Classifying Predictions

-
Hat-tip Alex Popescu
Quickly identifying the type of a prediction will help you either create your own list or going through others’ much easier.
There are 4 types of predictions.
  1. Truism. This category should be obvious. Already confirmed facts, sometimes in a new packaging that is supposed to make them sound new, carrying no actual value, no new or interesting information.
  2. PR-esque. There are types of roles—think C-level management—requiring people to formulate some predictions characterized mostly by unjustifiable optimistism. These predictions usually take the form of: “this is the year of our product”. Sometimes there are facts or some truth behind them, but most often these are given an unbalanced weight or emphasis compared with reality.
  3. I told you so or It was me that said this firstly. There are jobs—think analysts or journalists—that require people to throw out the mostphantasmagoric predictions in the hopes that at some point in the future they’ll get any form of confirmation thus justifying their titles.
  4. Gibberish. These out of thin air predictions are formulated for making the numbers. Having 5 instead of 4, or 10 instead of 8 bullet points is more marketable.
The sad truth is, companies have way too much of a predilection for (1) and (2).  Furthermore, I'd actually add a 5th one (and I'm occasionally guilty of this one.  Hey, sue me, I'm only human)
5.   Re-Statement.These are exactly the same prediction as has already been made, just done differently to hit the numbers.
Actually, this makes it  TRIGR, which arguably sounds better.  Which makes the whole list meta and self-referential. Neat, eh?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Erlang, Binaries, and Garbage Collection (Sigh)

-
Image
The nice thing about garbage-collection is that it is makes memory management absolutely transparent to you Of course, the above is true right up to the point when it stops being transparent, at which point it does a phase change from nice to clusterf**k of biblical proportions .  There are entire posts, books, and suicide notes that have been written about this, and I have no great desire to add to them, save with the minor comment that paranoia about garbage-collection is still justified , albeit only in the edge-cases for most people. That said, I'll give you that Erlang GC is in many ways much, much better positioned in this regard than, oh, Java, but it still rears up and bites you in the butt when you least expect it. ( More information about Erlang's GC vis-a-vis Java here , and Jesper's truly excellent description of Erlang's GC here ).  A story from the past should serve to illustrate this. Once upon a time, in a magical land far far away - well, Her...
Read more

Spot The Difference — Deep Learning Edition

-
Image
You’ve played  Spot The Difference  at some point, right? (Of course you did. We  all  did  ). Think about what you actually did when you were trying to Spot The Difference — in fact, just do it again with SpongeBob juggling above. You’re probably doing something like 1. Quick glance to the left. 2. Quick glance to the right 3. “ Spatula on the left. Wonder if there is one on the right? ” 4. “ Yup, there is. Sriracha on the right. Is that on the left? ” 5. “ Nope! It’s a ketchup bottle on the left! And there is nothing on the plate below it! ” etc. To summarize, what you’re basically doing is looking at each image alternately, identifying objects in each image, and trying to find the same object in the other image. As it turns out, what most Deep Learning systems do is something quite different. They basically do something like this 1. Figure out everything in the first image (“ ketchup bottle at 1 o-clock, empty plate at 3 o-clock, spatula at 1...
Read more