The Quantitative Peace

When losing is the winning strategy: Game Theory, Badminton, and the 2012 Summer Olympics

The Badminton World Federation disqualified four female badminton teams today from the London Olympics for unsportsmanlike behavior. These teams purposefully tried to lose their first match in a round robin event in order to be paired against easier teams in subsequent rounds (video recap here). These teams were obviously cheating as purposely losing in this manner is against the badminton rules. So why would so many teams blatantly cheat in a very public and very important sporting event? Because they thought they could get away with it. Prior to this mass banning of teams, several Chinese teams had a history of purposefully trying to lose in badminton matches and they were never punished for their behavior.

Being able to cheat and get away with it gave the Chinese teams a huge advantage in the Olympics. Hence, other teams followed the example of the Chinese teams and tried to lose, so they would also have an advantage in later rounds of the competition. All the cheating teams believed there existed a low probability of being caught and/or punished for cheating given past examples.

I created a game to demonstrate why it was in the best interest of all the badminton teams to try to lose their first badminton matches, assuming there was a very low probability that they would be caught.

The Players

There are two players in this game, Team 1 and Team 2. Team 1 is the better team. They have a 60% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly. Team 2 is the weaker team. They only have a 40% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly.

Both teams want to lose the match (while the A team is the better team in this particular round, they would rather have easier competition in subsequent rounds of tournament play). If a team loses, they receive 10 points. Alternatively, if a team wins, they receive 0 points.

Nature also plays a role in this game. Nature represents both the probability that the team will be found cheating and punished for their behavior.  If Nature decides that a team played unfairly, Nature will punish the team, but only 5% of the time.  Given that punishment has been rare in the past, this probability is reasonable, but can be altered to change the risk/reward ratio for cheating. If a team is caught cheating, they receive -10 points.

The Moves (See Figure 1)

Team 1 goes first. They can “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or they can “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

Team 2 moves next. They observed Team 1’s move. Team 2 can also “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

The Outcomes

There are four outcomes.

1. Both teams Cooperate

For this outcome, both teams played fairly and tried to win the game. Team 1 wins 60% of the time when this occurs, and Team 2 wins 40% of the time. A team receives 0 points for winning and 10 points for losing. Hence, the expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.6*0)+(0.4*10)] , [(0.4*0)+(0.6*10)]) = (4, 6)

2. Team 1 Cooperates, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to win and Team 2 tried to lose. Team 1 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 2 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 2 5% of the time. If Team 2 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 2 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

(0, [(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)]) = (0, 9)

3. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Cooperates

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to lose and Team 2 tried to win. Team 2 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 1 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 1 5% of the time. If Team 1 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 1 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)], 0) = (9, 0)

4. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, both teams tried to lose. Since both teams tried to lose, there is a 50% chance that any team could win.

If a team wins, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 0 points.

If a team loses, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 10 points.

If Nature catches a team cheating (which happens 5% of the time), regardless of whether the team won or lost, the team receives -10 points.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)], [(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)]) = (4.25, 4.25)

The Nash Equilibria (See Figures 2 and 3)

There is one Nash Equilibrium derived from backwards induction, {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

There are two Nash Equilibria derived from the strategic form game, {Defect; Cooperate, Defect} and {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

This game suggests that as long as the Badminton World Federation rarely punishes players for trying to lose in the first match of a round robin even, it is in a team’s best interest to try to cheat early on in order to improve their chances of winning in subsequent rounds. To change this outcome, the Badminton World Federation should either detect and punish cheating more often, or change the rules of the tournament where losing in an early round is not so advantageous.

(For another interesting sports match- the 1994 Caribbean Cup provides a classic example of how rules fundamentally change the expected behavior of players in an environment where the object of the game appears simple. By the end of the game, it was in the best interest of both teams to try to score points for the other team).

 

Observations from Jury Duty

I had the opportunity to serve as a juror this week for a case in Ontario County, NY. This was the first time I served on a jury. I thought it would be funny to do something like this to get out of it, but now I am really glad I served. It was a great experience. I made several observations about the process, and now that the trial is over, I can talk about it!

