completely unrealistic for the next 4 or 8 years.

Maybe if Bernie can't become president he can tell those BLM women who protested his
event to bend over, while he chews their asses out.

When mind reading is simply complex mathemathics

I've seen these types of videos before.  Someone says that they can read your mind, and then gives you some math questions.  You start off with a number, then do some other math, and end up with an answer that matches up to what the person in the video says it will.  Usually these math tricks are very easy for me to figure out, but I ran into one that was a bit more complex.  It was a video from SoFlo's facebook page that was shared by someone who is a friend of mine of facebook.  The instructions went like this

Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 5
Multiply by 50
Add 1766 if you had your birthday this year, or 1765 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth

The first digit of the number will be the number you chose and the other two will be your age. The guy in the video says that you will get a 3 digit number.  It works just fine, though if you start off with the number 10, you will get a four digit number, with the first two being the number 10.  Still only a small portion of people are going to pick ten.  Firstly it makes up just 10% of possible numbers for you to pick, and my guess would if you ask a large group people to think of a number between 1 and 10,  less than 10% of them would think of 10. 

  I already knew before I did the math that it was a mathematics and not mind reading (which I don't believe in anyway),  I just wanted to figure out how to break it down, and explain it, so I thought it provided a nice little challenge.  In searching google I found a chat from 2004 in which someone broke down a similar problem using algebra.  In their equation they used X to represent the number you started off with.  I wanted to find a way to break the problem down in a less algebraic fashion.  After some time of looking for patterns.  I came to a conclusion.  One important part of the formula is that the two numbers which you multiply in the equation are 2 and 50.  If you multiply those numbers together you get 100.  This assures you that the last two digits will be the same, no matter what number you start off with.   If you start off with 2, then that number you end up with will be 100 greater than what you would end up with if you started with 1.  You also need to make sure that the number you have before you subtract your age is one that will make the problem work.  Here's a breakdown of what that number should be using some algebra, in which X represents the number you think of before doing the math, or, as I'll call it, the starting number

Current Year +  100X      if your birthday has passed this year
(Current Year-1)+100X    if it hasn't

The current year is 2016, lets make it more simple.  The formula would then be 2016+100X, if your birthday has passed this year, or 2015+100X if it hasn't.  If your starting number is 1, then the number you have before you subtract your year of birth should be 2116, or 2115 respectively.  If it is 2, then it should be either 2216, or 2215.  If it's 3 then you should have either 2316, or 2315.  I came up with a similar formula that works

Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 4
Add 5
Multiply by 25
Add 1891 if you had your birthday this year, or 1890 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.

It works just the same.  In fact if you take it beyond three digits numbers it works for numbers past 10.  I tried the same for numbers 15, 25, 99, 100, and 1000.  No matter what my starting number is, the last two digits in the answer are my the age, and the other digit(s), is the starting number.  Here are some other ways to use the same math, and just changing numbers up.

Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 5
Add 5
Multiply by 20
Add 1916 if you had your birthday this year, or 1915 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth.


Instead of adding 5 lets take the original formula, and add a different number, and come up with something that works

Think of a number between 1 and 10
Multiply by 2
Add 4
Multiply by 50
Add 1816 if you had your birthday this year, or 1815 if you haven't
Subtract your year of birth

Let's look at this problem as having different steps.  Multiplying 2 is the first step, adding 4 is the second, and so on.  The keys to the formula is that the numbers in step one, and three are numbers that when multiplied together give you 100, and then in step 4 you want to add a number that is going to make the problem workout.

It is also worth noting that it is no coincidence that this problem is being brought to us in a leap year.  The chat about the similar equation, also came from a leap year (2004).  If you were doing the problem in a year that wasn't a leap year, you may need to make a slight change for those who were born on a leap day.  If the date is before March, then everything is fine.  If it's after March then someone who was born on a leap day can just treat it as if their birthday has already passed in that year.

Wrestlemania III attendance

Last night was WrestleMania 32.  I didn't watch it, but twitter keeps you updated on what's going on.  I wanted to find what attendance number the WWE was going to say they had, and also wanted to know the actual attendance.  Last night's announced attendance was 101,763, and according to Brian Alvarez of the Wrestling Observer, Dave Meltzer got the real number from the stadium, and it was just under 94,000.  I thought about WrestleMania III.  The announced attendance was 93,173, but Meltzer said the real attendance was 78,000.  Either way last night's WrestleMania beat out the 78,000 number, and if we are to believe what Meltzer was told it was higher than the billed 93,173.  Because of that, this might be late, but I felt like looking at WrestleMania III and explaining why I believe Meltzer when it comes to the attendance at that event.  Perhaps it speaks to the magnitude of the event that there has been heavy debate over what the actual attendance figure is.  Now it's accepted that the WWE lies about their attendance figures, but it's so hard to believe that the attendance for WrestleMania III was as low as 78,000 (still a really high number). 

When I read, years ago, about how Meltzer learned of the real attendance being 78,000 I didn't believe it.  I had gone to Silverdome.com, and the site said that the arena seated 80,325 and had a capacity of about 90,000 for wrestling, and motocross (not sure if it was motocross).  That was years ago, but today I looked up the Pontiac Silverdome on google, and the stadium which is set to me demolished this spring, is listed as having a capacity of 80,311.  That capacity wouldn't include floor seats, and for those who believe in the 93,173 number, and for many who believe that it was at least in the 80,000s, that is the key.  The argument for there being 93,173 in attendance goes something like this.  There were 80,325 seats in the stands, and the stands were full.  Add in a bunch of people in floor seats, and 93,173 makes sense.  If you think about it that way the 78,000 number does not make sense, so how do you explain it.  Well for one even if the stands were full, there is no way there were enough people on the floor for them to have 93,173 people in attendance.  That would mean there would have to have been nearly 13,000 on the floor.  That would be enough to make a nice looking crowd at Madison Square Garden.  There weren't nearly that many people on the floor.  Then there is the stands.  Today the WWE uses a huge Titantron, which blocks a number of seats.  They didn't have anything like that back then, but there were still seats being blocked.  It isn't easy to catch, and I haven't read anything about it.  I was playing WWE 2k14, and noticed at the WrestleMania III arena there was some yellow contraption right over the ring entrance.  In the game there were people seated behind it, but I was wondering if I could spot the real one watching a video of WrestleMania III, and was anyone sitting behind it.  So I watched, and there it was above the entrance, and the old WWF logo

Behind it was empty seats, and at top there is a camera.  Sure there aren't thousands of empty seats behind, but I found something.  Looking at the event I noticed other spots in which the same type of yellow structure was used, and there were either a good number of empty seats behind it, or I couldn't tell.


Here's a shot of another area, where you can see the same type of structure, and see the empty blue behind it, which are empty seats

 


I saw another while watching Aretha Franklin sing America The Beautiful, and there was another that you could see when you saw the footage from the hard cam.  I'm sure those weren't the only ones.  For the 78,000 number to be accurate there wouldn't need to be a ton of those structures around.  The WWF
 had cameras all over the place that night in the Silverdome, and obviously some of them were being mounted on structures that were right in front of empty seats, besides why would you want to seat audience members behind something like that.  Whatever the case there certainly were not 80,000+ people in the stands.  I already believed the 78,000 attendance figure given by Meltzer, but I was wondering how there weren't about 80,000 in the stands.  Now there is less wondering for me to do about that.