(Visited 2,172 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it.Flipping Fisher’s Famous Theoremby William F. Basener and John C. SanfordA recent paper in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x) has uncovered major problems with the historically pivotal Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. That theorem was proven by Ronald Fisher – one the great scientists of the last century. Fisher’s theorem was published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics.Fisher’s theorem was … the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics.Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental,” because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law – on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness – without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity – a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra – Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said; “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962) believed he had proved evolution mathematically.Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory – which now reigns supreme in modern academia.The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process – once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase.The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.Since we now know that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, therefore we can no longer assume that the mutations and natural selection will lead to increasing fitness. For example, if all mutations were deleterious, it should be obvious that fitness would always decline, and the rate of decline would be proportional to the severity and rate of the deleterious mutations.To correct Fisher’s Theorem, the authors of the new paper needed to reformulate Fisher’s mathematical model. The problems with Fisher’s theorem were that; 1) it was initially formulated in a way that did not allow for any type of dynamical analysis; 2) it did not account for new mutations; and 3) it consequently did not consider the net fitness effect of new mutations. The newly formulated version of Fisher’s theorem has now been mathematically proven. It is shown to yield identical results as the original formulation, when using the original formulation’s assumptions (no mutations). The new theorem incorporates two competing factors: a) the effect of natural selection, which consistently drives fitness upward); and b) the effect of new mutations, which consistently drive fitness downward). It is shown that the actual efficiency of natural selection and the actual rate and distribution of new mutations determines whether a population’s fitness will increase or decrease over time. Further analysis indicates that realistic rates and distributions of mutations make sustained fitness gain extremely problematic, while fitness decline becomes more probable. The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. The new paper seems to have turned Fisher’s Theorem upside down, and with it, the entire neo-Darwinian paradigm.Sanford’s book examines the impact of mutations that are invisible to selection.Supplemental Information – Fisher’s informal corollary (really just a thought experiment), was convoluted. The essence of Fisher’s corollary was that the effect of both good and bad mutations should be more or less equal – so their net effect should be more-or less neutral. However, the actual evidence available to Fisher at that time already indicated that mutations were overwhelmingly deleterious. Fisher acknowledged that most observed mutations were clearly deleterious – but he imagined that this special class of highly deleterious mutations would easily be selected away, and so could be ignored. He reasoned that this might leave behind a different class of invisible mutations that all had a very low-impact on fitness – which would have a nearly equal chance of being either good or bad. This line of reasoning was entirely speculative and is contrary to what we now know. Ironically, such “nearly-neutral” mutations are now known to also be nearly-invisible to natural selection – precluding their role in any possible fitness increase. Moreover, mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious – even the low impact mutations. This means that the net effect of such “nearly-neutral” mutations, which are all invisible to selection, must be negative, and must contribute significantly to genetic decline. Furthermore, it is now known that the mutations that contribute most to genetic decline are the deleterious mutations that are intermediate in effect – not easily selected away, yet impactful enough to cause serious decline.Update 1/05/18: This article was referenced by World Magazine and by the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Science Today. Ed. note: We are honored to have Bill Basener and Dr. John Sanford writing in Creation-Evolution Headlines to report this important new paper. Dr Sanford is a renowned geneticist from Cornell University, inventor of the gene gun and author of Genetic Entropy. Dr. Sanford was an evolutionist who turned creationist based on the genetic evidence. In our 9/02/2004 entry, we relayed what Steve Jones (an ardent evolutionist) thought about R. A. Fisher’s personal life and beliefs. Jones was reviewing a book about six ‘Darwin bulldogs’ or defenders, including Fisher. Calling him a “bearded bigot,” Jones made these uncomplimentary remarks about Ronald Fisher, based on what he had read in Marek Kohn’s book A Reason for Everything: Natural Selection and the British Imagination (Faber and Faber, 2004):Fisher claimed that his fundamental theory of natural selection occupied the supreme position among the biological sciences, although others dismissed it as a verbal trick…. His Genetical Theory of Natural Selection became evolution’s equivalent of The Lord of the Rings: full of gnomic and portentous truths with rather a nasty social agenda lurking beneath (Fisher felt it his biological duty to beget eight children). As Kohn points out, Fisher’s followers, like those of Wagner – composer of a musical on the same theme – are obsessed with the fine detail of what the great begetter meant and are still far from sure.Fisher was also an open racist and eugenicist. About this facet of his life, Wikipedia says:In 1910 Fisher joined the Eugenics Society (UK) at University of Cambridge, whose members included John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett, and Horace Darwin. He saw eugenics as addressing pressing social and scientific issues that encompassed and drove his interest in both genetics and statistics. During World War I Fisher started writing book reviews for the Eugenic Review and volunteered to undertake all such reviews for the journal, being hired for a part-time position. The last third of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection focussed on eugenics, attributing the fall of civilizations to the fertility of their upper classes being diminished, and used British 1911 census data to show an inverse relationship between fertility and social class, partly due, he claimed, to the lower financial costs and hence increasing social status of families with fewer children. He proposed the abolition of extra allowances to large families, with the allowances proportional to the earnings of the father. He served in several official committees to promote Eugenics. In 1934, he resigned from the Eugenics Society over a dispute about increasing the power of scientists within the movement.These quotes illustrate that theories bearing on nature, mankind and reality do not emerge in a vacuum, but are filtered through the passions and worldview assumptions of their creators.
