RockLobster

STFU clown. Remember when you posted a couple days ago that... Be a good little servant and avoid "problems that are not ours to solve" - leave those to the rest of us.

OK, all you primitive screwheads who still don't understand what it means to "predict": transitive verb : to declare or indicate in advance especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason If you've read this far and still don't get it... Predictions are guesses. Educated guesses, calculated guesses, extremely fine tuned studied guesses, or just wild ass guesses. None are necessarily better than any other. To nobody's surprise, it turns out that seeing the future isn't possible.

I think it may well be a semantics thing, as well. I never, at any point, said that the rankings (and yes, seedings) were predictions of the Vegas sort. If you read back, you'll find that what I consistently said was they were "essentially predictions". This year, Starocci was ranked #1, Keck #2, Max #3, Plott #4. They were seeded in the same order. There was some consternation among fans who thought it should have been something they preferred. Meh. After it was all said and done, they finished in that exact same order. Turns out - at least at 184 - the rankings and seedings were 100% accurate predictions of the outcome. This is exactly the goal of the rankings/seedings, even if it is not always achieved. Why? The brackets would be garbage is top wrestlers met each other in early rounds If top wrestlers lost early to other top wrestlers, it would be unfair to them. If top wrestlers lost early to other top wrestlers, it would be unfair to fans. The brackets need to ensure top wrestlers are separated enough to provide fair quality competition. A well seeded bracket provides that level of fairness. Here's the kicker. It would be impossible to provide a well seeded bracket without using rankings (and thus, seedings) to essentially predict the results of matches. Starocci, Keck, Max, and Plott were all "predicted" to win all of their matches before the quarters at 184 by the bracket. Some get their panties in a bunch over using the word "prediction" here. But it is used appropriately. Seems you're right. It is a semantics thing.

I've typed rankings/seedings enough times that, after a while, it seemed that most folks would get it and I tired of it. The argument we find ourselves in is between rankings/seedings being predictions or not. You are right. I agree with you. Rankings and seedings are different. But, in terms of the discussion we are currently having - they get lumped together. (Per the thread I pointed you to earlier, and the discussion since then.) I'll be using the term "rankings" going forward. I apologize, in advance, if that offends your terminology sensitivity.

I find myself agreeing with you again. The Hodge "reasoning" seems to be ever elusive. I much prefer the emphasis on pinning. But that's just me. As I posted earlier - I do believe that a wrestler who is a proven 'pinner' is just a different kind of cat. I believe there is something significantly different about a wrestler who is willing to risk losing a match in order to get a pin - even if they are ahead, vs one who won't risk that same loss. It's almost as if they are wrestling two slightly different versions of the same sport.

I am in agreement with you. A tech fall shows dominance without question. A pin shows... maybe luck, maybe dominance, maybe some combination of the two. It does help bring into focus why the Hodge trophy came into being. And I appreciate that. Some coaches/wrestlers would rather use a 'smart' strategy to win - get the 1st takedown, make the other guy wrestle from behind, take advantage of his mistakes, wrestle on the edge, use stalling calls to your advantage, with under 30 seconds to go - put on your track shoes and take a stalling call if you've got one to lose. Those who tech often do so against inferior opponents. If they do it against good guys, it is super impressive. But can often depend upon being particularly good on their feet - or with tilts, or some other specialized part of wrestling. There is just something different about a pinner who has the training and mindset to do it consistently, against anyone. Those guys should be rewarded for what they do. Thank you, Hodge.

You call ranking "robotic" and act as if it's predetermined based on win/loss results. You do realize that rankings from various ranking organizations do not match. They vary from the first week through the final week of the season. They are neither robotic nor predetermined. You seem to be ... confused. Either its predetermined and robotic or it has elements of interpretation - it certainly can't be both.

Obviously, they don't. That was already discussed... start reading on the 1st page, 4th post from the bottom. (Note - it does help to read and understand what's already been posted before asking what's already been answered.)

