The iPhone, Revisited: Expectations for the 5S and 5C, and why it’s bad news for… Mozilla?

      

The iPhone 5S - Apple

The big story of the day, at least in the tech world, was Apple’s grand unveiling of its new iPhone products, the iPhone 5S, and the iPhone 5C. Of course, whenever Apple announces anything, it’s the big story of the day. But today’s announcement was a little different. For the first time, Apple revealed not one but two new iPhones at the same time. The 5S can be viewed as the natural successor to the previous iPhone 5, and the iPhone 5C, while also a successor, is advertised as a cheaper alternative. We’ll get into what the 5C will mean for Apple and the rest of the smartphone industry later on, but first I’d like to revisit the post I wrote about a year ago on the iPhone 5.

At the time, that iteration had just been released, and I was working off the opening weekend sales figures and all the Apple financial summaries since the first iPhone. A total of 5 million units sold for $1.5 billion on opening weekend, creating optimism surrounding the product. I predicted that Apple’s revenues from iPhone products could hit $100 billion for the next fiscal year. That’s still possible, if the new phones have a huge showing, but not likely. Apple will end up with a little over $90 billion in revenue from iPhones over FY2013. That’s not bad at all. And some of the comparisons you can make to the early iPhones are mind-boggling. Apple made more off of the first quarter after the iPhone 5 release than it did for the first 3½ years that it produced iPhones. Statistics suggest the iPhone 5 has accounted for nearly 1/3 of all iPhone sales ever- and it’s been around less than a year.

That is some really good news for the 5S and 5C. Their sales figures are likely to shine, even though they will both takes sales away from each other. Overall, we should see a moderately larger bump in combined sales for iPhones. The theory Apple’s going for: Most existing customers will upgrade to the 5S (while a few will opt for the cheaper 5C), and the less expensive 5C will attract new users, expanding an already-large base of customers. The total number of customers will increase , as will their profits.

Here’s where things might go wrong, and where you should be skeptical. Apple is maintaining the same price ladder as before, so the 5C isn’t quite as cheap as Apple is trying to make it seem:

*Starting at; with contract

The 5C is still a better deal than the 4S was at this time last year, since it’s a step ahead of the previous generation, rather than a step behind. But it may not attract many new customers, since the prices are the exact same. The only possible way the price would be a substantial reduction would be if the contracts were substantially reduced in price, and unfortunately, that’s not going to happen.

Even so, the 5C (and 5S) have some pretty strong selling points. More colors options will attract the aesthetic enthusiasts. The cameras are exciting- photos are taken at 10 frames per second, allowing for rather smooth GIF creations (and proving just how much GIFs have saturated our lives). The video recording options- 30 fps normal rate and a 120 fps slow-motion capture (which you can seamlessly switch between) is making me salivate ever so slightly. And it’s fast. Really fast. If Apple can convince the public that the 5C really is cheaper- they’re doing a great job so far; literally every headline mentioning the 5C contains the word “cheaper”- then they will be coasting through a year with $100 billion in revenue, easily. Expect the opening weekend sales figures from 5S and 5C combined to outperform the 5’s opening numbers (5 million units, $1.5 billion revenue) and the first quarter iPhone numbers for FY2014 should set a new record. Remember, the first full quarter which featured the iPhone 5 broke the previous sales record by over $5 billion.

 

The iPhone 5C - Apple

One of the reasons Apple has cited for the release of the iPhone 5C is an inexpensive alternative to other smartphones in developing countries with emerging markets. It’s a smart business strategy for Apple, but it might not sit well with a lesser-known company which has had a similar plan in the works for over a year.