Jury Selection

Jury selection was a long and tedious process. I was actually quite surprised at how well the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney handled it. They had to ask 42 potential jurors the same questions over and over, and this lasted about 5 hours. Despite the long and repetitive nature of this procedure, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney were polite, friendly, and energetic when they questioned each potential juror. I think this made it easier for everyone to relax and be patient through the entire process.

Next, before this whole process began, I was under the assumption that during jury selection, lawyers tried to choose jurors who were sympathetic to their side. This is probably because I am quite cynical- instead of following the letter of the law, I expected the lawyers to try to manipulate the verdict by stacking the jury with people they could easily manipulate. In this particular case, it does not appear that lawyers did this at all. Instead, the lawyers simply tried to look for jurors who were, in the very least, not biased against their side. For example, the prosecutor had one witness who was disabled and needed assistance testifying. He asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased against testimony from witnesses who were disabled, something he clearly wanted to avoid. In addition, the defense attorney knew that the prosecutor would call several law enforcement officials to testify. She asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased in favor of witnesses who worked in law enforcement, something she clearly wanted to avoid.

Next, several of the potential jurors were surprised to learn that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and that the defense does not have to present any evidence at all. Several of the potential jurors were confused why a defendant would not have to provide evidence. They assumed that if a defendant did not testify, this meant the defendant was guilty. Clearly those jurors were not selected, since they had a clear bias against the process.

Even though I knew prior to this that a defendant does not have to testify in court, I did not know why. Luckily (for me?) the judge told us briefly about the history of this rule. For those of you who do not know, a defendant does not have to testify because forcing a defendant to testify is akin to torture. In England during the 15^th to 17^th centuries, courts would determine guilt by torturing victims until they made a statement. This practice was abolished in the 18^th century, and defendants no longer had to answer questions. This rule was incorporated into US law with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment. (Another random fact I learned from the judge- in the US, judges did not wear formal robes until the 1880s- the history of this dress code formality can be found here).

Last, I was quite amused at the behavior of the last group of potential jurors. Some background- the day began with the first group of 14 potential jurors (they eventually needed 12 regular jurors and 2 alternates). They chose 5 people from this group (I was in this group, probably because I am unlucky, but I digress!). Then there was the second group of jurors, in which 6 people were picked, which brought the total to 11 jurors, with 3 slots left. Then there was the third group of 14 jurors, in which 3 people would be chosen. The judge indicated that the first 7 people in this group were more likely to be called as jurors than the second 7 people. Apparently instead of looking at the entire group of 14 as a whole to determine who would be jurors, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney looked at each juror, in the order they were selected, and determined if they would be a juror or not.

So, out of all the potential jurors questioned that day, these 7 potential jurors had the highest probability of being selected compared to all the other potential jurors. If these people really did not want to serve on a jury, they really had to put in the effort to be sent home. In addition, these potential jurors had more information about what would disqualify them as jurors, as they were able to observe how the other 28 potential jurors acted, observe which ones were sent home, and then make inferences based on this information what they had to do to be sent home. As expected, as the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney asked these 7 potential jurors questions one by one, most of them made unusually inflammatory statements about how they could not be fair and impartial in the trial. I found this slightly amusing (cynical me again). The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney ended up having to select potential juror 8 as an alternate since 5 of the first 7 jurors disqualified themselves. If the potential jurors in the first two groups acted this way earlier in the day, I imagine the judge would have had to call a fourth group of potential jurors because there would not have been enough people to fill 14 slots.

The Trial

Before the trial began, the judge instructed us to base our decisions on the law and to not make our decisions based on what we think the law should be. In his words, we were not able to legislate. Nevertheless, even though were not able to legislate, it is clear to me now that sometimes when legislators pass laws, they delegate some power to judges, lawyers, and jurors to interpret the laws they write.

