Tag: Stupid people

Strategy Change

Morons & Idiots

Well, why not?

A majority of idiots in Gen Z have moved money out of investments and into a sports betting account. Twenty-six percent of Gen Z say “they treat sports betting as a deliberate, ongoing component of their financial plans,” according to a Bloomberg report.

Nothing like “fair and balanced reporting”, is there?  (I know, it’s Breitbart and not Fox News, but you get my drift.)

That 26 percent compares to 14 percent of Millennials, just six percent of Generation X, and one percent of Boomers.

“Sports betting is increasingly competing with traditional investing for younger Americans’ attention,” adds Bloomberg, “with more than a quarter of Gen Z investors saying they see gambling on sports as part of their long-term financial strategy.”

Gambling as a “long-term strategy.” The stupid; it hurts.

But let’s look at this whole thing from another angle.

The thing about sports betting is that if you take it seriously and look at the stats (as opposed to picking a horse because its name reminds you of yer Mum), there’s little difference between that and, say, playing the stock market.  Oh wait, those are serious investment vehicles. [eyecross]

And let’s be honest:  how many times have you seen one of those silly games where darts thrown into a random chart of stocks have yielded better results than those picked by analysts?  (I would love to see some kind of comparison of long-term results from the darts vs. the analysts, played each day, week or month over a twenty-five year period.)

Pro tip:  it’s all gambling.  Whether it’s a horse crossing the line first (at 27-1 odds) or GlobalMegaCorp Inc.’s share price doubling over the next six months, who can say?  Even better:  who’s not going to make money over the result of the next Dallas Cowboys game by picking the other team?

The only way people are going to consistently lose money on sports betting is when they start playing the minutiae:  points spreads, yardages, number of times Caitlin Clark is going to draw a flagrant foul for the rest of the WNBA season, etc.  (In the stock market, those kinds of  bets  I mean investments are called “puts”, and while the rewards can be astonishing, mostly it’s just the old “dropping dollars down a drain” situation.)

Rule of thumb:  the more complex the bet, the more likely you’re going to lose.

But I digress.  I have no problem with a small segment of Da Yoot trying a different way to increase their moolah.  I’m more interested in why they’re doing it, but not that interested, any more than I’m interested in why people still go to casinos, or why they bet on which raindrop reaches the bottom of the windowpane first.

Or whether Whizzbang Technologies’ IPO will yield 45% growth of stock value on the first day’s call.

I should point out that in my own yoot, I once got suckered into a golf game called “Yardbucks”, in which each yard of the golf course was worth a yard:  lose a 375-yard hole, and you’re down $375.  (There are typically more than 6,000 yards in an average golf course.)

I ended up losing only $15, and I only managed to lose that little because I won the last hole, a par-five 568-yard monster by fluking a 15-yard putt.

More to the point, I think I sweated out well over a gallon in those four hours,  and I’m pretty sure I did lasting damage to my heart.  I’ve never gambled on golf, or any other sport since.

Finding Space

Foreign Affairs, Marxists

Apparently there’s this foolishness emanating from the BritGov and its new (Marxist) Prone Monster:

Andy Burnham’s review into the prisons early release scheme will be conducted in the “coming days and weeks” and decisions need to be made “very quickly”, a Labour minister has said.

Under the new Sentencing Act set to come into force in September, some 6,000 criminals were due to be released under the early prison release scheme, but the Prime Minister on Thursday paused the plans and ordered an urgent review.

That’s because among the 6,000 would-be releasees are a pair of cop-killers — and needless to say, this eventuality has created a serious stir, even among the normally-passive Brits.

Under changes in the Sentencing Act, some offenders were set to be let out of prison after serving a third of their sentence, rather than half, in a bid to ease prison overcrowding.

Hell, I have a problem with that “half”, let alone a third because the Brits have appallingly-low sentences for serious crimes to start off with.  When attempted murder gets seven years (I watched one such example on a TV documentary, a few nights back), that would mean his effective sentence is barely two years.  For attempting to kill someone — in the one I watched, he stabbed the victim fourteen times, and only a miracle saved the victim’s life.

Frankly, I’m not at all sympathetic towards the moans about “overcrowding”, particularly when I see how the folks in El Salvador handle their violent criminal population:

And if we all feel strongly about this — and I’m pretty sure we do — allow me to offer a solution to their overcrowding problem:

Now I know that many are against the death penalty, and for once I’m going to be a little sympathetic to their concerns.

So start off by hanging only the murderers who killed more than one victim, add those who were caught in the act of murdering — say, in a public place where there were lots of witnesses — and let’s throw in the child-murderers for good measure.

Not only will the overcrowding problem be eased, but I’m willing to bet that would-be murderers may start to think twice before pulling out the kitchen knives and what have you, and the crime rate will start to drop.

It’s worth a try, because nothing else the BritGov has tried or even suggested has worked.

All this, of course, because the same BritGov — of whatever party — spends more money on cossetting illegal immigrants than on building new prisons in, say, the Outer Hebrides where there’s lots of space and a climate guaranteed to chill [sic]  all thoughts of mayhem from prospective criminals.

It’s just a question of priorities, really.

 

Troublesome Equations

Two-Minute Hate, Unintended Consequences

“Modern feminism can’t agree on what a woman is. It’s defended violent male predators in women’s prisons and stayed silent on UK rape gangs to avoid being called racist.” — SOTI.

There are all sorts of social couplings [sic]  that anyone with a brain could see would lead to trouble.  (Note the “with a brain” stipulation;  this will be important later.)  Allow me to list but a few.

  • Men (even men who think they’re women) allowed access to a woman’s changing room:  trouble.
  • Homosexual Boy Scout leaders being allowed to run Scout troops full of young boys:  trouble.
  • Female sailors forced to share quarters with male sailors on board a Navy vessel:  trouble.
  • Male prison warders being employed in women’s prisons:  trouble.
  • Female prison warders being employed in men’s prisons.  trouble.

