Greedy Goblin

Friday, December 9, 2016

How is Black Lives Matter the new KKK

I promised to only write about politics when I have something original. Now calling Black Lives Matter the "new KKK" is the most cliche opinion you can have on the Right-wing. However I think they are completely wrong in what they mean by it. They mean "BLM is a hate movement against whites like KKK against blacks". I claim that BLM is a hate movement against blacks like KKK. How?

BLM on the surface is protesting against certain incidents. According to them these are "racist white cops are killing blacks". To see why this statement is anti-black racist, we must color swap these events: black cops shooting whites. What would I say then about these videos as a white man? I'd say "one white trash down, 500M to go". These incidents are police overreactions to unruly and disruptive behaviors of petty criminals. If these people were whites, I'd still not fear cops. I am not a petty criminal, I don't do swift movements when stopped by cops, I'm not insulting the cops, I cooperate with their investigation, may they want to search my car for a fugitive, test me for alcohol while driving, want to see my papers or simply tell me to clear a restricted area. I know that cops are just doing their jobs, I know that they are stressed and may fear attacks and may see unruly behavior as one.

The above doesn't mean I support police violence or don't think that the families of the victims deserve compensation, I just say that "if you act like a trashy thug against a cop, you might get shot" in the same sense as "if you climb into the lion's cage, you might get eaten". Similarly I do not support the violence in Aleppo, yet I don't think it has any relevance to my life or I should fear that I'll be killed by a barell bomb dropped by an Assad helicopter or a cluster bomb from a White Dove.

What does BLM do instead? They claim that the events happened because of the blackness of the victims. They claim that these can happen to any black person. This isn't any different from what KKK says: "all blacks are thugs and are to be shot". Both, equally generalize individual criminals as representatives of black people and claim that the specific fate of thugs is something that will happen to all of the black people.

This is a flat out lie. A middle class black person has as much in common with these black trash as I have with an unemployed, trailer-park living, confederate-flag waiving, alcoholic white trash. Why do BLM and KKK claim otherwise? To instill fear among black people. To keep them in line, where the line means submission according to KKK and voting liberal according to BLM. Who started this interpretation on the BLM side? President Obama, by claiming "If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon", referring to a black person who got into an argument with a neighborhood watch volunteer which ended in a fatal shooting. This was an outrageous lie. If Obama had a son, he'd look like Eric Trump and not Trayvon Martin. A golden boy in expensive clothing in an expensive car driving in an expensive neighborhood with armed escort while having a particularly snob social media feed full of overfiltered pictures. Obama's son would never walk alone in a bad neighborhood with a can of booze and get into a fight with a stranger.

BLM is a cleverly constructed hate movement against black people, to keep them in fear, to manipulate them to vote for those who would never lift a finger for them.


PS: Karma hit Time magazine hard:

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Riot and the total lack of AFK punishment

Even the most casual games have AFK punishment. If you AFK in a WoW dungeon, you can be kicked. If you are AFK in a battleground, you automatically get kicked and get deserter debuff. This is to protect the other players from obvious leeching. While morons and slackers will leech anyway, the game strongly differentiate between those who are just horrible and those who can't even be bothered to press a key.

Not Riot. If you go AFK in a ranked game, you get exactly what your teammates do: usually a defeat, in rare cases a win. I just had a defeat because of Lucian decided at level 3 that he just stays home until everyone else reached lvl 10 - and of course we lost bot towers and they got fed. No matchmaking rig analysis can save me from such defeats. But maybe there is more here than bad luck. If even Blizzard punishes AFK, there must be a reason why Riot doesn't. There isn't a rational - even a cashgrab - reason to cater to AFK-ers. Those who don't care enough about the game to press keys will likely won't care to buy skins, while their teammates will be very frustrated. Not like it would be hard to get rid of AFK-ers from ranked games: if a player is AFK for 2 minutes, those who were not in pre-made with him can vote for remake, the other team gets a win and its rewards, the innocent teammates get nothing (remake), the pre-made members of the AFK-er get a defeat and the AFK-er gets all the defeat punishment for his innocent teammates (so if he queued solo, his AFK is equal to 5 defeats in a row). This would push the AFK-ers to bronze in no time.