Mozilla- the not-for-profit that brought you Firefox and Thunderbird- had plans to bring smartphones with its new Firefox OS to the same type of countries: those with emerging markets. Mozilla has already been rolling out its phones for the last few months, and they will almost certainly remain a cheaper option to the iPhone 5C in those developing markets. But that doesn’t mean the revelation of the 5C won’t throw a wrench in Mozilla’s plans. If Mozilla wants to make an impact on developing nations in the same way that Apple has made a mark on the United States, it may have to reevaluate their strategy. Apple has nearly all the name recognition, and if the price is low enough, that may be all that Apple needs to KO the upstart Firefox OS. It will be interesting to see what the fox has to say in the coming weeks.

As a parting gift, here’s an updated version of the revenue graphs from last year. From what I’ve seen, there aren’t any major changes to the physical aspect of the new iPhones, so I won’t rehash those charts. Pardon the formatting.

In both of these graphs, the black dots represent holiday quarters right after the release of a new iPhone

What Does The Fox Say? Dissecting Viral Videos

Most of you are probably aware of the latest viral sensation to sweep through the Internet- Ylvis’ “The Fox.” At the time of this writing it has garnered 7.5 million views in just over four days. Viral videos are, of course, the Holy Grail of the Internet. Everyone wants to post a video and suddenly have the entire world watching it- from the preteen who thinks she can sing to the massive corporation who thinks they can sell more of their product.

Of course, it’s one thing to create a viral video. It’s quite another to create a viral music video. Today, let’s take a look at what components make up a viral music video by examining some of the most popular YouTube videos and their content. We’ll also take a look at how some of these things can be misused, and finally, we’ll predict just how far The Fox will run.

I identified five music videos that went viral and subjected myself to watched them once again to see what made them unique. Four qualities stood out: Comedy, Spontaneity, Anonymity, and Repeatability. Every viral video contains all of those qualities in some form or another, but contain the perfect balance of each.

Friday by Rebecca Black (2011): By some measures, it seems like Friday has been around forever. By others, it’s hard to believe it’s already been 2 ½ years. Regardless, Friday was the video that really opened up the eyes of many to the transformative power of the viral video. (including, for example, Forbes.)

Comedy: The comedy in Friday comes from the song being hilariously bad. The lyrics go from repetitive (we, we, we, so excited) to bluntly obvious (Yesterday was Thursday- today it is Friday) to oddly mundane (Gotta have my bowl, gotta have cereal). Combined with the wonderful world of autotune, Friday is perched delicately atop the so-bad-it’s-good curve along with the likes of Sharknado.

Source: xkcd

 Spontaneity: A viral video has to contain things that are completely unexpected, and there’s not much more surprising to see in the middle of a white teenage girl’s poor attempt at a music video than a sudden slightly-better-but-not-really rap break.

Anonymity: You hadn’t heard of Rebecca Black before Friday, and I’m guessing that now you wish that you hadn’t. I’m sure the feelings mutual.

Repeatability: Friday survived for as long as it did in part because of its name. For the next few months after its release, it would be virtually impossible to get through the eponymous day of the week without hearing the song. You’d groan a little, ask for it to be turned off, but- dare I say it?- secretly grow to enjoy what was dubbed “the worst song ever.”

Gangnam Style and Gentleman by Psy (2012, 2013): The most viewed YouTube video ever isn’t even in English- it’s South Korean Psy’s Gangnam Style. Despite the fact that many of the people who viewed it couldn’t even understand the lyrics, “Oppa Gangnam Style” became common fare around the world for months. Later, Psy used his fame from the former song as a springboard for another viral hit, Gentleman, which would surpass half a billion views.

Comedy: Much of these videos’ humor lies in their absurdity. They are intentionally absurd, but it works. The choreography in the videos were quirky enough to catch on, and besides the Gangnam Style’s title phrase, may be the most lasting part of Psy’s viral hits.

Spontaneity: The humor and unexpected go hand in hand in Gangnam Style and Gentleman.. Scenes such as the ones involving elevators, playgrounds, treadmills, and the garbage wind tunnel are so unexpected that they give the song much of its charm. Are those sprinklers on a playground in Gentleman?

