Sunday: It's annoying to make lunch plans for yourself, and then discover that the place isn't open for lunch.

Which suggests strongly I should have gotten lasagna yesterday, and done steak today, but that wasn't the order I wanted to do them in.  I also kind of want french toast again.  :-/

It's good lasagna, though, so it probably isn't that big of a problem to have to wait.  I also perfectly centered the cheesy garlic bread there.  Perfectly.

The problem is that since I ate lunch so late (4:30ish), I'm kind of think I'm either still hungry, or hungry again.  I still have half of that lasagna, since it was kind of a huge chunk. Eat it later?  Eat a snack instead?  Save it for tomorrow?  So many options.

In other news, today was the end of round two of the sports thing.  I also need to go back and update posts with the new label I've decided is probably useful, "sports = statistics".  So I updated everything before the final game was over, and then had to double check nothing went wrong:

Copying from 538.  Two of those I didn't care about anymore due to prior choices, one of them I kind of knew was going to be the case, one of them I wasn't expecting to take two overtimes to come to my result, one apparently fell apart in the last two seconds, and the final one had me frowning at it until it decided not to make me re-edit all my stuff.

 Results for this time:

Again, three of my four mistakes this time around were caused by my winning choice being eliminated in the previous round.  For the last one:

Xavier:
12.500000       42.187500       29.687500               2       7       7       Wisconsin

34.375000       12.500000       14.062500               2       8       2       Xavier

Why did I choose Xavier?  Did I get confused and use the 2014 rankings instead of the 2016 ones?  This looks like me being dumb.  Maybe I took the #2 ranking too seriously?  I should probably write down logic notes next time, so I can point to the error directly.

What does the scoring comparison look like?

#Bracket	N_R1	PP_R1	Nwrong_R1	P_R1	N_R2	PP_R2	Nwrong_R1	P_R2
Mine	32	1	6	26	16	2	4	50
Heart-of-the-cards	32	1	10	22	16	2	8	38
Julie	32	1	10	22	16	2	6	42
BHO	32	1	9	23	16	2	6	43
538	32	1	8	24	16	2	7	42
Rank	32	1	13	19	16	2	6	39

Again the "rank" method is garbage, and shouldn't be used.  Nate Silver had a tweet earlier about how this is apparently because it's based on RPI too much.  Looking at wikipedia, it looks like RPI is an incomplete version of my LAM method.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  This also shows the point where HotC totally falls apart, becoming the worst method.  Everyone else is pretty well clumped together.  I'm a bit surprised that 538 isn't doing better, given the "we included scores, and at-home values, and distances to the games, and the number of cats each player owns, and the SAT scores of each player."

This also makes me think I should have actually entered my selections into some pool.  Maybe I should hone the method a bit more, and see how it works over a few more years.  Or, alternatively, I could do the reasonably easy thing and apply the method to the historical data, and see if this consistently matches reality.  Maybe next weekend, since I think it's a long one.  This will also make me fix my master Makefile to put things into logical directories, and not just dump the outputs into a common directory.

Links:

• This is a good pendant.
• This is technically NSFW, but it's also classical paintings, so not that much.  Also: cool.
• Mark Hamill.
• The President of the United States.
• Well.  So I guess I'm buying this from Amazon now.
• Ok, so it must not have been fully announced, because A doesn't have it yet.  This did give a chance to notice that I'd double pre-ordered the Patsy Walker trade.  Whoops.  I guess I need a bigger "HEY, YOU ALREADY ORDERED THIS!  YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRINTED YET!  BE PATIENT!"