South African financial services provider Ubank has partnered with US-Africa Children’s Fellowship (USACF) to provide books to Dalasile High School and Tshapile Primary School in Ngcobo in the Eastern Cape.The materials donated include reading books, reference books, and actual curriculum text books to the value of US$500 000 (about R4.9-million).Dalasile High School and Tshapile Primary School in Ngcobo in the Eastern Cape will benefit from the donation of reading books, reference books, and actual curriculum text books (Image: US-Africa Children’s Fellowship Facebook page)After the recent adoption of a school in Bloemfontein, this is yet another initiative to highlight its commitment to uplift the communities that it is a part of, says Ubank.INVESTING IN COMMUNITIESThe Eastern Cape has always been a key area for Ubank as many of the Bank’s customers originate from the region, which also cements our focus to continue improving the lives of those living there.“Investing in the communities in which we operate, forms a critical part of how we do business,” says Derek Elbrecht, head of the Teba Trust. “Not only do we invest in helping less privileged schools across South Africa, but we also value partnerships with organisations that have the same objective as us, and USACF fell right into that category.”USACF is an organisation dedicated to improving education for young people in Africa, and was started by Mark Grashow and his wife in 2003. Today, the programme supports 70 000 children in 165 schools in Botswane, Ghana, Tanzania, South Africa and Zimbabwe.As of April 2013, USACF has sent twenty-three 40-foot shipping containers to schools in those countries, with each container being filled with library books, textbooks, school supplies, sports equipment, toys, and other needed materials.“We have also invested in the building and rehabilitation of school structures in the area, and we are very proud to be part of the creation of future leaders in our communities,” added Ubank CEO Luthando Vutula.
Get ready, all you Android phone owners, for money to fly out of your pockets even easier. If you’ve always looked to your iPhone brethren with envy, secretly coveting the ease with which they can buy and pay for iPhone apps, then covet no more – a change to the Android Market terms for developers likely means that purchases will soon be billable to your monthly phone bill rather than on a per transaction basis.If you’ve ever owned an iPhone, then you know how easy it is to spend money on apps and make in-app purchases. You simply click on the install button and enter your App Store password and – voila! – you’re done. The charge shows up on your carrier phone bill at the end of the month. It can make going through a standard credit card transaction seem a long and arduous process in comparison.So far, though, Google Checkout has been the only option for Android users (outside of T-Mobile, that is). And instead of just paying once, at the end of the month, Android users have had to make a payment for each transaction, at the time of the purchase. As Android-centric blog Droid Life points out, the development means that “when you are browsing through the paid app section and realize that you don’t have $14.99 for MLB at Bat 2010 in your Google Checkout account, you can choose the option to ‘bill later’ which lands that charge straight onto your monthly carrier bill.”The Android developers blog noted a change to the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement that is “in preparation for some work we’re doing on introducing new payment options”. In the new terms, “‘authorized carriers’ have been added as an indemnified party”, according to the blog post. The post does not give any specific timeline on when carrier billing will be available, but it does offer developers a 30-day window to sign the new terms. Tags:#Google#mobile#news#web What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces mike melanson The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology
The administration of Assam’s Hailakandi district has sought cancellation of certification of an English medium school for using students in a protest over poor condition of a road in the district headquarters of the same name.In a letter to the Commissioner and Secretary of the State’s Secondary Education on Saturday, Halankandi Deputy Commissioner Keerthi Jalli said the school’s principal and teachers headed the road blockade on July 9 in which many minor students in uniforms participated by “throwing traffic out of gear and causing inconvenience to motorists and pedestrians alike for close to three hours”.A case was registered at the local police station on July 10 after Hailakandi’s Child Welfare Society filed an FIR against Kshitish Ranjan Pal, principal of Blue Flowers English Medium Higher Secondary School.Ms. Jalli pointed out in her letter that the principal ignored pleas by the circle officer to withdraw the protests as the students were drenched in the rain and stood the risk of infection during the disease-prone season. In March, the Hailakandi administration had served show-cause notice to four schools for using children in political rallies.
Yuvraj Singh has no qualms in conceding that he has been “failing” but the out-of-favour Indian cricketer says he won’t give up on his career at least till 2019.The 36-year-old all-rounder, who played a pivotal role in India’s 2011 World Cup triumph, has been struggling to keep a place in the side for some time now.”I would like to tell that I am failing. I still fail. I failed the last three fitness tests but yesterday I passed my fitness test. After 17 years I am still failing,” Yuvraj said.Speaking at an interactive session organised by UNICEF here as part of ‘The Power of Sports to Shape the Future of Adolescents’ campaign, the veteran said his career decisions will be solely decided by him.”I am not afraid of failure. I have gone through ups and downs. I have seen defeat and that’s what’s the pillar of success.”To be a successful man, to be a successful person in your life, you need failure and you’ve got to be defeated. That will make you a stronger person and it will take you to the next level,” he explained.Yuvraj said he is not quite sure how many people believe in him given his recent slump but he hasn’t stopped believing in himself.”I am still playing. I don’t know what format I am going to play. But I am pushing everyday as hard as I used to, may be harder than before because I am getting older. And I see myself playing cricket till 2019 and obviously take a call after that,” he said.advertisement”So I still believe in myself. As I said I don’t know how many people believe in me but I do believe in myself,” Yuvraj added.The left-hander has played 40 Tests, 304 ODIs and 58 T20 Internationals in his 17-year-career scoring 1900, 8701 and 1177 runs across the respective formats.He had recently hit the headlines for skipping Ranji Trophy matches to train at the National Cricket Academy in Bengaluru. It was learnt that he did so to clear the ‘Yo-Yo’ fitness test, which he had failed in the past.