Anonymity: Psy, like the group who recorded “The Fox” (Ylvis) had relative domestic success prior to his video’s release. However, outside of South Korea- especially in the United States- exceedingly few people had heard of Psy, and most of the population wasn’t entirely fond of K-pop. Psy may not have invigorated a K-pop movement in the U.S., but he has certainly made a name for himself.

Repeatability: The choreography of Gangnam Style was what made the song so much fun to play over and over again. The song was catchy, but I’m not convinced a song in a foreign language would be quite as viral without that extra boost from the dancing. Similarly, Gentleman received a boost from Psy’s popularity that put a catchy song over the edge.

 

Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen (2011, U.S. 2012): Call Me Maybe was initially released in 2011, but wasn’t released in the United States until spring of 2012. That’s when the song really took off. It was catchy enough on its own to perhaps go viral, but it received a little boost from some of its parody videos as well.

Comedy: Call Me Maybe didn’t rely quite as much on comedy to go viral. Some would argue that it went down a similar “so-bad-it’s-good” route as Friday, but it wasn’t anywhere close to Rebecca Black’s level. Perhaps the comedy comes from the many parodies and lip dubs created in tribute to the track.

Spontaneity: There are some slightly unexpected moments throughout the music video, but none so much as the ending, which (spoiler alert? Haven’t you heard by now?) definitely puts a twist into the stereotypical romantic music video by making the love interest interested… in the other gender.

Anonymity: Carly Rae Jepsen did place third on Canadian Idol in 2007, but if that show is anything like the American version, that might not mean much. Certainly, she wouldn’t be throwing out first pitches at baseball games in America based just on that honor.

Repeatability: Call Me Maybe is just so incredibly catchy that even if you don’t physically put it on repeat, it will end up on repeat in your head for hours at a time. As noted previously, Call Me Maybe was also the target of many parody videos, which perpetuated its viral nature.

Harlem Shake by literally everyone (2013): The Harlem Shake is unique in that the original video isn’t the one that garners most of the attention- it’s the many, many, many, many, many other videos based around a section of the original song that give the Harlem Shake its viral status.

Comedy & Spontaneity: The spontaneity of the Harlem Shake is what provides its comedic value. One person, dancing alone and ignored in a room full of other people is already so brash and outgoing that it can be considered mildly funny. When the rest of the room throws away whatever they were doing and joins in, it’s a twist that produces some hilarious moments and many, many views on YouTube- albeit not as much of a twist the 700^th time you see it.

Anonymity: The original artist  who wrote the Harlem Shake is so anonymous you don’t even know his name. It’s Baauer, according to Wikipedia. You learned something today.

Repeatability: The Harlem Shake isn’t something that you put on repeat on your iPod. Rather, it gets repeated in a different way than the other videos on this list: by the creation of videos around the song itself. It should be noted that many videos are created (and viewed) because of the length required: just half a minute, making them easy to film, upload, and view in a very short amount of time.

But it’s difficult to replicate that kind of success, as hundreds of thousands of YouTube uploaders would tell you. It’s easy to go wrong in many of those categories. Forced comedy is not good comedy, and it’s easy to tell when someone is just trying to hard to be funny. True spontaneity can be difficult to achieve. Either the audience isn’t surprised, or again, it’s obvious you’re trying too hard to be spontaneous and include lots of non sequiturs. And it’s very difficult to come up with a song catchy enough to be put on repeat for days on end. Most of the time, you will be anonymous- and stay that way. So how does The Fox fit in?

The Fox by Ylvis (2013): Ylvis originally intended the video to at least somewhat catch on in Norway, where the duo runs a comedy/variety show that the song was intended to advertise. They claimed they didn’t expect it to catch on outside of Norway, but that doesn’t mean that isn’t what they were trying to do.

Comedy: Since the duo are essentially both comedians, they’re able to be funny with relative ease. I compared The Fox to another one of their recent video attempts, Stonehenge (slightly NSFW), and it’s clear much of their humor, at least in these pieces, is derived from asking questions not many people might think about, and turning into an obsession that supersedes everything else in life.

