Top 500
Despite my prediction that K Computer would remind in the top spot for a long time, it has already been over taken by Sequoia, a computer that can calculate 16 PetaFLOPS. Not only that, after two rather lackluster updates, the Top 500 this time around saw a massive change. Overall, the total FLOPS calculated by the entire top 500 increased by 67%, the second highest increase ever, just behind June 2008's 68% increase.
Most of the change took place in the top 10, with 6 new computers. Compare that to November 2011's list which saw the exact same top 10 with just K Computer getting an upgrade. Overall, the top 10 increased it's total FLOPS by 113%. However movement at the bottom was rather low. Despite 170 new computers on the list, the total FLOPS of the bottom 10 only increased by 20%.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Friday, May 04, 2012
Eurovision 2012
Eurovision is coming up! Here is the vital information:
Semi-Final 1: May 22nd
Semi-Final 2: May 24th
Final: May 26th
All Shows start at 21:00 CET. That's 22:00 in Ukraine and 3:00pm EST.
It can be watched anywhere online at Eurovision.tv
Ironically, because of the late start of the shows in Ukraine, and the fact that my host family doesn't have a TV, I may have to miss the live show. But that doesn't mean you should (although, most of the acts in the second semi-final, so you can skip that).
This year's contest is taking place in Azerbaijan. Due to security concerns, Armenia decided to not compete, but that still leaves 42 countries in the contest. Poland also decided to drop out this year. However, Montenegro has returned.
In previous years, I made a top ten list of songs that I found amusing for some reason. This is year, there are few gimmicks and joke songs, but there are a bunch of songs I actually enjoy. I don't know if this means Eurovision is getting better or if my taste in music is getting worse. I'll let you decide. Here are the 12 best and/or most entertaining entries for 2012.
12. Finland- Nothing amazing, I just like Swedish
11. Israel- Not something I expected from Israel, but I appreciate it
10. Austria- Quit Eurovision because they never win, and when they finally return, they do this
9. Italy- Sticking with a jazz influence
8. United Kingdom- Engelbert Humperdinck is still alive?
7. Ireland- Still traumatized from winning Eurovision 3 years in a row back in the 90's, Ireland resubmits Jedward
6. Sweden- Did she kill that man?
5. France- Experimenting with English again, but only for the chorus
4. Iceland- How has Iceland never won?
3. Russia- This is just adorable
2. Montenegro- Exactly what I expected from someone called Rambo Amadeus
1. Ukraine- The fact that this is number one has nothing to do with the fact that I want Ukraine to host Eurovision next year
Semi-Final 1: May 22nd
Semi-Final 2: May 24th
Final: May 26th
All Shows start at 21:00 CET. That's 22:00 in Ukraine and 3:00pm EST.
It can be watched anywhere online at Eurovision.tv
Ironically, because of the late start of the shows in Ukraine, and the fact that my host family doesn't have a TV, I may have to miss the live show. But that doesn't mean you should (although, most of the acts in the second semi-final, so you can skip that).
This year's contest is taking place in Azerbaijan. Due to security concerns, Armenia decided to not compete, but that still leaves 42 countries in the contest. Poland also decided to drop out this year. However, Montenegro has returned.
In previous years, I made a top ten list of songs that I found amusing for some reason. This is year, there are few gimmicks and joke songs, but there are a bunch of songs I actually enjoy. I don't know if this means Eurovision is getting better or if my taste in music is getting worse. I'll let you decide. Here are the 12 best and/or most entertaining entries for 2012.