Oakland6.3– Houston12.7– Tennessee6.8– Denver4.7– Jacksonville9.7– Los Angeles Chargers5.3– New England1.2– Tampa Bay8.6– Carolina6.2– New York Giants11.4– Green Bay8.2– San Francisco16.3– Washington9.2– New Orleans17.8%– Los Angeles Rams9.2– Looking at the entire New Orleans roster, nearly 18 percent of the Saints’ overall AV in 2017 came from their draft class, good for the highest percentage of any team this year. Unsurprisingly, New England’s four draft picks, the fewest in the league, produced the least value for their team in 2017. Cincinnati9.0– Chicago11.5– Seattle7.9– Kansas City8.4– Indianapolis7.2– The Saints leaned on rookies more than any other teamShare of each team’s Approximate Value created by their draft picks, 2017 Buffalo10.8– New York Jets9.9– Philadelphia4.5– Minnesota8.1– Pittsburgh8.7– What’s also clear from the table above is that leaning heavily on rookies is more likely a sign of turmoil than success, as it could suggest that teams are rebuilding or that their veterans are riddled with injuries. The five teams ranked just behind the Saints in percent of team AV contributed by rookies — the 49ers, Browns, Texans, Bears and Giants — combined for only 18 wins, or 3.6 apiece.Going back to 2000, the 2017 Saints class is only surpassed by the Dallas Cowboys’ excellent 2016 draft class — headlined by Ezekiel Elliott and Dak Prescott — in terms of total value produced during their rookie seasons. Even the 2010 Patriots’ haul, which featured Rob Gronkowski and Devin McCourty, doesn’t compare.And the Saints only had seven picks in 2017, compared with nine for the Cowboys in 2016 and 12 for the Patriots in 2010. Indeed, the Saints’ 6.1 AV per pick among draftees in their rookie year is the best of any team since at least the 2000 draft. Detroit10.3– Dallas5.6– Cleveland14.7– TeamPercent After three straight years of finishing 7-9, the New Orleans Saints seemed headed to another year of mediocrity when they began the season 0-2. But since Week 3, when New Orleans routed a 2-0 Carolina Panthers team on the road, the team has peeled off 12 wins in 15 games, including another win over the Panthers in the wild card round last Sunday.And yet there’s reason to believe the franchise revival didn’t begin in late September. It began in April, at the NFL Draft.There are lots of reasons for the Saints’ success this season — including the ageless Drew Brees and the historically good running back duo he’s been handing the ball off to — but the team’s terrific rookie class is perhaps the driving force behind it all. The Saints had just seven draft picks in the 2017 NFL draft, slightly less than the NFL average of 7.9 picks per team, and nearly every one of the picks can be viewed as either a solid addition or a huge success.Cornerback Marshon Lattimore, taken 11th overall, has helped revitalize a defense that last year ranked as the second worst in the league in terms of points allowed. Third-round running back Alvin Kamara has accumulated more than 1,500 yards from scrimmage while leading the NFL with 6.1 yards per carry. Thanks in no small part to a number of ridiculous highlight plays like Kamara’s juggling touchdown and Lattimore’s butt interception, the duo were both named to the Pro Bowl and are favorites for offensive and defensive rookie of the year.Even drafting just one of these two would be about enough to qualify a draft class as a success, but the Saints didn’t stop there. Tackle Ryan Ramczyk, who was taken 32nd overall after New Orleans traded Brandin Cooks to the New England Patriots for that pick, has played every offensive snap this season. Second-rounder Marcus Williams started 15 games and made four interceptions at safety while the remaining picks — linebacker Alex Anzalone, edge rusher Trey Hendrickson and DE Al-Quadin Muhammad — have all contributed to various degrees.Put it all together, and the Saints not only had the top draft class of any team in 2017 but one of the best this century. To show this, I used Pro-Football-Reference.com’s Approximate Value (AV) metric.1You can see more detail on how AV is calculated here. AV is “an attempt to put a single number on the seasonal value of a player at any position from any year.” Obviously there’s no perfect way to measure the contributions of an offensive tackle relative to a middle linebacker, but this metric allows us to at least estimate value of every player and compare them regardless of position. Comparing the total AV of every team’s rookies shows just how well the Saints drafted in 2017 relative to the rest of the league. Baltimore4.5– Miami7.1– Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com Arizona8.2– Atlanta2.7– The Saints have already won a playoff game for the first time since 2013, and they are now two wins away from going to their second Super Bowl in franchise history. If they don’t get there this year, the team’s 2017 rookie class may give them a fighting chance at another title in the handful of years before Drew Brees’s storied career comes to a close.Check out our latest NFL predictions.