Background- The defendant of the case, Grant Ackley, is a Level 3 sex offender. In New York State, all Level 3 sex offenders have to fill out a form with a county or state government office that states their current residence every 90 days. They also have to bring in a letter they received at that address within 10 days of the application to prove they are living there. In addition, if a Level 3 sex offender moves within the 90 day period between applications, they have 10 calendar days to report their move to a county or state government. On December 14, 2011, Grant Ackley filled out a form indicating he was living at the Woodridge Hotel in Canandaigua, NY. He did not provide the proper mail to prove his residence, but the clerk accepted his application anyways. On the same day, he also filled out a form for food stamp benefits stating the same address.

There were three charges in the case: (1) the prosecution claimed that Grant Ackley moved out of the Woodridge Hotel sometime in October 2011, he moved into an apartment of a friend who lived above a toy store, and he failed to inform a county or state government official of his move within 10 days of his move; (2) he falsely filled out his 90 residence form with a fake address; and (3) that he also falsely filled out a food stamps application with a fake address. As a jury, we had to determine what a residence or address really meant, and determine whether Ackley gave his correct residence or address. In other words, instead of the legislature or the bureaucracy determining what a residence or address was, it was the responsibility of the jury to determine this definition.

The trial itself only lasted 2 days. Nevertheless, the prosecution presented a lot of evidence on the first day and it was mentally exhausting. I am glad we were able to go home around 4 pm on that day, as it gave us all the opportunity to process the information.  

Jury Deliberations

Jury deliberations lasted about 4 hours. Every one of the jurors was polite and open to having an honest/ educated debate, so it was a pleasant experience. I really enjoyed working with them. I feel as though we examined the evidence differently than the prosecutor and defense attorney. Although both lawyers connected some of the dots for us, it was really up to us to examine the evidence to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

How we decided: We found the defendant guilty on all 3 charges.

How I came to my conclusions:

(1) Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that at some point prior to October 2011, Grant Ackley lived at the Woodridge Hotel. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that he moved out sometime at the end of October/ beginning of November. He was unable to live at the hotel because he could not pay rent. His income was too low. He would have had 5 dollars left to his name every month if he lived there for an entire month at a time. In addition, back in October, he already owed the hotel back about 250 dollars back rent. One of the witnesses from the hotel testified that he still has not paid his back rent. So by the end of October, he was financially unable to live at the hotel, as his income would have been unable to cover the rent plus the back rent. (2) In addition, he also did not pick up his mail from the Woodridge Hotel, his purported mailing address. The prosecution provided evidence of returned mail from the hotel that indicated Ackley was not there for at least 15 days in November. (3) It was pretty clear throughout the trial that Grant Ackley spent a great deal of time at his friend’s apartment during the months of October, November, and December 2011. He also had a lot of belongings at that apartment. (4) The prosecution also provided 2 pieces of evidence where the defendant stated that his address was his friend’s address, not the Woodridge Hotel. During a 911 call about a domestic dispute, Ackley identified his friend’s address as him own. In addition, when Ackley was arrested on December 31, 2011, he identified his friend’s address as his own. (5) The hotel worker provided evidence that someone else was occupying the Woodridge Hotel room from December 22 to December 28, 2011. Ackley could not have lived there. Even IF Ackley lived at the hotel until December 21, based on the law, he would have had to report this move by December 30, the last calendar day he was able to report, which he did not. (6) Last, the evidence definitely suggested that Ackley was not living in the hotel in November and at the end of December. Could Ackley have paid 400 dollars to stay at the hotel in the middle of December to stay there for the week of December 14, 2011? Maybe, but that would have been half his monthly income and he had no intent on staying there long term. His permanent residence was with his friend, as indicated by him being there after December 21, 2011. Essentially his stay at the hotel would have been considered a short vacation or trip, only a temporary movement.