My point is that common sense would dictate that all the above should be recognized as being potentially troublesome, because everyday experience (not to mention history) can provide endless examples thereof.  (Here’s one example of the last in the above list.)

And yet all the above silliness is not only allowed, but encouraged — and then when the S Hits The F, everyone is surprised?  (Well, I’m not surprised, and nor is anyone with some vestige of common sense.)

Frankly, I’m done with all of it.  Let the social experimenters continue with their endless, foolish experiments, I don’t care a fig.

If girls get raped by men in their high school- or college toilets and locker rooms, I don’t care.

If boys come back from their Scout camps with a shiny new  Fellatio Badge:  hang the offending Scout leaders and fine / flog / imprison the parents for their negligence;  I don’t care.

If every female sailor gets pregnant and has to go on some kind of lifetime G.I. benefits, and ships sink because of a shortage of sailors;  so be it.

If the incidence of rape by male warders skyrockets in women’s prisons;  whatever.

If female warders get pregnant by their convict boyfriends or help said boyfriends get access to drugs, booze or guns;  tell someone who cares.

I’m not interested in getting excited about foolishness and its many consequences.

Because if I do get excited about all the above, then I’m the intolerant one, the male chauvinist, the right-winger, the whatever.

I don’t care about that, either.  FOAD, the lot of you.

News Summary

Bad News


...one would have thought...


...dangerous for whom?  Asking for a friend.


...I’m taking bets that most if not all of the 400 aren’t native-born Frogs.  What, nobody wants to take a bet?


...in which we play our popular “Guess The Race” game.


...and one more time...


...I hope it crashes with lots of Irish politicians on board.  Would serve them right, the anti-Semitic assholes.


...just wasn’t his day, was it?


....ummmm if her body is covered, she’s not “completely” nude, is she?  Nevertheless, here’s the proof:

I report, you opine.

News Summary

Bad News


...are any of those one hundred planned for the Dallas / N.Texas area?  No?  Well then, screw you, Greggs.


...just doing what he used to do back home.  Respect his cultural heritage, you rayyyycisss.


...I’ve heard of some strange sex fantasies, but this one’s a goodie.


...wait:  Fatboi did something right for a change?  (Blind pigs, truffles etc., which seems kind of appropriate here.)


...and I’m not going to get a refund on all that popcorn I bought, either.


...it’s called “delayed gratification”, you greedy little shits.  Deal.


...on the bright side, it’s Donna Mills and not Nancy Pelosi.


...those lobster-wannabes:  I’ve warned you about them before.


...and to escape his humiliation, he goes home and hops into bed with this every night:


The poor man;  how he must suffer.

That’s it for the news, such as it is.

Inevitable

Corporate Fuckery, Drive Time, Management

As with so many of their articles, this one at American Thinker does an admirable job of delving deep into the minutiae — this time of the European car manufacturing malaise — and comes up with the inevitable conclusion.  First, though the writer tees up the argument with a statement that is obvious to most of us:

Looking at the global automotive market, one conclusion is unavoidable: the end of the combustion engine is nowhere in sight.

When I say it’s obvious, I mean that anyone with a brain could see that the constraints of the combustion engine’s purported replacements — electricity especially, and ditto hydrogen power — had just too many negatives to make any replacement a lengthy (and super-costly) affair.

So why, then, did the Big Brains in the German automotive industry go so hard after electric cars, devoting billions of dollars into the creation of manufacturing facilities dedicated to the Big New Thing?  Here’s AT‘s take:

But one thing is clear: an energy policy detached from economic reality, driven by climate-apocalyptic ambitions, has harmed the industry at least as much as strategic mistakes at the management level.

We’ve looked at the climate-apocalyptics many times before on these pages, and once again, we all knew that the Watermelons had an agenda that, to be charitable, wasn’t just about Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©, but also about crippling Western capitalism to “level the playing field” with Third World nations.

We also know that when it comes to that kind of neo-socialist government mindset of the German government — and most of the other Euro governments — the idea of central control is seductive, nay imperative.  So it would be logical, in their eyes, to mandate that electric cars constitute a large majority of the auto market by x date (2030), and therefore it had to happen.

Of course, when you set yourself against market forces — especially one as entrenched as automotive power — you’re going to fail utterly absent some massive and ummm super-costly infrastructure creation, even assuming that any government had the cash and resources to actually implement such a construction project inside that timeline (and none do, not even the U.S.).

Which leads to the question:  if this scenario is so glaringly obvious, why did German car manufacturers not stand up to their government and say, “No.”?

Well, all corporations are lickspittles to their respective governments in the end, so such resistance is of course unthinkable.  But Thomas Kolbe supplies another factor:

The tragedy of Germany’s automotive industry is not that it failed to recognize technological change. On the contrary: few industries have invested more resources over recent decades into researching new drive technologies.

The deeper problem is German overconfidence: a hidden statism and an arrogance cultivated by decades of undeniable success — the belief that Germany could not only identify the technology of the future but also predict its entire development path.

A mixture of technological hubris and a belief in unlimited manageability — a character flaw that prepares the ground for failure.

To believe one can outsmart the market, to know more than millions of economic actors operating through decentralized information networks: Is this the German disease?

If so, it’s a disease that has infected Germany since Bismarck’s time — the auto manufacturing industry being just the latest manifestation (the earlier one was militarism).

I guess they should have just stuck to doing brilliant engineering — except that their political class (like most political classes) are just as wedded to the concept of social engineering as Mercedes is to automotive engineering.

There’s a broader lesson to be learned here, but I’m not at all sanguine of anyone actually learning it.