The Final Four of the 2019 NCAA women’s basketball tournament is set, which means FiveThirtyEight’s Sara Ziegler is here to break down the two semifinal games. Watch to learn how the teams match up, who’s favored to win and how those favorites can avoid possible upsets on their way to the national title.Be sure to follow our live win probabilities and predictions throughout the rest of the women’s and men’s NCAA tournaments.
There are a few differences near the top: Hayes and Horton-Tucker leapfrog Morant as the best prospects behind Williamson (CARMELO really appears to love Horton-Tucker), while Culver and Barrett tumble in favor of efficient, rim-protector-type bigs such as Porter and Oregon’s Bol Bol, the 7-foot-2 of son of Manute Bol. I wouldn’t start using these rankings to make my picks if I were an NBA general manager — it’s been shown that scouting rankings are easily the most predictive component any draft projection can add. But they are still somewhat interesting in terms of helping to identify undervalued players whom the eye test alone might miss.And it’s telling that Wiliamson still emerges as the clear-cut No. 1 prospect regardless of whether we’re looking only at statistics or a hybrid between metrics and scouting information. The guy is probably going to be pretty dope in the NBA, and Morant might not be far behind as the likely No. 2 pick. After that, there are a few more solid choices and then a whole bunch of uncertainty. That’s pretty standard for the NBA draft, where potential value drops off quickly after the first pick or two — but this year’s class might be unusually top-heavy even by basketball’s normal standards. 5RJ BarrettSG19315.4C. AnthonyD. Russell 3T. Horton-TuckerSF192110.9G. WallaceT. Ariza 34Bruno FernandoC21342.2T. BryantD. Sabonis 35Daniel GaffordC21382.2C. TaftR. Hendrix 29Isaiah RobyPF21362.5D. BrownJ. Martin 44KZ OkpalaSF20261.3J. JohnsonW. Chandler 19N. A.-WalkerSG21235.7D. MitchellS. Brown 14Tremont WatersPG22476.8P. JacksonM. Banks 30Brandon ClarkePF23124.0T. BookerP. M.-Bonsu 21Nassir LittleSF19164.2Q. MillerK. Oubre RkPlayerPosAge*Scout RkUpside WARNo. 1No. 2 26Jaylen NowellSG20924.6J. ForteJ. Okogie 13Matisse ThybulleSF22285.9D. MillerN. Powell 24Tremont WatersPG22473.4P. JacksonM. Banks 4Jaxson HayesC19915.8Z. CollinsD. Davis 15N. A.-WalkerSG21235.6S. BrownP. McCaw 17Chuma OkekePF21414.8O. SpellmanJ. Martin ‘Pure stats’ CARMELO projections for 2019 NBA draftMost valuable NBA players from 2020-26, according to CARMELO’s upside wins above replacement projections, using only college stats 11Kevin Porter Jr.SG19146.3X. HenryL. Walker 46Justin RobinsonPG22522.5A. HolidayB. Stepp Not including European players or point guard Darius Garland (who played only five career college games). Upside WAR ignores a player’s projected below-replacement seasons.*Ages are as of Feb. 1, 2020.+ Player has withdrawn from consideration for the 2019 draft.Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group Unsurprisingly, Duke’s Zion Williamson ranks No. 1 in our prospect ratings with a massive upside WAR of 36.7 projected wins over his first seven pro seasons. To give that number a sense of scale, last year’s top projected prospect — Texas’s Mohamed Bamba — led the pack with an upside rating of just 21.8 WAR, so it’s fair to say that Williamson is a significantly better prospect than we’ve seen the past few years (if not much longer than that).We’re not exactly going out on a limb with our projection: Zion is the top choice in basically every mock draft on the planet. But it’s always nice when the numbers back up the overwhelming consensus of opinion. During his lone season at Duke, Williamson rated better than the median Division I player in every major facet of the game according to the advanced metrics, headlined by a 93rd percentile usage rate and a 100th percentile true shooting percentage. His top comparable player — another former Blue Devil, Jahlil Okafor, whose career has largely underwhelmed — might be concerning, but it mainly speaks to how unique Zion is. The 0-100 scaled “similarity score” between Williamson and Okafor is just 37.1, meaning they’re not very similar at all. (By comparison, the similarity between Zion’s teammate RJ Barrett and model-namesake Carmelo Anthony is a healthy 60.1, which is normal for a top comp.) Simply put, Williamson is a unicorn. We’ve seldom seen a player quite like Zion, who is very short for his position but has great stats across the board (even in terms of rebounds, blocks and steals) and scores so often with such incredible efficiency.Another unsurprising result is the presence of Murray State’s Ja Morant at No. 2 overall. Morant enjoyed a breakout sophomore campaign with the Racers, culminating in a triple-double in an impressive NCAA Tournament win over Marquette. To be sure, Morant has flaws in