Final Thoughts

As I stated earlier, I am glad I participated on a jury. I am now less cynical about the judicial process. I can also share this experience with my students in the future. Maybe I can leave them with a more positive view of the US judicial system. In addition, after this experience, I feel like I should participate more in politics and other government related activities. It was fun to analyze the judicial process. But I also feel like I learned a lot too, about a topic that is relevant our discipline.

And, finally, just for fun:

Kudos to those who get the reference!

(Mis)Understanding Political Science and Some Other Stuff

Let me preface this by saying that I started writing this post a little while ago, so some of the content is a bit dated at this point. That said, over at the Duck, Steve Saideman has a post up that continues the ongoing discussion on political science, its utility, and its relationship with the broader public. Steve* also links to some research on the subject done by fellow Binghamton University PhD, Conor Dowling. 

You can check out either post for more details on the content/findings of the research. For now, I wanted to focus on a couple of points. Overall, I agree with the vast majority of what Steve says. I've commented previously on the idea of making political science research more readily accessible to outsiders—policymakers in particular. Though I'm a bit skeptical as to just how much of this gap is attributable to political scientists, I do think that we have a lot to add to the public debate on a wide range of issues. And as my fellow blogger Chad Clay has expressed in discussions we've had on the topic, some of this probably does not even imply a complete overhaul of how we go about our work. Maybe we just need to do a better job of publicizing slightly more condensed and less formal versions of the research that we're currently engaged in. 

But I would take Steve's point one step furhter—I think part of the problem is a generally poor understanding of science among the broader public. While I completely agree that most people have no idea what we do, and that the mere sound of what we do probably turns many people off, I'm not sure they really have any idea what most of the hard sciences actually do either. Things like Cancer research excepted, that is. Still, I'm guessing support for funding research in physics, chemistry, biology, etc., is much higher than support for funding political science research, but most people probably have very little idea as to what these disciplines do with their time, or how they do it. And as I've pointed out before, the hard sciences deal with many of the same problems of classification, measurement, etc. The medical field, for all of its developments over the past century or so, still treats a range of mental health issues as though they are somehow not related to an organ in your body. This a simplification, but I don't think it's much of a stretch. Call me crazy, but ECT does not seem like a terribly sophisticated treatment—and yes, this is still used today. 

Overall, my point is that there is somehow a popular distinction as to what qualifies as science and what does not. Science is not viewed as a process of understanding, learning, and evaluation that can be applied to a range of subjects, but it is popularly identified with the subjects themselves. Even though we have the word "science" in the name of our discipline, I don't think most people see it as such. Even if you tell them that we use some of the same methodologies that are used in the hard sciences, I don't think this will change their views either (As Steve notes, this is pretty tough). The widespread use of the term "scientist" to describe someone that does research in any field of the hard sciences is both irksome and somewhat representative of this problem—most people have no idea as to the distinctions that exist between the numerous fields of research within the "scientist" label/category, but they are far more comfortable telling you who is not a scientist. Where this misplaced sense of authority over just what constitutes science—one that many people seem to hold—comes from is not clear, but I blame the ubiquitous question, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" 

As I said, I started this post a little while ago, and I came across some interesting stories this morning as I prepped this for posting. In other news, Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have "quietly" opened up a pipeline that bypasses the Straight of Hormuz. FT notes that the sanctions have pushed Iranian oil production to its lowest point in 20 years. The new pipelines will also carry a volume of oil that is equivalent to about 40% of the Straight's daily flow. The opening of this pipeline is "news" in some sense, but my guess is that the Iranians have probably known about this for a while now. So my question is, have they yet to react to this development, or is the expectation that this pipeline would open already baked into their behavior?  

Another brief point: Foreign Policy informs me that the Red Cross has classified Syria as a Civil War. Another topic I've talked about before. Keep watching to see if each successive label change comes closer on the heels of the previous. 

-------

*I should disclose that I've never actually met Professor Saideman (unless seeing his face on my Twitter feed counts, but I don't think he follows me so that probably doesn't count), so I may be a bit presumptuous in using such familiar terms. 