But for some reason Riot isn't even giving a slap on the wrist for AFK-ers. This reason has to do something with my totally unscientific experience that I have much more AFK-er teammates than enemies. It's unscientific because I see micro-AFK teammates but only completely AFK enemies. However it's a fact that the enemy initiated /remake 5 times since I play the game and I initiated over 20. Remake is a no loss game end when someone is AFK from the very start. So I claim with certainity that I had 4x more AFK-at-start teammates than opponents, while the proper number should be 0.8x. This is quite a difference.

I believe notorious AFK-ers are used by the matchmaker to rig games. They are the ultimate weapon, as they can't be dodged. I was very sure that we win that game we lost because of AFK Lucian. I had another game where Fizz was AFK at start, but his buddy talked people out of remake because he'll be back. He was, by the time Talon was lvl 3 with 20 minions and subsequently fed hard. We won, but only because the enemy had a great late game plan: "Nunu has Frozen Heart, Spirit Visage, Warmog's Armor and Guardian Angel, FOCUS HIM!"

While the evidence isn't smoking gun, we must ask why a "cutthroat E-sport" is more tolerant to AFK-ers than "everyone is special snowflake deserving a legendary" WoW.

PS: no need to tell me that I sucked in that game. I'm fully aware. It was my very first time as support and only took this game because it was a sure win. I expected myself to suck, give a few kills in laning phase and the Jungler will carry us. And it almost happened 4v5 too. It would have happened if I expected it to be 4v5 and open with a Dorian's shield and a top lane talent/mastery. But there I was first time support, standing 1v2 against the ADC and an offensive, ranged support in support talent with a melee champion with nothing but a support item.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Brown rain

It's dangerous thing for a blogger to write about politics. Not because it's easy to be wrong or controversial (those make a blog interesting), but because it's easy to be the #54151 guy writing the same thing. Every "clever and original analysis" you can make was probably written by hundreds of others who have more expertise on the field. Anything I could write on the topic was probably written by Ann Coulter already. My choice to openly endorse Trump in August was pretty brave, but not at all original. About 50M Americans already endorsed him, just didn't bother to yell about it.

So usually I just shut up and delete half-written posts. However this one will be new to 99.9% of you, because this is about something that happened in Hungary, an obscure East-European country where I happen to live (OK, not as obscure since we built a fence and locked out the migrants and our PM endorsed Trump as first in-office leader). This experience is important because of its reductio ad absurdum nature.

Hungary was a communist dictatorship until 1990. The real, Castro-Kim-Mao-Brezhnev type of communism with government ownership of all companies, formal censorship office and "criticism gets you to jail" society. Now the communists did one thing very seriously: hunting right-wing extremism. WW2 Nazis were executed after the war and any kind of nationalist or racist sentiment was hunted. You made a racist joke at the water-cooler and your colleague reported you (or there was a mike hidden in the room)? You just lost your job and got blacklisted from any jobs except the lowliest of menial tasks. You tried to spread nationalist propaganda? A couple of years in jail for you.

This extreme hunting of right-wing extremist views, combined with no external support in smuggled Western literature made these views extinct. I grew up without hearing a single anti-Semite joke. "Jew" was just as emotion-less descriptive term as "Malay" or "Finnish". I haven't heard a single racist slur either, if kids wanted to insult each other, they typically used "your mom is a whore" or "you're nothing" but nothing racist, simply because there were no source for them to learn it. African students were common sight in universities and no one cared. So communist Hungary was the perfect politically correct utopia for liberals.

Yet right after the fall of communism the newly formed liberal journals were full of warnings about the Nazi menace threatening our life. Which at first was funny as we never seen a single one nor they actually referenced any kind of hate crime or particular person as enemy. We were told to be very afraid of non-existent Nazis. Soon our smile got wiped out when the liberals started to preach that because of the looming danger of non-existent Nazis we must unite with the communists. Yes, those communists who ran the dictatorship just a few months ago. Those communists who kept the very same liberals in jail, who executed the guys whose photos were on the same journals demanding union.