his game (he needs to work on efficiency in terms of both shooting and turnovers), and his upside projection isn’t on Williamson’s level, but he would have been CARMELO’s best prospect of last season, and some of Morant’s top comps — such as John Wall and Derrick Rose — offer a glimpse into his star potential.After Williamson and Morant, there is a huge drop-off before the next group of prospects. Jarrett Culver of Texas Tech, Jaxson Hayes of Texas and Barrett form a clear-cut second tier below Williamson and Morant, and each comes with his own strengths and weaknesses. Hayes is a low-usage, high-efficiency big man who can protect the rim but is a work in progress on offense beyond finishing plays made by others. (Brandan Wright comes to mind as an archetype.) Barrett is a low-efficiency, high-usage swingman with unimpressive defensive indicators, in the mold of Anthony, Andrew Wiggins or Brandon Ingram. Barrett does come with a good amount of upside, in terms of potential value several years into his career, but he also looks like this draft’s best example of a high-risk/high-reward prospect who may just turn into an inefficient high-volume scorer (that classic bane of every stathead). And Culver is a nice all-around wing whose best-case comps include Harrison Barnes and Rudy Gay. Noted bust Joseph Forte isn’t the most encouraging comparison, but Culver’s versatility is a big plus as a small forward prospect.The rest of the draft class drops off steeply after Barrett at No. 5 in our rankings. Some of the players who might be drafted highly but our model isn’t as fond of include Virginia’s De’Andre Hunter (fifth in the scout rankings vs. 14th in our projections), Duke’s Cam Reddish (seventh vs. 12th), Indiana’s Romeo Langford (11th vs. 20th) and Gonzaga’s Rui Hachimura (18th vs. 36th). By contrast, players who might be underrated in the draft include Shamorie Ponds of St. John’s (49th by the scouts vs. 23rd in our rankings), Auburn’s Chuma Okeke (41st vs. 17th), Jontay Porter of Missouri (42nd vs. 18th), Matisse Thybulle of Washington (28th vs. 13th), Tyler Herro of Kentucky (17th vs. ninth) and Iowa State’s Talen Horton-Tucker (21st vs. eighth).Just for the sake of comparison (and transparency), here’s a version of our upside WAR rankings that doesn’t include the scouting rankings as an input,4Specifically, every player is assigned a scout ranking equivalent to the No. 10 prospect. which can be viewed as a sort of “stats only” ranking of the prospects this year: 2Ja MorantPG20225.4T. BurkeJ. Wall 33Josh ReavesSG22812.3I. CousinsJ. Richardson Comparable PlayersRkPlayerPosAge*Scout RkUpside WARNo. 1No. 2 6Coby WhiteSG19108.9B. KnightC. Sexton 6Charles Bassey+C19519.6C. BoshD. Favors 1Zion WilliamsonPF19136.7J. OkaforM. Bagley 30Dedric LawsonPF22442.4J. GreenM. Muscala 3Jarrett CulverSG20617.1J. ForteH. Barnes 27Matisse ThybulleSF22284.3D. MillerJ. Richardson 42Q. WeatherspoonSG23571.5D. WellsS. Thornwell 50Donta HallPF22971.0J. GrantM. Estill 43Zach Norvell Jr.SG22772.7W. EllingtonJ. Meeks 18Jontay PorterC20424.7C. WoodS. Zimmerman 45Justin RobinsonPG22521.3Q. CookD. Walton 15Coby WhiteSG19106.7B. KnightD. Rose 47Quentin Grimes+SG19842.5A. BradleyH. Diallo RkPlayerPosAge*Scout RkUpside WARNo. 1No. 2 36Rui HachimuraPF21181.9M. HaislipT. Warren 43A.J. Lawson+SG19861.4L. StephensonA. Goodwin 27John KoncharSG23683.0D. WellsM. Gansey 10Bol BolC20137.1S. HawesH. Ellenson 25Dylan WindlerSF23333.3J. KaponoM. Bonner The NBA doesn’t waste much time before moving on. The 2018-19 season has been over for less than a week, and the Toronto Raptors are still picking up the debris from their jubilant1And surprisingly violent. championship parade. And yet, Thursday’s NBA draft will mark the de facto beginning to the 2019-20 season. So we at FiveThirtyEight are also wasting no time: We’ve fired up our CARMELO projection system and run the numbers looking ahead to the next season and beyond. We’re still making some tweaks and improvements to the way we’re projecting veteran players, so we’ll be rolling out those numbers sometime in the next few weeks. But for rookies, we have the data, and the CARMELO computer is all ready to go. Let’s take a look at the best statistical prospects whose names should be called from the podium by Adam Silver.First, though, a little refresher on how this works. CARMELO (the Career-Arc Regression Model Estimator with Local Optimization) is our system for predicting the career of each NBA player, based on how things tended to pan out for similar players from the past. For rookies, we use a database of college stats (adjusted for pace and strength of schedule) since 2001 provided to us by ESPN’s Stats & Information Group, plus biographical information like a player’s height, weight, age and — before the draft — scouting rankings.2After the draft, we’ll switch those to a