Human Rights and NGOs

I've been working recently on quite a few projects that deal with human rights and NGOs, and today's BBC podcast has quite a bit of material that is relevant to these topics. 

First, there's a story regarding a new law that is being debated in Russia that would require NGOs receiving funding from external sources to label themselves as "foreign agents" in all of their state documentation and internet materials. The law would also increase the amount of bookkeeping required by the Russian government to allow NGOs to operate within Russia. Failure to abide by the new law's requirements would result in fines and a possible two-year jail sentence. This measure comes on the heals of more of Putin's shenanigans (see here and here). The BBC segment has some interesting interviews with Russian MPs, who justify the legislation on the grounds that NGOs are acting at the behest of Western and US interests in an effort to undermine Russian democracy. 

The second segment of interest concerns the disappearance and execution of people during the 1970s by the military government in Argentina. I've just spent a bit of time reading Keck and Sikkink's 1998 book, Activists Beyond Borders. It just so happens that the authors have a nice and concise account of the role played by NGOs in exposing the activities of the military government during this time period—one that I found myself drawing upon only yesterday. The BBC segment expands a bit upon the details concerning disappearances involving young pregnant women, and the details are both interesting and appalling. Essentially, women were kidnapped, but the authorities often waiting until the women gave birth before executing them. The babies were subsequently handled in a variety of ways, but apparently many children were dropped off at hospitals, while many others were adopted by military families. 

Health Insurance as a Tax Break

In the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) today, the court upheld the individual mandate provision today viewing it as a tax. The ruling stated that while Congress could not require people to buy insurance, Congress could tax people who did not buy insurance. 

From another perspective, instead of looking at the individual mandate as a tax on those who do not buy insurance, it is a tax break for those who do buy insurance. This would be similar to tax breaks people receive for going to college, donating to charity, and buying a home. Obviously Congress cannot require people to attend college, be charitable, or invest in the economy, but it certaintly can reward people who do.

On a related note, it seems that proponents of the legislation are now using the term "Obamacare" to describe the ACA. I do not know if this started today, or recently. I may just notice it now because of the ruling. But it is interesting how a seemingly negative word that conservatives used to delegimitize the ACA has now been adopted by advocates to label and further their cause.

On the Utility of IR Research

At the Duck of Minerva, Josh Busby has a post on the gap between political science research/IR and the policymaking community. I don't have a whole lot to say about the specific content of Busby's post, aside from the fact that I think this is an interesting an important debate to have. (Also, please note that the links in the quotations were provided in Busby's original post).

The Syrian Civil War II

So it's official...ish. It's official-ish.  Or maybe not. The BBC reports that the UN Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Herve Ladsous, seems to be the first official to publicly describe the Syrian civil war as a civil war, as opposed to something moving ever closer to that oh so elusive place. However, the article also notes that others have pushed back against this description (big surprise). Officials from the Syrian Foreign Ministry are opting to describe the conflict as follows:  

Talk of civil war in Syria is not consistent with reality... What is happening in Syria is a war against armed groups that choose terrorism.

So they don't quibble with the use of the word "war," but simply the notion that what Syria is experiencing is of the civil variety. Coming from Syrian officials, however, I get it, and I don't really find this to be terribly surprising.

What I'm curious about is how this comment by a UN official will impact the way other public officials talk about the Syrian civil war, henceforth. Last week I wrote about how there has been a widespread reluctance among US, UN, and other policymakers to refer to the Syrian conflict as a civil war. Here's a piece at the NY Times from yesterday addressing the same issue. Barbara Walter and Elizabeth Martin offer some suggestions as to why that might be, and I've offered a few of my own followup thoughts here.

Will more senior officials publicly rebuke Ladsous for comments? Label them "premature"? "Hasty"? Will there be some sort of domino effect, whereby Ladsous' comments make open the door for other policymakers to start using the label? Perhaps there is something to be said for the label arising from the "bottom up" so to speak. Though, I'm not entirely sure that Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations constitutes coming from the bottom. Still, perhaps now that someone with "expertise" in this area (almost like a scientist or something) has used the label, higher level officials will feel that they have cover to use the term. Whereas if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were to trot out the term first, it could seem more "political" in its derivations? 

