F1 2021 - Azerbaijan Grand Prix

The Baku chaos bonanza was definitely open for business on Sunday.  If nothing else, *something* always happens at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.

I could have done with fewer tyre blow-outs.  I'm with Mark Webber, both the accidents could have been a lot worse, very easily.

Discussing Aussie Grit, he treated us to yet more amusing weird commentary noises.  I think the moment deserved that shriek.  Because, yes, by mistakes like Hamilton's are Driver's World Championships won and lost.

It was an amazing race for swings in Championship lead, and there was actual overtaking.  Non-DRS overtaking at that.

From an infinitely more biased Ferrari perspective, the good (and the cookie) come from the pole position.  If only the car had performed in the race.  I know I'm greedy, but when there's a pole position, one hopes for a podium place at least.

Do April's lead articles obey Benford's Law? And how does the running total look?

This is the results of the third month of monitoring news articles for which numbers they contain.

I missed a couple more days in April, I blame Easter, and I will catch these up at the end of the year.

In the 27 days I did manage to capture, 232 numbers were used in the leading news articles on bbc.co.uk (~ 8 to 9 per day).  This is slightly less than the 9-10 in March and a lot less than the 15 per day from February.

9 is the number closest to its expected value.  2 is over-represented, 8 is under-represented. If you add together the sum of all the values of (observed-expected)squared, all divided by the expected, the calculated test statistic is 5.7.

The critical chi squared value for 9 items with only one line is ~ 15.507

The test statistic smaller than the critical value therefore the difference is not significant. This data does not disobey Benford's Law.

If you look at the rolling total of February to the end of April, the numbers are starting to add up.  Since the start of February, there have been 941 digits in headline news articles.

5 is the number closest to its expected value.  1 remains over-represented, while 6 is under-represented. If you add together the sum of all the values of (observed-expected)squared, all divided by the expected, the calculated test statistic is 2.29.

The critical chi squared value for 9 items with only one line is ~ 15.507

The test statistic smaller than the critical value therefore the difference is not significant. This data does not disobey Benford's Law.

Interestingly, as more numbers from articles have been added the calculated test statistic has reduced (February = 8.6, February + March = 3.49, February + March + April = 2.29).  This is what you would expect to see if the numbers in the articles fulfill Benford's law.

F1 2021 - Monaco Grand Prix

 This is going to have to be in two parts.

Because the non-Ferrari part is reasonably coherent, it's the Ferrari part that descends into wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Well, half the Ferrari part.

Let's begin with the non-Ferrari part.

Whatever my personal feelings, the season needed a Verstappen win more than it needed a Ferrari win.  This, and the possibility of a similar result in Baku, are the only things that give me any hope that this season will be different from the last few years where Mercedes romped away to an early victory in both championships.

I am amused by the amount of excuses the commentators were making for Hamilton not getting past Gasly.  It was ridiculous.  They made it sound like Gasly, who has won a Grand Prix in an Alpha Tauri, doesn't know what he's doing and just got lucky to keep Hamilton behind him, which isn't true.  It also completely ignores that Vettel went from 8th to 5th and Perez went from 9th to 4th, both of them getting past Hamilton and Gasly.  Please can we give Perez some of the respect he deserves for that drive!  (Singling out Perez because Vettel was awarded Driver of the Day)

Bottas's run of bad luck has reached the stage where you wonder if a curse is involved.  Because really, a shredded thread on a wheelnut in a multimillion dollar car.  How does that happen?!

Discussing cursing, the updated Ferrari diagram is below.

I know, that's a large number of changes.

Let's take them in descending order of happiness.

The smiley face is for Carlos Sainz jnr*, and Carlos Sainz jnr (and his side of the garage) only.  Well done.  You did what you were supposed to do and made no mistakes all weekend.

The cookie is for Leclerc.  Who might actually be cursed at his home Grand Prix.  Apparently he's never managed to finish a race at Monaco.  This time he didn't even start the race.

The red card is for Leclerc.  It's Monaco.  You grew up here.  You know that the track limits are ... severe.  You know better than this.

The black card concept is pinched from fencing, it means complete exclusion from a competition.  It is for whichever dimwit at Ferrari passed that car as roadworthy on Saturday evening.  Even a 10 place grid drop would have been better than that nonsense.  I know Binotto is saying it might be an unrelated problem, but I also recognise a face-saving excuse when I hear one.  Learn from this.  Don't do it again.

*He is jnr.  His father is a world champion.  It matters.

Black Widow

Despite how the rest of this post sounds, I will be watching the Black Widow movie in the cinema.  Because you know, explosions and Natasha Romanov (and Rachel Weisz).

The trailers however do not match up to the film I imagined when I heard the words "will also star Rachel Weisz".  Because the film in my dreams (let's be honest *of* my dreams) when I hear that is very different.  It has Rachel Weisz as one of the people who trains a teenage (almost Red Room graduate) Natasha, and she is nasty and horrible and beautiful, charming and alluring all at once.  She's the prototypical Black Widow.

She's also Natasha's handler/co-agent for her first real mission (basically, I want comparisons drawn to Hawkeye in absentia).  Somehow, Weisz's character saves Natasha's life and then goes rogue.  (Or saves her life from an enemy, stabs her to incapacitate her and then goes rogue), and Natasha has to hunt her down.   I'm not sure which reason for defection would be better, for the money or to the side of good.  For the money would be a more personal betrayal, but to the side of good has the possibility of being part of Black Widow's origin story.

Or, Weisz's character never goes rogue, but goes into sleeper agent mode instead, living as an American housewife.  Then, she's reactivated after Natasha joins SHIELD, because the bad guys want to bring Natasha down.  This all happens early enough that Natasha's loyalties are still in doubt (to everyone but Fury and Hawkeye) and Natasha has to hunt her down.