player’s actual draft position. Those latter few categories actually matter quite a bit, so older players and those regarded poorly by the scouts will need much, much better college stats to achieve the same projection as a younger player who scores better on the eye test.Like we did last year, we’ll be ranking the members of this draft class on each player’s “upside” wins above replacement — the number of wins he’s expected to add above a minimum-salary replacement (at the same position) over the first seven seasons of his career, zeroing out seasons in which he is projected for negative WAR.3This is done to avoid penalizing players for situations where, in reality, their coach would (or at least should) bench them before they accumulate negative value. One big disclaimer: These rankings don’t include players from overseas leagues, such as Sekou Doumbouya (who played in France), nor do they include players who didn’t accumulate enough time in college, like potential Top 5-pick Darius Garland, who logged only 139 minutes as a freshman at Vanderbilt because of a knee injury. We don’t have a good sample of data on these kinds of players, so CARMELO can’t really render an assessment right now (though we will eventually assign them ratings for our team depth charts next season).Anyway, let’s move on to the rankings: 40A. SchofieldSF22321.6Q. PondexterJ. Harper 25Nassir LittleSF19164.6Q. MillerT. Harris 7Brandon ClarkePF23128.0D. LeeN. Collison ‘Stats + Scouts’ CARMELO projections for 2019 NBA draftMost valuable NBA players from 2020-26, according to CARMELO’s upside wins above replacement projections, using college stats and scouting 20Josh ReavesSG22815.6J. TrepagnierJ. Richardson 47Louis KingSF20351.2D. GreeneM. Williams 28Charles Bassey+C19512.6T. BryantJ. Allen 1Zion WilliamsonPF19129.5J. OkaforM. Bagley 9Tyler HerroSG20177.6M. BeasleyG. Trent Not including European players or point guard Darius Garland (who played only five career college games). Upside WAR ignores a player’s projected below-replacement seasons.* Ages are as of Feb. 1, 2020.+ Player has withdrawn from consideration for the 2019 draft.Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group 16Grant WilliamsPF21245.1M. SweetneyT. Murphy 14De’Andre HunterPF2255.7M. MorrisA. Bennett 36Nicolas ClaxtonC20403.5R. LopezA. Len Comparable Players 12Chuma OkekePF21417.2O. SpellmanJ. Richardson 37Nicolas ClaxtonC20401.7S. ZimmermanS. Dalembert 31Jaylen HandsPG20934.0M. WilliamsK. Satterfield 12Cam ReddishSF2075.9H. BarnesT. Young 22PJ WashingtonPF21154.0R. H.-JeffersonB. Portis 13Devon Dotson+PG20737.0T. JonesM. Conley 8Jarrett CulverSG2068.5J. ForteK. C.-Pope 7Bol BolC20138.5G. OdenM. Beasley 32Luguentz DortSG20272.3M. RichardsonA. Goodwin 22Donta HallPF22974.7J. AugustineJ. Bell 38Dylan WindlerSF23333.3J. KaponoS. Battier CORRECTION (June 20, 2019, 3:15 p.m.): A previous version of this article listed Western Kentucky’s Charles Bassey as a prospect for the 2019 NBA draft. Bassey withdrew his name from draft consideration on May 29. 21Grant WilliamsPF21245.3M. SweetneyM. Bridges 49Jaylen NowellSG20921.0S. LandesbergD. Washington 23Ty JeromeSG22294.7S. WeemsT. Bowers 46Ky BowmanPG21851.2B. WrightS. Mack 16Kevin Porter Jr.SG19146.5Z. LaVineJ. Richmond 17John KoncharSG23686.2M. GanseyF. Jones 24Daniel GaffordC21384.7R. WilliamsJ. Poeltl 29Bruno FernandoC21344.0J. PoeltlD. Sabonis 48Terence DavisSG22791.1M. BrooksB. Paul 5Jontay PorterC20429.8T. LylesC. Wood 2Jaxson HayesC19914.1Z. CollinsD. Stone 9Tyler HerroSG20177.5M. BeasleyJ. Lamb 34Dedric LawsonPF22443.5M. MuscalaJ. Green 11RJ BarrettSG1937.4R. VaughnM. Fultz 42Q. WeatherspoonSG23572.8B. HieldD. Wells 39Luguentz DortSG20273.3A. RiversM. Richardson 8T. Horton-TuckerSF19218.0T. ArizaG. Wallace 38Cameron JohnsonPF23221.7M. BonnerS. Novak 26Keldon JohnsonSF20203.2M. BeasleyD. DeRozan 18A.J. Lawson+SG19866.1A. GoodwinT. Brown 32Cam ReddishSF2073.6M. RichardsonX. Henry Comparable Players 28Ky BowmanPG21854.1K. WalkerJ. Robinson 39Devon Dotson+PG20731.6C. JosephT. Green 31Carsen EdwardsPG21252.4G. DiazK. Martin 37Romeo LangfordSF20113.4A. RiversM. Williams 10Shamorie PondsPG21497.5K. WalkerJ. Williams 35Terence DavisSG22793.5M. BrooksB. Paul 40Isaiah RobyPF21363.2T. WilliamsJ. Gist 41PJ WashingtonPF21152.9J. MartinR. H.-Jefferson 4Ja MorantPG20210.8J. FarmarN. Calathes 50DaQuan JeffriesSG22552.3J. CageR. Terry 44J. CumberlandSG22942.6J. CrawfordM. Brooks 33Keldon JohnsonSF20203.6D. DeRozanM. Beasley 41Jalen McDanielsPF22371.5J. MartinB. Bentil 23Shamorie PondsPG21494.0S. MackJ. Robinson 48Killian Tillie+C21902.4E. MurphyD. Brown Comparable PlayersRkPlayerPosAge*Scout RkUpside WARNo. 1No. 2 20Romeo LangfordSF20114.5A. RiversD. DeRozan 45Carsen EdwardsPG21252.6B. GordonG. Diaz 19Ty JeromeSG22294.5T. BowersW. Ellington 49Jalen McDanielsPF22372.3J. GistJ. Martin