Spontaneity: I have to admit I was not expecting the outburst of sound in the chorus, where Ylvis attempts to answer their own question. With the dance beat behind it, it’s fairly catchy. But the thing that made the clip for me was the random CGI fox at the end of the song that starts scatting. I don’t know if there was a better way Ylvis could have ended it.

Anonymity: Like Psy, Ylvis has had success in their home country. It will be interesting to see if they use their newfound viral fame as a springboard, like Psy, to expand their brand internationally.  According to this article, they’ve already received many similar offers.

Repeatability: The Fox is a song that apparently gets better with age. When I first saw it, I was hesitant. But gradually, it grew on me, and now I can’t stop playing it.

It’s tough to use statistics to predict things such as viral videos. YouTube does provide statistics on their videos, and those can be helpful to look at. But the very nature of viral videos is that they are unpredictable. “The Fox” has already gone viral. It’s up to 8 million hits now. Will it get up in to the hundreds of millions? Time will tell. It’s off to a good start, in just four days, but one wonders if the excitement is already beginning to die off.

The good news for The Fox is that the ratings have been overwhelmingly positive. Its upvote ratio (Likes/All Ratings) is higher (93.9) than any other song we’ve covered in this post. And that’s a good sign for views. The only song with a negative ratio is Friday, which has received substantially fewer views (though still many more than The Fox currently has). People who like a song will often come back and listen to it multiple times, thereby boosting the view count.

The Fox also has a high significance rating (All Ratings/Views).  About 1½% of the people who view the video take the time to like or dislike it. Only Friday has a higher significance rating on our list (2½%). I wouldn’t read too much into that, though. People can view videos multiple times but can only rate videos once. As the number of views increases, the significance rating inevitably decreases.

The statistics indicate that The Fox should have a bright future ahead of it. It will likely never surpass Gangnam Style, and I’m hesitant to suggest it will reach the half-million mark like Call Me Maybe and Gentleman. But it should easily surpass Friday, and end up with a rather large pile of views. The overwhelmingly positive response from YouTubers should make Ylvis optimistic. After all, when you’re trying to go viral, the question isn’t “What does the fox say?” Instead, it’s “What do the people say?”

Syria Revisited

One year ago I made a post about the Syrian Civil War, comparing it to other civil wars in the region over the past several decades. The war hasn’t come to an end, and now the U.S.  is heavily considering intervening. If anything, the war has become an enormous global talking point within the last few weeks and months. Because of that, I decided that it was time to take a look back at the Civil War. How do my previous predictions look? And perhaps more importantly, what would be the result of U.S. intervention in Syria?

Let’s start with the easy question: Who is going to win? Last year, I said the rebels. Seems legit. The rebels have more to fight for and if the U.S. were to intervene on their behalf, things will really be looking up. (For both sides, really, if bombs start getting dropped).

Something like this, with more panicking

I also suggested that about 200,000 people would be killed by the time the war was all over. When I wrote the original post, only about 30,000 people had perished in a little less than a year and a half of fighting. Within half a year, that number jumped to 100,000.

The worst part about this number is that about half of the deaths are from civilians, potentially more. This wasn’t something that we saw back during the American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War- most of those deaths were restricted to the battlefields. But with most recent civil wars, the number of innocent bystanders that die typically surpasses the number of actual combatants.

Finally, let’s look at the length we can expect the war to last. I projected the war to last maybe eight years, so five or six more. Originally, I had thought this number seemed a little bit high, because we had just seen the Libyan Civil War ended and everyone was feeling pretty good about themselves for solving that problem so quickly and efficiently (right?). Now, I’m a little bit more confident. I’m not happy about it, but look at what happened in Egypt. We thought that Egypt was going to be able to look after itself and function normally after its part in the Arab Spring. Then July happened. The fact is, those of us in the developed world often take stability for granted. Even if the fighting technically stops within the next few months, regardless of U.S. intervention, it’s still going to be a long road to stability in Syria, and to be honest, I wouldn’t put my chips on them not sliding back into a state of warfare. (That was… a lot of negatives.)