There's so much potential for twisty and dark and "who am I?  Who can I be?" that they don't seem to be using.

They have two solid actresses, why don't they let them do more than (probably enjoyable) kaboomery.

F1 2021 - Spanish Grand Prix

What's that?  An actual cookie of competence?  Why yes it is.  It is given to Charles Leclerc and whoever set his car up, because that Ferrari was ahead of a Mercedes, for several laps, twice, on merit, not due to pit stop strategy working its way through.  Keep this up!

On the other hand, while the race was interesting for a while, I want to see an end of any article or broadcast trying to add intrigue by pretending Mercedes don't have the fastest car any more.  Seriously, professional broadcasters, stop it!

F1 2021 - Portuguese Grand Prix

 Ferrari's results remain mediocre, but the diagram has an update.

If I thought what Ferrari did with the split tyre strategy for their two cars was deliberate, I'd give them a full cookie, but I am unconvinced.  I have lived through too many Ferrari strategy errors to believe they did something that sensible.  Until they produce reasonable strategies repeatedly, they are getting a bitten cookie.  Do it again and I will upgrade the cookie.

(The race itself was interesting until Mercedes pressed the "go faster" button.  Not the fastest car, my etcetera.)

Do March's lead articles obey Benford's Law? And how does the running total look?

 This is the results of the second month of monitoring news articles for which numbers they contain.

March featured the first days I missed (I blame Easter), so I will have to add two days on at the end of the year.

In the 29 days I did manage to capture, 273 numbers were used (~ 9 to 10 per day).  This is less than the ~15 per day from February.

1 and 8 are the closest to expected.  5 is over-represented. If you add together the sum of all the values of (observed-expected)squared, all divided by the expected, the calculated test statistic is 5.6.

The critical chi squared value for 9 items with only one line is ~ 15.507

The test statistic smaller than the critical value therefore the difference is not significant. This data does not disobey Benford's Law.

If you look at the rolling total of February and March, the numbers are starting to add up.  There were 709 digits in headline news articles.

7 and 8 are the closest to expected.  1 remains over-represented, as it was in February. If you add together the sum of all the values of (observed-expected)squared, all divided by the expected, the calculated test statistic is 3.49.

The critical chi squared value for 9 items with only one line is ~ 15.507

The test statistic smaller than the critical value therefore the difference is not significant. This data does not disobey Benford's Law.

Interestingly, as more numbers from articles have been added the calculated test statistic has reduced (February = 8.6, February + March = 3.49).  This is what you would expect to see if the numbers in the articles fulfill Benford's law.

F1 2021 - Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

Before all the noise about Mercedes not having the best car starts, it was good enough to help Hamilton from ninth to second within 27 laps, and he's still in the lead of the Drivers' World Championship, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Ferrari managed to finish fourth and fifth, which is almost acceptable. Since that is roughly where Leclerc was last year, I am suggesting that the driver of the second car might have been letting the side down. On the other hand, Ferrari, still only in fourth place in the Constructors's Championship, so no cookies yet.

No red cards either, although if there is a repeat of the radio issues that plagued Leclerc, there may be one. Consider this to be a yellow card for that offence, Ferrari.

Out of Blue

I'm going to start at the end.

When I came back from watching "Out of Blue" at the cinema I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found out that it's based on a book (Night Train by Martin Amis), and that book is a parody. Which makes the film make so much more sense. Unfortunately, the film lacked that reflexive self-aware quality of good parody. There's a beautiful quote from the Torygraph that I think sums the film up perfectly - "This New Orleans-set detective thriller from Carol Morley pulls off an undesirable yet weirdly impressive coup: the twist ending to its murder mystery is somehow simultaneously preposterous and obvious, like a clown car parping and swerving its way towards you from the far end of an airstrip."

That statement is true of everything that happens in the film. You think, oh, they're using this tired trope in this really unsubtle way to subvert it. And then they don't. It's not just one tired trope, it's all of them. In sequence. In obvious sequence.

It wouldn't be so bad, I mean basic thrillers are ten-a-penny, yeah, they're not good, but they're not bothersome either, they're Sunday-afternoon-plans-have-washed-out films. But this film keeps putting on these airs and graces, all "I am a serious film, making serious statements. I AM ART!" when it's really not. It tries to be clever and turns out dumb. Also the physics is terrible. But I suspect that's deliberate, because the physics they use is all trope-y and we're back to "tired trope played straight."

It's a waste of some lovely cinematography and a good soundtrack. And some solid performances. Patricia Clarkson as Mike Hoolihan gives enough mystery and enigmatic to be engaging despite being all but one of the hard-bitten female detective clichés. Toby Jones is Toby Jones so you know he's good. Aaron Tveit's Detective Silvero does a good job of sleazy and sinister ... like every other male character. Basically, the female characters suffer and the men are sleazy and sinister. It's very thin that way.

It's one of those rare films I'd actually disrecommend.

Do February's lead articles obey Benford's Law?

Benford's Law gains its power with larger numbers, and I started my Benford's law project in the shortest month.  I don't think these things through, do I?  But you have to start somewhere.

The 28 daily news articles contained 436 numbers written as digits (~15 per day).

3 and 7 are found pretty much exactly as often as expected.  1 is over represented.  

If you add together the sum of all the values of (observed-expected)squared, all divided by the expected, the calculated test statistic is 8.6.

The critical chi squared value for 9 items with only one line is ~ 15.507 

The test statistic smaller than the critical value therefore the difference is not significant.  This data does not disobey Benford's Law.*

*That noise is L shouting "obey is the word you want" but to me there's a difference between 'stats show x' and 'stats show not x' and to me, these show 'do not disobey'.