Posted by Tags: Theme Parks & Attractions, Universal Studios << Previous PostNext Post >>
Tags: Los Angeles LOS ANGELES —L.A. Tourism wants 50 million visitors by the year 2020 and it’s well on its way to that goal, with 48.3 million visitors in 2017 – a new tourism milestone for the seventh consecutive year.The 2017 record figure is 1 million visitors higher than 2016’s total, an increase of 2.2%, driven by an all-time high 41.2 million domestic visitors.International visitation overall grew 0.9% to a record 7.1 million visitors, outperforming both its projected forecast and inbound travel to the U.S. as a whole in 2017.International markets recording significant gains for Los Angeles in 2017 included Canada with its highest visitor total ever at 747,000, a 5.5% year-over-year increase).L.A. Tourism recently launched ‘L.A.’ Insider’, a new specialist training program now available as an online training tool that’s both mobile and tablet-friendly. The specialist program is the first of its kind for L.A. Tourism and is designed to help Canadian and U.S. travel trade better sell the city.There’s plenty of hotel news coming out of L.A., with recent openings in 2017 and more new hotels to come in 2018. Here’s a look at the newest offerings:CAMBRiA LAX (Beach Cities) – Choice Hotels International’s upscale CAMBRiA badge has entered the Los Angeles area with the opening of The CAMBRiA Hotel Los Angeles – LAX. The hotel has 152 rooms and a bistro called Social Circle. The hotel is located about three kilometres south of Los Angeles International Airport.cambriahotelsandsuites.comDream Hollywood Hotel (Hollywood) – The West Coast’s first Dream Hotel has debuted in the heart of Hollywood, at Selma Ave. and Cahuenga Blvd. Designed by the award-winning Rockwell Group, the 10-storey boutique Dream Hollywood Hotel features 179 hyper-chic rooms, unique-to-market dining experiences and an 11,000-square-foot rooftop lounge area.dreamhotels.comKimpton Everly Hotel (Hollywood) – Opened in August 2017, Kimpton Everly Hotel features 216 rooms, relaxed communal spaces and effortlessly cool design. With its light-filled interiors, thoughtfully designed for comfort and ease, Kimpton Everly Hotel is a true celebration of its Beachwood Canyon neighborhood and the laidback California lifestyle. The hotel is steps away from the iconic intersection of Hollywood and Vine with unbeatable panoramic views of the nearby Hollywood Sign, Downtown Los Angeles skyline and the Pacific Coast.everlyhotelhollywood.comFreehand Los Angeles (Downtown) – Sydell Group introduced the Freehand Los Angeles after transforming the 1924 Commercial Exchange Building in Downtown L.A.’s Historic Core. The 13-storey building boasts 226 rooms, ranging from traditional accommodations to high-design hostels (or ‘poshtels’) with up to eight beds. The hotel also features a lobby living room, retail, restaurant and bar offerings in addition to a rooftop pool and lounge.thefreehand.comH Hotel/Homewood Suites (LAX) – A dual-branded property under Hilton’s Curio Collection and Homewood Suites badges opened in September 2017 at the site of a former office building near LAX. The H Hotel, L.A.’s first hotel within the Curio Collection, has 168 rooms and boasts an elevated deck and fitness center with nearly 360 degree views of the Pacific Ocean, Downtown Los Angeles and Hollywood. The Homewood Suites Los Angeles International Airport has 122 rooms.Hotel Figueroa (Downtown) – Hotel Figueroa is sporting a recent renovation that transformed its Moroccan décor to a new contemporary aesthetic with a touch of Spanish flare. Hotel Figueroa has expanded bathrooms, 57 new suites, a second restaurant, a fourth bar and a garden on the roof. New windows have been installed in rooms to help block out the noise from Figueroa Street. hotelfigueroa.comHotel Indigo Downtown Los Angeles (Downtown) – InterContinental Hotels Group debuted Hotel Indigo Downtown Los Angeles, a hip 350-room hotel in 2017. The 18-storey Hotel Indigo is the flagship hotel at Metropolis, a US$1 billion mixed-use development, which will feature three residential towers, curated retail experience and a rooftop bar. The property is at the heart of downtown L.A., linking the Financial District to L.A. LIVE. Design for the hotel is inspired by its surrounding neighborhood and focuses on prominent narratives from Downtown’s past including Fiesta De Las Flores, the glamorous pre-Hollywood nightlife scene and the underground speakeasies of the Roaring Twenties.ihg.com/hotelindigoInterContinental Los Angeles Downtown (Downtown) – InterContinental Los Angeles Downtown is part of the tallest U.S. building west of Chicago as the Wilshire Grand Center. The hotel features 889 rooms, 110 suites and one presidential suite, including a ‘sky lobby’ on the 70th floor. There is nearly 100,000 square feet of meetings, conventions