12. Finland- Nothing amazing, I just like Swedish
11. Israel- Not something I expected from Israel, but I appreciate it
10. Austria- Quit Eurovision because they never win, and when they finally return, they do this
9. Italy- Sticking with a jazz influence
8. United Kingdom- Engelbert Humperdinck is still alive?
7. Ireland- Still traumatized from winning Eurovision 3 years in a row back in the 90's, Ireland resubmits Jedward
6. Sweden- Did she kill that man?
5. France- Experimenting with English again, but only for the chorus
4. Iceland- How has Iceland never won?
3. Russia- This is just adorable
2. Montenegro- Exactly what I expected from someone called Rambo Amadeus
1. Ukraine- The fact that this is number one has nothing to do with the fact that I want Ukraine to host Eurovision next year
Monday, April 30, 2012
Ice Breaking Update
A couple of months ago, I posted about the Nenana Ice Classic. This is a contest to predict when the ice on the Tanana River in Alaska will break. I made the prediction that it would take place on May 2nd at 2:11pm. I was pretty far off. The actual time was April 23rd at 7:39pm, one of the earliest dates in their records. Better luck next time.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Hispanic Election
One detail I've come across while research election maps is just how static the presidential electoral map has become in last few election cycles. Democrats winning the Northeast and West Coast and Republicans winning the Southeast and most of the West is taken as a given. However, looking at earlier election maps shows that voting patterns varied wildly from election to election.
Here is the 1956 election result:
Eight years later in 1964:
Only five states voted the same way in 1956 as in 1964.
Another way to show just how static the electoral map has become is to "equalize" it. That is to say, imagine what the result would have been if the race had been competitive.
In 2008, a competitive race would have probably looked like this:
In this scenario, the election ends in a 269-269 draw. Notice though, it looks a lot like the 2004 and 2000 result.
Now imagine that the 1984 election had actually be competitive. It probably would have looked like this:
In this scenario, Michigan is left as a toss-up as whoever wins it, wins the election. While there are notable differences between the 1984 and 2008, only ten states actually changed. Meaning in 24 years 39 states have shown a consistent preference for one party over the other (not sure what to consider Michigan).
As far as I can tell, this pattern has only existed for the last 24 years, and looking at previous elections reveals no other pattern so consistent. Clearly 1984 marked a major change in how Americans voted. The clearest distinction is the division between urban and rural voters that doesn't appear in earlier electoral maps.
It doesn't look like the 2012 election will break this pattern. For one, there is an incumbent running, which tends to keep the electoral map static. However, looking to the future, is there a chance that the pattern could be broken? I've been reading a bit lately about how the GOP's stance on immigration is causing Hispanics to abandon the party in droves. Right now, Hispanics just heavily favor the Democrats, but what if they become a solid voting bloc like African-Americans.
So the scenario, in 2016, Republicans continue to rail against Hispanic immigrants while the Democrats nominate a popular Hispanic politician for president, so Hispanics vote 90% in favor of the Democrats. The Republican candidate is popular amongst White voters, making this a competitive election. What are the results?
The lighter states are swing states, won with less than 52.5% of the vote. Surprisingly, not all that much changes. Compared to the equalized 2008 map, Democrats pick-up Colorado and Florida, but don't gain any other heavily Hispanic states. Republicans pick up Minnesota, Iowa, and New Hampshire to replace their losses.
Texas, despite its large Hispanic population stays Republican, just missing the cut-off of being considered a swing state, with Republicans winning 53%. While over one-third of the state is Hispanic, they only make up one-fifth of voters. Also, Texas' White population votes heavily Republican. Similarly, Arizona stays Republican, but only by a slim margin. It's somewhat similar to the situation Mississippi, wherein 33% of voters are African-Americans who vote over 90% Democrat, but the Republican candidate always wins.
While this map makes it look like not much has changed, this is a nightmare scenario for the GOP. Texas is the GOP's only major stronghold, and if it ever starts to favor the Democrats, they would have a great deal of difficulty making up for the loss of 38 electoral votes. Even if the Republicans could hold off a Hispanic voting bloc in 2016, it becomes much more difficult going into 2020 and later elections. Once Texas flips, that's when the map really changes as Republicans will have to pick up several long-time Democratic states to make up for such a loss. The problem is figuring out which ones.
Here is the 1956 election result:
Another way to show just how static the electoral map has become is to "equalize" it. That is to say, imagine what the result would have been if the race had been competitive.