So at this point, I’m comfortable saying that the Syrian rebels will eventually win the war, and it’s going to take about five or six more years before it is run to its completion. Clearly, unfortunately, I underestimated what the death toll would look like. To note, though: I did suggest that about 2.71% of a country’s population would typically lose their lives in the event of a civil war in that region. For Syria, that amounts to just under 600,000 people- an estimate that seems much more plausible now than last year.

But now let’s talk about U.S. intervention in Syria. Typically, I prefer to stay away from controversial topics, but since I’ve been involved in Syria since day 1 –er- 500 something, and since it doesn’t really seem to be all that controversial, why not?

You already have your own opinion of whether or not the U.S. should intervene in Syria, unless you’re one of those carefree 8%. So I’m not even going to bother worrying about whether we should or not intervene. I’m simply going to look at the results of what would happen if we did intervene.

When the U.S. gets attacked or involved in wars in which it has a serious investment in the outcome (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil, Mexican, Native American, Spanish, WWI&II), generally, we do pretty well. When we get involved in wars where- and I’m choosing my words carefully- there is less directly at stake for the American people… then our track record begins to waver. Slightly.

There is no real trend for U.S. intervention in domestic disputes of other countries concerning whether we have a positive or negative effect. Certainly, people remember Vietnam and Korea as two interventions which may not have gone as planned. Massive casualties mounted and the end results weren’t exactly what we wanted. But it’s important to remember that there was intervention on both sides of those wars from countries nearly as powerful as the U.S., such as China. That would likely not be the case in Syria.

Perhaps it would be better to consider some of the smaller, forgotten civil wars in which the U.S. has been involved. In some cases, like the Dominican Republic in the 1960s, or Lebanon in 1958, the U.S. was involved right from the beginning, and the wars only lasted a couple months. Victories were decisive with minimal losses. When the U.S. isn’t involved from the beginning, there are checkered results. In Laos, a civil war lasted for 22 years, 11 of which occurred despite U.S. intervention. However, a relatively “low” amount of casualties were experienced for a war of that length- if you can consider 20-70 thousand “low.” Yet when the U.S. intervened in Cambodia, the bombings may have delayed the inevitable conclusion of the war there by up to five years. A quarter million people died in that eight-year dispute.

Clearly, each scenario is different. The U.S. wants to get involved for different reasons; different sides have different advantages or disadvantages, et cetera. The best precedent we have for a situation like this is the one that occurred in Libya in 2011. The U.S. and NATO intervened on the rebels’ behalf and six months later, the war was over. It was a relatively short one, too.

I think that’s the best scenario that the U.S. can hope for if it gets involved with Syria- a quick ending to the war. But other factors suggest this won’t be quite as “easy.” The government is much more stubborn- the alleged use of chemical weapons certainly gives you some idea- and the war is already a full-blown war. Historically, the U.S. hasn’t done quite as well when it has gotten involved in wars this late- look at Cambodia, Laos, and Somalia- where the UN & U.S. tried to get involved 20 years ago. That war is still ongoing. (They pulled out three years later, in 1995).

The civilian casualties must also be taken into account. If the U.S. does indeed intervene by bombing key al-Assad strongholds (with missiles that don’t exactly have pinpoint accuracy), there will be a substantial amount of civilian deaths. Those deaths have become a necessity for civil wars in recent years, unfortunately. But I think everyone can agree that the U.S. should take the steps to minimize those casualties as much as they can. The worst case scenario for U.S. intervention? It’s Cambodia all over again; the bombings delay the end of the war substantially, causing a significant civilian death toll on the side.