and event space. Wilshire Grand Center is a $1.1 billion project that also includes 400,000 square feet of offices and 45,000 square feet of retail space. Wilshire Grand Center is about 80 feet taller than the U.S. Bank Tower and the hotel is the largest InterContinental in the Americas.ihg.comThe Jeremy West Hollywood (West Hollywood) – The Jeremy West Hollywood Hotel has moved in on the corner of Sunset and La Cienega and features stunning panoramic views of the Hollywood Hills and Los Angeles Basin. The hotel has 286 guestrooms with two Penthouse Suites that all feature panoramic Hollywood Hills views.jeremyhotel.comLa Peer (West Hollywood) – Opening in January 2018, La Peer Hotel will feature 105 guest rooms and suites, a rooftop event space, poolside fitness centre and more than 8,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor dining and lounge spaces. In addition, the property’s pool – while in the center of the bustling city – is an escape in and of itself accented by lush landscaping and handcrafted lanterns hanging from above that set the tone for an urban retreat.lapeerhotel.comNobu Ryokan Malibu (Beach Cities) – Nobu Hospitality, famous for Nobu Matsuhisa’s signature restaurants, reclaimed the former Casa Malibu and repurposed it as a ryokan, or traditional Japanese inn. The beachfront property, which is owned by tech magnate Larry Ellison, has 16 custom rooms.nobuhotels.comNomad Hotel (Downtown) – Sydell Group, which opened Koreatown’s The LINE Hotel in 2014, has opened the Los Angeles outpost of New York’s NoMad Hotel. The NoMad has been redeveloped out of Downtown’s Giannini Place, which was built in 1923 as the headquarters for Bank of Italy (which became Bank of America). The 12-storey hotel has some 250 rooms as well as a rooftop pool. L.A. is the first city where three Sydell Group brands are represented.sydellgroup.com/nomad/los-angelesProper Hotels (Downtown) – Proper Hotels, the new brand headed by former Viceroy Hotels chief Brad Korzen, is slated to enter Los Angeles with a Downtown L.A. property located at the site of the former Case Hotel. The 13-storey property, which was built in 1924, will have 145 rooms and has plans to open in mid-2018.properhotel.com/downtown-laSheraton Gateway Los Angeles (LAX) – The hotel completed its second phase of multi-million dollar renovation with sophisticated upgrades to their 802 guestrooms and suites as well as the hotel lobby area and Sheraton Club. In addition, Sheraton Gateway Los Angeles Hotel invested $3.5 million dollars to enhance its 38 versatile meeting and function rooms totaling in 50,000 square-feet of distinctive event space.sheratonlax.comWaldorf Astoria (Beverly Hills) – The Los Angeles area’s first hotel under Hilton Worldwide’s Waldorf Astoria luxury brand is on the triangular corner next to the Beverly Hilton. The newly-built property, with Streamline Moderne design influences, is 12 storeys tall and features 170 rooms.waldorfastoriabeverlyhills.comWestdrift Manhattan Beach (Beach Cities) – Making its debut last month as the first Autograph Collection hotel in Los Angeles, the 26-acre westdrift Manhattan Beach boasts 392 luxury guest rooms, a nine-hole golf course, a signature indoor/outdoor restaurant, a CrossFit-inspired fitness centre and more than 35,000 square feet of indoor-outdoor space, including 18 meeting rooms, a traditional ballroom and three large, industrial-chic venues. The property is currently operating as Marriott Manhattan Beach, and is undergoing a multi-million-dollar renovation.westdrift.com/More news: TRAVELSAVERS welcomes Julie Virgilio to the teamFor more information, go to discoverlosangeles.com. Posted by Share Monday, February 26, 2018 Travelweek Group Record numbers of L.A. arrivals are finding plenty of new hotels << Previous PostNext Post >>
<< Previous PostNext Post >> Oasis of the Seas sailing cut short after Norovirus outbreak By: The Associated Press Tags: Oasia of the Seas, RC, Royal Caribbean International, Sick Share MIAMI — Royal Caribbean’s Oasis of the Seas is returning to a Florida port a day early and giving passengers full refunds of their fare after 277 guests and crew members were hit with an outbreak of Norovirus as it sailed to Jamaica.Cruise line spokesman Owen Torres told The Associated Press “we think the right thing to do is get everyone home early rather than have guests worry about their health.”He says the ship will return to Port Canaveral on Saturday. It sailed from there Sunday on a seven-day Caribbean cruise.Passengers took to social media on Wednesday, tweeting they were forced to stay onboard after docking in Falmouth, Jamaica, for what was supposed to be a day of excursions.Torres says returning a day early gives the cruise line “more time to completely clean and sanitize the ship” before it sails again. Friday, January 11, 2019