In 2008, a competitive race would have probably looked like this:
Now imagine that the 1984 election had actually be competitive. It probably would have looked like this:
As far as I can tell, this pattern has only existed for the last 24 years, and looking at previous elections reveals no other pattern so consistent. Clearly 1984 marked a major change in how Americans voted. The clearest distinction is the division between urban and rural voters that doesn't appear in earlier electoral maps.
It doesn't look like the 2012 election will break this pattern. For one, there is an incumbent running, which tends to keep the electoral map static. However, looking to the future, is there a chance that the pattern could be broken? I've been reading a bit lately about how the GOP's stance on immigration is causing Hispanics to abandon the party in droves. Right now, Hispanics just heavily favor the Democrats, but what if they become a solid voting bloc like African-Americans.
So the scenario, in 2016, Republicans continue to rail against Hispanic immigrants while the Democrats nominate a popular Hispanic politician for president, so Hispanics vote 90% in favor of the Democrats. The Republican candidate is popular amongst White voters, making this a competitive election. What are the results?
Texas, despite its large Hispanic population stays Republican, just missing the cut-off of being considered a swing state, with Republicans winning 53%. While over one-third of the state is Hispanic, they only make up one-fifth of voters. Also, Texas' White population votes heavily Republican. Similarly, Arizona stays Republican, but only by a slim margin. It's somewhat similar to the situation Mississippi, wherein 33% of voters are African-Americans who vote over 90% Democrat, but the Republican candidate always wins.
While this map makes it look like not much has changed, this is a nightmare scenario for the GOP. Texas is the GOP's only major stronghold, and if it ever starts to favor the Democrats, they would have a great deal of difficulty making up for the loss of 38 electoral votes. Even if the Republicans could hold off a Hispanic voting bloc in 2016, it becomes much more difficult going into 2020 and later elections. Once Texas flips, that's when the map really changes as Republicans will have to pick up several long-time Democratic states to make up for such a loss. The problem is figuring out which ones.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
How the US was Purchased
I had a discussion with friend some months ago about US expansion, wherein she joked that the US had purchased half its territory. For anyone that has seen a map of the original 13 colonies and then a map with the Louisiana Purchase, it certainly seems true. So decided to test this hypothesis. Wikipedia thankfully had a very nice write up about US territorial acquisitions.
I found there were four primary categories into which territorial acquisitions fell:
1. Purchase, land that was sold to the US that wasn't part of a peace treaty. I added the peace treaty caveat because technically the US compensated Mexico for the territories it gained after the Mexican-American war, but Mexico would have never sold that land had there not been a war.
2. War, land gained as a result of a peace treaty.
3. Annexation, land gained through unilateral action, such as unchallenged land claims or when a local independent government chose to join the US.
4. Treaty, unclaimed land that was peacefully gained based on an international treaty.
These percentages are, of course, estimates as treaties generally didn't specify the size of the territory being claimed, and often borders were disputed and changed. They also only include territory which the US currently holds, so the Philippines and several other Pacific territories are not included.
While half the US wasn't purchased, purchased territory makes a plurality of the US. The single largest purchase was the Louisiana Purchase (22%), followed by Alaska (17%).
The single largest transfer of land was the Revolutionary War (24%), which means the US has quadrupled in size since independence.
As for annexations, most of that 11% is from the annexation of Texas (10%). While the Oregon Treaty (8%) which gave the US the Pacific Northwest makes up most the treaty category.
Texas was actually hard to categorize as, while it was annexed prior to the Mexican-American War, that annexation certainly led to the Mexican-American War. If one were to include Texas as gained through war, the Mexican-American War would rival the Revolutionary War as the single largest transfer of land.
I found there were four primary categories into which territorial acquisitions fell:
1. Purchase, land that was sold to the US that wasn't part of a peace treaty. I added the peace treaty caveat because technically the US compensated Mexico for the territories it gained after the Mexican-American war, but Mexico would have never sold that land had there not been a war.
2. War, land gained as a result of a peace treaty.
3. Annexation, land gained through unilateral action, such as unchallenged land claims or when a local independent government chose to join the US.
4. Treaty, unclaimed land that was peacefully gained based on an international treaty.
These percentages are, of course, estimates as treaties generally didn't specify the size of the territory being claimed, and often borders were disputed and changed. They also only include territory which the US currently holds, so the Philippines and several other Pacific territories are not included.