On 1991. Sept 27, 17 months after the first democratic election the "Democratic Charta" was signed by liberal opinion leaders and former communist leaders to unite their forces against the "brown rain", the invasion of Nazis - without anyone seeing a single Nazi person in Hungary. Soon everyone who were not them was named a Nazi and deemed persona non grata everywhere. The moderate right first democratically elected government was deemed "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, you name it" and lost the next election to the coalition of liberals and communists. Then we could witness our first democratically elected president who was sentenced to death after the '56 revolution and spent a decade in communist prison welcoming the second democratically elected prime minister, who was a volunteer communist soldier during the same revolution.

This unholy alliance lost the next election due to their horrible incompetence (they barely evaded bankruptcy and caused unprecedented loss of income for the average people) and since then we have a strong moderate-right party that is governing now (and endorsed Trump). So it's all old history from an irrelevant country, why bother?

Because it's the ultimate evidence that you can't appease liberals by denouncing irrelevant neo-nazi hillbillies! The liberal fear from "white supremacist", the "alt-right" or "white nationalists" isn't irrational, it's a lie. Even if you'd literally execute every KKK member, imprison the whole Breitbart crew, Ann Coulter, Tomi Lahren and whoever you can think of, take away the internet of everyone ever visited r/altright or shared a green frog meme, fire everyone who made a dumb joke about jews, gays or fat people; liberals would still be terrified by the incoming Nazi menace. It's not an exxageration, this is what happened in Hungary.

Liberals being terrified is a lie made to silence their own dissenters. When a young, honest (not Soros paid) liberal asks "why are we burning cars instead of discussion" he can be yelled at "do you want the KKK win and kill all the blacks?!". Liberals made this lie to make their followers fight like they were fighting against the next Holocaust which is just around the corner. "There is no place for discussion, there is no place for compromise or moral questioning of our methods. We are the last bastion of humanity against the Nazis".

How can you fight this? By not giving an inch to them. By not denouncing irrelevant hillbillies voting David Duke to the 7th place of the senate election or able to collect 200 idiots shouting Nazi salute. By not speaking politically correctly, by not censoring dumb jokes (I'm not saying you should say them, but you should fight for the right of dumb people to say them). By openly trolling liberals and their safe spaces. By building a mock wall on campus. By wearing a green frog T-shirt. By tweeting "all lives matter". According to them, this is being a Nazi. If enough of us do so, they will soon see that they are "surrounded by Nazis", yet all these "Nazis" do nothing to hurt them. Some of them will realize that these "Nazis" aren't that bad and this particularly disgusting manipulation will stop working.


PS: of course I don't claim that there are no neo-Nazis in Hungary now, 25 years later. They are a tiny group with no public support and 1-2 hate crimes a year. But they were totally suppressed and invisible during the communist era and took them years to reach this "high" level of presence they have now.

PS2: Obama was right on one thing, markets move if Trump tweets.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Riot rigging: the purpose of "can't lose league"

I had trouble with the "you can't lose league" rigging. It means that if you are in Gold league and keep losing games you get to Gold 5, 0 LP and stay there, don't drop to silver and keep dropping. This effect is huge, large amount of players are being artificially held on league borders:

This seemed pointless to me as it makes the games static and pointless. There is no risk of defeat but also nothing to gain: if you win in this position, you'll still be where you were, until you win enough to work off the debt you gathered with losing. If someone reached Gold once and keep playing, he'll reach it again if he drops off. Why rig something when it gives you nothing?!

Then I met Jozyno. He is in Platinum 5 which makes him the first Platinum player I played with. I'm Silver 3 and while my hidden MMR is probably in Gold 3-4, judged from the usual teammates I get, seeing a real Platinum pro was seemed a milestone passed. Until he picked Poppy top. I checked his history for playing Poppy and found a single defeat, so it's not some secret new meta, it's exactly what it looks: a dumb pick. I checked his last month performance it has 48 wins and 68 losses. His response to my criticism that he picked an inappropriate champion with zero previous performance was flaming.