As the war develops in the coming months- especially if the U.S. intervenes- remember those predictions at the beginning of this post. 8 years. 600,000 deaths. And the rebels are victorious. You can judge any foreign involvement as positive or negative based on how the final numbers actually end up. Let us fervently hope that those first two numbers are substantially lower.

And on that note, here’s a picture of a cat:

Who Will Win The NCAA Tournament?

While statistics can be applied to any field, one aspect of American life relies far more heavily on them any other: Sports. The billion-dollar industries are of course perpetuated through athleticism and the entertainment it provides, but all of that is supported by statistics. Baseball is a prime example- many executives in major league baseball rely on advanced statistics and complicated algorithms to evaluate talent and make personnel decisions. The Oakland Athletics famously used sabermetrics to great effect a little over ten years ago, as analyzed in Moneyball.

Of course, statistics don’t have to be necessarily be that complicated. Any casual fantasy football player follows statistics on a weekly basis- rushing yards, touchdowns- all sorts of valuable statistics are used in fantasy football. In fact, that’s all fantasy football is: lots and lots of statistics. The objective is to just make your numbers come out of the system better than your opponents’.

We can easily use statistics in any sport, but today, we’ll be looking at college basketball. When I started working on this project, I knew that there were two major events I wanted to cover and predict using statistics: The presidential election, and the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. The reasoning behind the election should be obvious, and I chose the NCAA tournament not only because statistics play such a large role in sports, but also because Americans like to predict nothing more than the bracket. When March rolls around, it’s bracket-mania in the United States. There are brackets for literally everything imaginable. So why not fill out my own bracket(s) using a purely statistical model?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I decided to fill out four brackets this year: Two of them will be based on statistics, and two of them will be my control brackets to gauge the success of my statistical models.

BRACKET #1: Statistics Bracket

For my first bracket I took multiple statistical categories for each team in the tournament and multiplied them by their strength of schedule. Some teams- Duke- simply have tougher schedules than other teams- Southern University. I then compared each team in each category and assigned them scores from 1 to 68 in each category. The sum of these sub-scores would be their composite score, which I would use to make my predictions.

Final Four: Louisville, New Mexico, Kansas, Indiana

Champion: Indiana over Louisville

Notes:

·      Despite composite scores ranging from 118 to 786, there were ties. I broke ties by siding with the lower seed. Upsets happen and are a trademark of the tournament. If a game is so close that it receives a tie from this model, it is one of the most likely ones to have an upset.

·      No seed lower than 10 won their first round matchup. This is good, because my model didn’t output any ridiculous upset winners, but also bad, because those ridiculous upsets will happen sooner or later.

BRACKET #2: Points Bracket

This bracket was based simply on points scored and points allowed per game, adjusted again for strength of schedule. For example, Team A’s score is the average of A’s points scored and B’s points allowed, and Team B’s score is the average of B’s points scored and A’s points allowed. Whichever team has the highest score wins the matchup.

Final Four: Louisville, Gonzaga, Florida, Indiana

Champion: Indiana over Gonzaga

Notes:

·      All of the 6-seeds lost their first round matchups. While this model did pick more upsets, I don’t expect all of the 11-seeds to win… especially since Middle Tennessee, which this bracket had going to the Sweet 16, didn’t even win its play-in game. When St. Mary’s was substituted back into the bracket… nothing changed. St. Mary’s also made it to the Sweet 16. Belmont went even further as an 11-seed, making it all the way to the Elite Eight. 

·      I was a bit surprised to see Indiana as the champion in both of the above brackets. I guess the numbers are with Indiana this year. But will that be enough to get them to the championship?

BRACKET #3: Seeds Bracket

Control bracket 1: The higher seed wins. If my models outperform this bracket, I’ll consider them a success.

BRACKET #4: Mascot Bracket

Control bracket 1: The fiercer mascot wins. (Which one would win in a fight?) I fill out one bracket this way every year, and if a nearly random bracket like this one outperforms my statistical models, then there’s a problem.