While half the US wasn't purchased, purchased territory makes a plurality of the US. The single largest purchase was the Louisiana Purchase (22%), followed by Alaska (17%).
The single largest transfer of land was the Revolutionary War (24%), which means the US has quadrupled in size since independence.
As for annexations, most of that 11% is from the annexation of Texas (10%). While the Oregon Treaty (8%) which gave the US the Pacific Northwest makes up most the treaty category.
Texas was actually hard to categorize as, while it was annexed prior to the Mexican-American War, that annexation certainly led to the Mexican-American War. If one were to include Texas as gained through war, the Mexican-American War would rival the Revolutionary War as the single largest transfer of land.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tall Buildings 2011
Last April I made a post about the tallest buildings in the world. I was interested in seeing how much they changed from year to year. Now that 2012, I figure I should add in the numbers for buildings completed in 2011. The full list is at Emporis.
There were three new buildings in the top 30 this year, pushing up the average height from 405 to 410 meters. This is slightly higher than the annual average change of 3.7 meters.
If you want a bit more information, you can read the original post from last year.
There were three new buildings in the top 30 this year, pushing up the average height from 405 to 410 meters. This is slightly higher than the annual average change of 3.7 meters.
If you want a bit more information, you can read the original post from last year.
Monday, January 02, 2012
Movie Sequels II
For years, I've heard people complain about how all new movies are either sequels or remakes and that there's no original movies, or that Hollywood has run out of ideas. The problem I have with this logic is that this same complaint comes up every single year. If people are making the same complaint every year, it would seem that nothing has actually changed.
In order to test this, I looked at the top 10 grossing films of each year and categorized them as originals, sequels, series, and remakes. This is a surprisingly difficult task because there are many movies that defy any kind of categorization. Would Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" be an original, sequel, or remake? It reusing established characters, but the story is original. It takes place after the the events in the books and the animated movie, but it's not a direct sequel. Then there's "Thor" which is the first movie about the comic book character, but the character has actually been around for a long time. So is it an original since it's the first movie or a remake because it's using an established story? Then there's the problem that there are a lot of movies that are remakes, but it's not widely known that they are. I just happened to know that "Gladiator" was a remake, but when I started looking the top 10 movies prior to 1990, I had no idea what some of their histories were because I had never heard of them.
I finally decided to use a fairly narrow definition of "original". An original movie was one wherein the story was either created by the writers, or was based on source material that had not been widely-adapted to any visual media such as film, television, or theater.
Much to my surprise, it appears people are right, movies are becoming less original. In fact, not a single original movie made the top 10 in 2011 by my standards. I should add the caveat that even though it appears more original movies made the top 10 in the 80's and 90's, I'm less familiar with those films, so some of them might be remakes, but I wouldn't know.
In order to test this, I looked at the top 10 grossing films of each year and categorized them as originals, sequels, series, and remakes. This is a surprisingly difficult task because there are many movies that defy any kind of categorization. Would Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" be an original, sequel, or remake? It reusing established characters, but the story is original. It takes place after the the events in the books and the animated movie, but it's not a direct sequel. Then there's "Thor" which is the first movie about the comic book character, but the character has actually been around for a long time. So is it an original since it's the first movie or a remake because it's using an established story? Then there's the problem that there are a lot of movies that are remakes, but it's not widely known that they are. I just happened to know that "Gladiator" was a remake, but when I started looking the top 10 movies prior to 1990, I had no idea what some of their histories were because I had never heard of them.
I finally decided to use a fairly narrow definition of "original". An original movie was one wherein the story was either created by the writers, or was based on source material that had not been widely-adapted to any visual media such as film, television, or theater.
Much to my surprise, it appears people are right, movies are becoming less original. In fact, not a single original movie made the top 10 in 2011 by my standards. I should add the caveat that even though it appears more original movies made the top 10 in the 80's and 90's, I'm less familiar with those films, so some of them might be remakes, but I wouldn't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)