How could a Platinum player fall so bad? He probably didn't, just sold his account to a bronze noob who is now losing games and making idiotic picks while flaming anyone since he's a "pro". I believe he is the target audience of the league locking rigging. There is no point buying a Platinum account if you just drive it to Bronze anyway. But with the rigging, the new owner of Jozyno will forever be a "Platinum pro" who can talk down on the "bronze noobs" he'll be playing with.

Why would Riot cater to account buyers? Because they already represented their willingness to pay money for prestige. They are the most likely buyers of "cool" skins, ward skins, summoner icons, chromas, card borders and whatever nonsense Riot can come up for sale.

From this point it's not a huge leap to assume that Riot (or employees) may create high-ranking accounts and sell them via third parties.

Realizing this problem explains some weird defeats. I mean I checked the statistics of my teammates and found them to be good, only to see them as clueless noobs feeding in game. Take for example Kukunas who had 58% winrate with his main, Caitlyn in season 6. Pretty safe to go with him ADC-ing, right? Well, his last month Caitlyn performance is 3 wins, 12 losses, so maybe not. My new evaluation completely disregards old season data and uses only last month games. Sure it doesn't protect from those who bought their accounts yesterday, but do from those who bought them before last month. It's important to watch for all games, not just the chosen champion. If the player has 25% overall winrate, you are safe to assume purchased account.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Full repeal Obamacare!

This post is not about health care itself (how doctors and treatments are selected) but about health care financing: how we pay for whatever health care we have.

Republicans are in trouble that after years of barking at Obamacare, now they clearly have an option to get rid of it. Their problem is that only 26% of the people are behind full repeal. Below I'd like to explain why Obamacare is a disaster and must be repealed and the demands of the people met different ways.

Obamacare is a welfare mixed into health insurance. Insurances spread risks of a person over time. They make an evaluation on your risks (this case health risks), look at the statistics and see that someone with your demographics has X costs on an average year and make you pay X + operating costs + profit for your insurance. Your advantage is that for an individual there is no average year. You can't get 0.2% heart attack. You either don't have it (this case you lost your insurance money) or you have it and then the insurer pays 500X for your expensive treatment.

Now the problem is that X can be too high for poor people and for people with high risk of medical treatment, typically those with pre-existing medical conditions. These people will go uninsured and when they have medical costs, they go bankrupt or untreated. Obamacare "fixes" this by forcing insurance companies to take these customers for less-than-X payment, mandating them to operate at loss. Of course they would go bankrupt if they'd operate at loss, so Obamacare also mandate people with low risks to buy insurance at a higher price than market. So Obamacare is a simple welfare taxing healthy people to donate to sick ones.

No, I don't go into goblin here and say that this is wrong and the sick are not our problem. I'm saying that it's not insurance problem but welfare. It's a political decision to give taxed money to uninsurable poor and sick people. But mixing this welfare into the insurance just make it overly complicated and ineffective as no one is allowed to make good business decisions.

The solution is simple: full repeal, don't replace with anything, let the poor and sick go uninsured and if there is political will, give them Medicaide or taxed vouchers to buy insurance on the market or whatever welfare you want to give them.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Weekend minipost: Trump is "clueless again"

This time the newly elected US president "failed" by receiving a call from the president of Taiwan, which is against the policy of "One China". Then "naively" he tweeted "Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call."

I see two options:
  1. He is an idiot who has no idea about the US policy on China and doesn't understand the difference between unofficial arms deals and official relations.
  2. He is trying to start a trade war with China which was his major campaign promise using a morally unquestionable act that will provoke China to hit first.
Of course everyone goes with #1, since Donald has obviously no clue about nothing. After all pulling the impossible feat of winning a US presidential election as a total outsider, without party support against total media consensus, is a clear proof of being an idiot.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Smoking gun on Riot rigging

I expected proving Riot rigging League of Legends to be a complicated data analysis. Instead, I just bumped into a smoking gun:
Yes, I was autofilled into Bot role, despite I picked Jungle and Top and both jungle and top players were glad to do ADC. There is no other explanation for this than the game wanted us to lose and placed everyone purposefully to the wrong lane.