If #9 Starocci over #6 Welsch was so obviously going to go Starocci's way (which I agree with) Then... think for a moment. It's simple. The rankings have always been essentially predictions. So, perhaps the rankings were done poorly.

And another poster confusing "wrestling" with "gambling on wrestling" Rankings, just like predictions, are based on past performance. (Either would be bad if they weren't.) The primary difference between rankers and gamblers is that the rankers only use actual data.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Lower seeded wrestlers beating higher seeded wrestlers is the very definition of an UPSET. You already know this. Figs #8 over Ayala#3 = Upset Arujau #6 over Fix #1 = Upset Carr #4 over Mesenbrink #2 = Upset And, yes... #9 Starocci over #6 Welsch = Upset You're confusing "wrestling" with "gambling on wrestling." The ranking/seed is essentially the prediction of the outcome prior to the start of competition. It may be a good or bad prediction, but that's what it essentially is.

I was very excited about this. As I was assembling a summary of my interpretation of what has happened with Signal in security terms. Halfway through, I realized that whatever I posted - however good or bad - was going to be met with the same kind of garbage I was stormed with in the last dozen or so posts. Likely joined by a dozen or so other posters who like to pile on like a bunch of jackals. My cooler, calmer head prevailed. Better for me to keep my personal interests separate from this place. Doesn't matter. In the end, the message is simple. US Military should use military secure channels, period. Anything else is high risk. Anyone who doesn't follow this should be sacked.

... and yet you go on nagging.

You seem extra whiney and demanding of attention, did someone steal your teddy bear?

Suddenly, jross realizes he was incredibly wrong the entire time. And then posts as if he discovered something. Something that had existed for months.

Again, STFU. Adults are posting here.

Child. You're over your head. Shut up and sit down, follow the posts. You'll learn something.

Evidence points to that it has. And that it isn't truly encrypted using any modern encryption tech.

I'll do exactly that.

You're reading from the wrong people in the wrong places. It does not use modern encryption.

Signal, itself, is NOT secure. It has been proven to be insecure for months.

So much misinformation being piled up in other threads that this topic deserves it's own thread: The commercial "Signal" messaging app is not secure. It does not use modern encryption, and is a known target of hackers.

I see you're a persistent, I like that in a dim one. Try to follow along closely: Gable Steveson was the #1 ranked wrestler at Hwt this year Wyatt Pornstache-ickson was the #2 ranked wrestler Wyatt defeated Gable in the finals This was considered, by most everyone, AN UPSET win Why was it considered AN UPSET win? As if it was some type of surprise? Because the #2 ranked wrestler defeated the #1 ranked wrestler. You see, the way it works is that the rankings are essentially predictions of the outcomes of matches. You're welcome.

Buddy, rankings are essentially the predictions of outcomes of the wrestlers being ranked. Which is exactly the reason they are useful. We already have the results - rankings interpret them.

You do have to take into account the freshman - some are more of a known quantity than others. Then you have to weigh tournament results based not only on how wrestlers placed, but on who they competed against to get to placement. Then you also have to consider the overall records of wrestlers... except that's tricky when some teams decide to throw in more powder puff early season matches than others. Against wrestlers that are often unknown quantities. Then you have to acknowledge the 'close matches' that went into OT/SV and aren't as decisive as they might appear. This all for 77 teams, with 10 starters each - which being a starter or not is sometimes not known until the bitter end - and potential injuries. So figure 12 wrestlers to follow for each team. So that's 900+ wrestlers to watch over the course of the season, every match, every week. And you continue to estimate your prediction of how they will do at season's end. One last thing - in order to do it well - you have to understand wrestling well enough to see how some wrestlers will match up against other wrestlers based on their specific skills, weaknesses and tendencies (all 900+ of them) With years of wrestling experience under your belt, and months of following multiple matches each week. Then, and only then, can you do a quality job of ranking. It's not just stats pumped into a computer program as the season goes on. That might work. Just not very well. Is it "hard" is it "not hard" - that's all relative. Relative to putting stats into a spreadsheet with a handful of calculations at seasons end to create a model? Relatively speaking, ranking is MANY TIMES harder.