Of course, this is all an exercise in aimless musing. Thoughts? 

The Syrian Civil War

Over at the new Political Violence at a Glance blog, Barbara Walter and Elizabeth Martin address a question that I raised last week regarding the reluctance of policymakers to label the Syrian conflict a civil war. Walter and Martin raise three/four points in particular (I may be lumping something together here) to help explain this behavior, but I have a couple of further questions/comments. 

Don't Call It A Comeback (This Civil War Has Been Here For Years)

Well, maybe not years. And LL Cool J references aside, while perusing my usual news outlets this morning I've found that in the wake of what is reported to be a fresh massacre, Syria is again a common theme in the headlines (see CNN, BBC, FP). More after the jump.

Math's PR Problem OR Changing our Educational System

I was listening to the BBC's Global News Podast this morning and found an interesting segment on the utility of mathematical modeling. Professor John Adam's book (which can be found here) looks at how one can model various aspects of urban life—pollution, traffic congestion, number of dentists offices, etc. I've not read the book, but Adam's message in his interview was something that I can sympathize with. In particular, Adam talks about the degree to which the educational process divorces math from any kind of applied usage. Learning math in this way, he goes on, is partially responsible for why more children/people are not as interested in mathematics as they might otherwise be. 

Sure, there are the ubiquitous "if a train leaves city A at rate X, and a train leaves city B at rate Z, when will their paths cross," kind of examples. But seriously, is that the best we can do? Now, I recognize that I'm far from being the strongest, or the quickest, when it comes to picking up a lot of the methods that I've been taught over the past few years. I, like many people I suppose, was not the biggest fan of math class in high school. Some of this was laziness on my part, but some of it was also the framework in which the subject matter was taught. Even in college it was far from clear that any kind of math beyond balancing a checkbook would play as big a part in my life as it currently does. I did well enough in these classes, but it was not until graduate school that I really had to seriously engage math and statistics.  

As it turns out, I've really enjoyed the quantitative side of my training here at Binghamton, and I'm far more willing to work at developing my understanding and skills now than I was when I was 16. Had I known in high school that I this stuff could be used to study things like war, human rights, etc., I might have cared a bit more. These are things that I've always been interested in. And this is perfectly rational behavior, right? If the expected utility of learning this material is zero, or even negative, then why expend the effort? Where is the payoff? If this is the case, then a major part of the reason that the expected utility of learning this material is so low is because the people that should be able to provide you with the relevant information to update your expectations simply do not do a very good job of that. In fact, I'd say that I didn't really get that at all until grad school. And being able to make that initial connection between math and statistics, and the substantive topics that I care about, has subsequently led me to develop a greater appreciation for the math itself that underlies the models I often use. 

I don't have any answers for how the educational system could be modified to address this issue. I also realize that you would have to find a way to incorporate applied mathematics into most subject fields, as not everyone has the particular set of interests that would make more math in history or government class a sufficient solution to the problem. Still, there must be a better way. With folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson going around trying to promote greater scientific literacy, and the recent attacks on NSF funding for political science, it seems like there is a space for us to modify how we educate our younglings and how science, math, history, etc., can be better integrated in this process. Maybe if people developed a better understanding of science as a process, or math as something with real world and substantive applications, rather than something that existed strictly from 1pm to 1:45pm during 8th period, people would be better able to develop a more robust appreciation for how mathematics and science fit into, and matter for, our daily lives. This is fairly obvious when phrased like that, but the fact is that it's not really what we do currently, is it?

Am I missing something?

Also—and this is a total aside—Brian Rathbun at the Duck of Minerva has a discussion of how Iron Maiden material can be used to teach political science. This is perhaps a good example of what I was talking about above, so perhaps this is not a total aside, but what we have here is essentially "applied awesomeness."