I’ll check back in after the tournament to measure my success. Hopefully I’ll be a little closer on these predictions than the one I made for the Pope.

Who will be the next Pope?

For the next few (days/weeks/hopefully not months) the eyes of the world- especially the Catholic world- will be on the Vatican City as the conclave of Cardinals decides who will be the next Pope; the next leader of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the Catholic Church, or the process of choosing a Pope, or almost anything else. Luckily, you have had to try incredibly hard to go somewhere on the Internet without learning about the Pope recently, so I’ve been able to pick up a few things.

In simplest terms, you must meet two requirements to become Pope:

·      Be Catholic

·      Be a man

Unfortunately, since there are about 1 billion Catholics in the world, and that means there’s probably about 500 million people who could become Pope if we only used these two requirements. That’s a lot. You can add another requirement on the list to narrow down the field, which is

·      Be a cardinal

That takes out many of those 500 million possibilities, and a few more when we take out the St. Louis Cardinals. The cardinals (not those cardinals) elect the next pope, and generally they elect someone from amongst themselves. Since this trend has been ongoing for the last 600 years, I doubt this will change any time soon.

Of course, becoming a cardinal has its own special set of requirements and unless you’re already one, chances are you won’t become one before the next Pope is chosen. Sorry. 

The cardinals are probably looking for certain qualities when they elect the next Pope. Most of these are qualitative, and since I, again, know nothing about the Catholic Church, I can’t begin to make an accurate prediction of the next Pope based on those. However, I can at least take a shot at some of the quantitative aspects of Popes; specifically, age and birthplace.

Only cardinals under 80 years old are invited to the conclave, so age can be considered an important factor. You don’t want a Pope that is too old, because you want continuity in the position. But every cardinal right now is over 50 (as it just so happens), so there’s a fairly small range of ages for possible Pope-elects. Surprising (or not), the average age for a new Pope since 1700 is right in the middle of that range: 65.

Birthplace probably also plays a role in the election of Popes, even though most cardinals would probably deny it. 19 of the 23 Popes since 1700 have been born in Italy; the remaining Popes were born in countries fairly close to Italy: Germany, Poland, and Austria (2).

Thus, without further ado, I present

THE POPE CALCULATOR

What are your chances of being Pope?

You can calculate the odds that any one person would have of becoming Pope based on their age and birthplace. Simply input the values into this equation:

Where     d = distance of birthplace from Rome, in miles

And       a = age, in years

The closer a P value is to 1, the greater the chance is of a given person being elected Pope.

What does this equation tell us about who is most likely to be Pope? I didn’t have time to apply the equation to all potential cardinals and I certainly don’t have time to apply it to every Catholic male, but I was able to identify some cardinals on my own that fit the parameters of the equation well and CNN also had a handy list of twelve potential popes. Let’s apply my equation to those twelve popes first:

Of this group, Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, has the best chance of becoming Pope. I wouldn’t find this terribly surprising given that CNN probably understands the papal contenders better than I do. Peter Turkson, who is from Ghana and would be the first modern African Pope, is a close second behind Schonborn.

However, I also encountered ten more cardinals with larger values of P. Seven of these had a value of P > 0.9:

Giuseppe Betori, Archbishop of Florence, is the clear leading candidate to become Pope, at least from a statistical perspective. However, I’m sure the members of the papal conclave will weigh qualitative values much higher than quantitative ones, so I don’t expect my predictions here to be correct, but having a good score through my equation certainly wouldn’t hurt. Regardless, all eyes will be on Rome in the coming days as we anticipate the election of the next Pope.

Should We Be Worried About North Korea and Do We Need a Death Star?

North Korea has been in the news lately for conducting more nuclear tests. This made me wonder- how many nuclear weapons are there currently in the world? Who do they belong to? How much are we spending on them? Should we be worried about North Korea? And, strangely- do we need a Death Star? I attempt to shed some light on these questions in my latest infographic: