Learn to Read Graphs or Go Home

(this is a rhetorical post to Code Hard or Go Home, ’cause the amount of bullshit in the post is so much that you can call it almost a “cesspool post” instead of “blog post”)

There is one thing I really don’t like: Percentages, because it’s so easy to mess with the information in a single message. If one product suddenly jumped from 10 users to 20, you can clearly say that it “had a 100% grow!” and call it “the fastest growing” product in its niche. Sure, the other brand with 100.000 users will have a hard way to debunk that, as the message is, for all cases, right.

The other is graphs. Because they show, in a nice way, number without reveling what they mean.

Like the ones John Siracusa used to veiled show that Chrome is better than any other browser.

But let’s break this to show how much bullshit there is in that so you can tell this guy to join Atwood and Jeremy Khan and move to farm and stop spreading misinformation as fact.

The first thing wrong, right out of the bat, is how he portraits Open Source communities[1]. You can pick any other open source project, Python, GNOME, KDE — you know, the ones that basically wrote the story on how to open source projects — and see that, way above every project, there is a leadership (Python have Guide, GNOME have the GNOME foundation and KDE have the KDE foundation). Dunno about Guido, but the people in the GNOME foundation, which drives the force behind GNOME, organize, divide resources, help developers with timelines and give some ideas on how to proceed in the next version but they barely do any changes (those are left to the developers themselves). And they still manage and “own” the project.

(I know, for a fact, that Guido reviews a lot of PEPs and give opinions about those, but I’m not quite sure how much “changes” he does in the Python interpreter these days, so I’ll keep that out of the discussion for awhile. And feel free to correct me here.)

The second wrong thing are the graphs, with wild claims about what they mean. I’ll prove this by reading the graphs in a complete opposite way: If you look at the second graph, you can see that Google have a huge turn-around of developers, while the number of people working on WebKit at Apple is almost steadily. This means that the Apple team probably knows the code a lot better than the Google team.

Stopping here for a second just to say that I, too, can be completely wrong: Apple could have a constant turn-around of developers, keeping the number of those almost the same during all the time while Google may have a core of developers who drive the most of the “Android Green”[2] team. Just saying that to point that, absolutely, this guy needs to learn how to read graphs, ’cause those just tell about numbers and not what those mean.

Now, back to the first graph (which blends with the paragraph just above it): Google had more commits. This means they contributed a lot more, right? Well, if that’s the fact and Google really “contributed” to the project, why the WebKit devs claiming they can finally get rid of code that is specific to Chrome? This may actually mean another thing: Google was already fucking with WebKit to do what they want instead of play ball with all the other developers. In that case, the WebKit developers are more into “open source” philosophy than Google, ’cause they accepted things they wouldn’t need just to keep the ball rolling.

And stopping again to prove the point that that’s what I’m reading and distorting to prove my point that Google is the bad guy in this instead of going after the facts. It could really be that Google, while adding new features, had to open space for its own extensions. But I could also point that, just a few paragraphs later, John points that Google didn’t play ball with the open source community when they decided to not to contribute the multi-process architecture back to WebKit. So I can, once again, point that Google never really did embraced the open source nature of WebKit and was, all the time, just fucking it up.

“But I look at those graphs and wonder.”, he says. Well, yes, I look at those graphs and wonder: Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?

And then there is the anecdote of Safari crashing more than Chrome. Well, fun fact: I thought ArenaNet botched a patch and was constantly sending reports and was almost furious that they never fixed. Then the NVidia settings panel crashed and I realized it was my system that was botched, not the game. I can also add that, along with Safari, in this year Pwn2Own, Chrome was the first browser to fell (with a bug that they don’t to tell anyone and sell to be exploited around); Firefox fell only on the third day. So yeah, I can claim that while John keeps pointing that Chrome is super-duper secure, Firefox is light years ahead ’cause it took longer to crack and, then, this whole debacle is pointless and Firefox clearly won.

But, then again, I’d be doing slight distortion of facts just to prove my point. Exactly how John did with his whole post[3].

But why do I mention the story of my botched system? Because your Safari crashing more than your Chrome means absolutely nothing. It could be a gazillion different things that prove absolutely nothing. The guy could be running Safari with extensions (yes, they exist) and Chrome with absolutely nothing and the extension is preventing Safari from running flawlessly and the pages stop responding to protect the browser itself. It’s like people that claimed Firefox was slow and bloated compared to Chrome, when they had a pristine copy of Chrome while their Firefox had more than a dozen extensions.

And I can cite again, using John words, that if Google was really into open source, they wouldn’t refuse to contribute to the multi-process architecture and Safari could have better protection. But hey, they didn’t and you have to ask what was the point of the claiming that “Google chose to participate in the existing WebKit community” when they clearly didn’t.

You know, for a guy with a blog titled “Hypercritical”, this guy is pretty full of bullshit instead of being critical to his own writing. Maybe it’s a sarcastic title, meaning people that read that are not really critical…

Edit: Forgot to mention this: If the Google developers have “already proven” they are capable, why does Chrome is second in number of hacks inside jQuery, just after IE? This just helps my point that, since the start, Google was just fucking with WebKit code.

Still edit: And just breaking this paragraph to point that this doesn’t mean your choice of browser is wrong. The fact that Google seems incapable of being a real open source contributor (which is more than just “post commits with code”) doesn’t mean the feature you really like in Chrome is bad and you should feel bad (in Zoidberg voice). It just mean that you don’t need to pick a graph, read it completely wrong just to have some affirmation on your choice.

[1] And I’ll give him credit for at least telling the correct story behind WebKit.

[2] Yes, I saw what you did there. It was not clever, by the way.

[3] And did that with a bunch of links, nonetheless, just to look like a Wikipedia page and give some street cred to the post (including an “already proven” link that actually just goes to the Chrome page without proving a damn thing!)

EPTC “sempre” presente?

Ontem no Pretinho Básico foi lida no ar uma mensagem de um ouvinte falando sobre a última Massa Crítica, que fechou uma das ruas de Porto Alegre em protesto, como acontece em toda última sexta-feira do mês. Segundo o ouvinte, ele ficou no telefone por 3 minutos tentando falar com a EPTC sem sucesso. O pessoal do Pretinho nem soube dizer exatamente de quem seria a responsabilidade de colocar batedores e coordenar a passeata. Foi quando algum “responsável” (e coloco em aspas de propósito) enviou uma mensagem dizendo que sim, a EPTC é a responsável por colocar batedores e coordenar e sempre se faz presente quando avisada. E só isso.

Primeiro, esse “responsável” (novamente, entre aspas) não disse coisa alguma sobre se a EPTC foi avisada ou não. Deixou pendente no ar. Segundo, sequer tocou no caso do ouvinte ter ficado três minutos esperando para falar com alguém, sem sucesso. E não vou entrar em detalhes sobre vários participantes do Massa Crítica falando que, quando a foi EPTC avisada, no protesto posterior ao atropelamento de participantes na Lima e Silva, os batedores passaram boa parte de tempo andando na contra-mão e sobre a calçada.

Também consideremos o seguinte: A EPTC está sempre presente no crusamento da Plínio com a Carlos Gomes no horário de pico, quando vários carros passam o sinal amarelo, não permitindo que pedestres possam crusar a faixa de segurança quando o sinal deles está verde? A ETPC está presente na Dom Pedro II domingo de manhá, quando vários carros passam a noite estacionados em lugar proibido? A EPTC está presente na Dom Pedro II, próximo ao bar Santa Mônica, no sábado a noite, quando a faixa da direita é feita de estacionamento por flanelinhas? A EPTC está presente no crusamento da Cristovão Colombo, Benjamin Constant e Quintino Bocaúva para multar os “espertinhos” que utilizam a faixa da esquerda, destinada a quem quer entrar na Benjamin e sequem na Cristovão? A resposta para todas estas perguntas é um grande e sonoro “não”.

Sabe onde a EPTC se faz presente? No estacionamento irregular sobre a faixa de pedestres na Carlos Gomes próximo a Furriel. Na troca de sinaleira da Cel. Aparício Borges com Oscar Pereira, as 8:30h da manhã, no horário de pico. Na demora de 3 horas da ligação para o serviço deles e a chegada de uma viatura para organizar um estacionamento irregular numa rua sem saída como a Carvalho Monteiro. E, principalmente, no caos generalizado que é o trânsito de Porto Alegre.

(E os eventos acima citados são apenas os que eu vi pessoalmente. Ouço histórias um pouco piores que estas dos meus colegas e amigos, mas não vou ficar no diz-que-diz-que.)

É muito fácil enviar um texto passivo-agressivo dizendo apenas “quando avistados, estamos presentes”. Não tão fácil é ter uma engenharia de trânsito capaz de trabalhar com a velocidade com que os carros são introduzidos na cidade. Não é tão fácil se fazer presente, multar e, principalmente, educar o trˆnsito desta cidade. Obviamente, escolhe-se apenas o que é mais fácil e ignora-se o que realmente deve ser feito.

Muitos poderiam dizer que a falta de educação e respeito as leis de trânsito da cidade são um sintoma maior de um problema cultural do país. Sim e não. A simples falta de respeito as leis poderia ser facilmente corrigida com fiscalização, parte que a EPTC simplesmente se recusa a fazer. Se existe uma lei, mas ela não é fiscalizada, esta lei não existe de fato.

Não estou, aqui, defendendo a Massa Crítica por ter fechado uma rua próxima a hospitais. Estou aqui, veementemente, criticando a EPTC por sua postura arrogante e total incompetência em gerir o trânsito desta cidade, como evidenciados pelos fatos acima.

Speaking Seriously About the iPad

In January this year, I wrote about why the iPad matters. There, I pointed that a lot of changes would come to the digital world since it appeared.

Recently, the iPad was officially launched in Brazil. Now you don’t need to import it and pay huge taxes for it; you can go to a local shop and buy it, paying the huge taxes for it.

There is only one problem with it: All reviews that people post here about it are translations of American articles, saying how awesome the new iBook Store is, how now you don’t need to carry books around, how you can easily watch your favourite TV series on Hulu and get movies from Netflix, buy the soundtrack of the movie or the new album of your favourite artist on iTunes Store… In short, all the good things about having a slim notebook where you won’t type much.

The problem is: Nothing of this is available here in Brazil. So, in the end, the iPad is nothing but a huge iPod Touch. And when you point that, people get pissed.

I mentioned that on Twitter to someone that posted a translated article from IT World (I think, can’t really remember right now) which mentioned all those good services you can access but are only available in very selected places of the planet. Their answer? “The iPad is an awesome device and people that say it’s a huge iPod never used it or don’t like it ;)” (yes, smiley face and all.)

First of all, I used it already. My aunt have one and I’m still trying to figure out how she uses it. I like the bigger virtual keyboard compared to the iPod Touch, and the huge screen to check websites, but that’s it — exactly what a bigger iPod Touch would do. Second, if you read my original post, yes, I do like the iPad because what it means. So neither points were valid, to start with. But this guy had to defend how awesome the device was, doesn’t he?

That’s when I pointed that a small netbook would do the same, for much less money ’cause, in the end, all you have is internet access to read the local newspaper online. And any device with connectivity would suffice, including a recent iPod Touch (as long as you have a wifi around) or even an iPone 3GS, which would do much more than the iPad for around the same price.

So no, it’s not that I don’t like the iPad or never used it. The problem is the tiny minded people with money that don’t want to share their things with the world and put geological barriers on a bondariless technology. And while those barriers are still up, the iPad would be just a huge iPod Touch on everywhere except the USA.

PS: Just one thing: I used the iTunes Store in Australia and as a digital distribution system, it’s awesome. The problem is that you get crippled versions of most albums instead of the full thing. One example is the soundtrack of “Across the Universe”. I bought it from iTunes Store Australia, only to find a few minutes later that the American version have 5 or 6 tracks more. So the barrier is still there.

A case against Twitter OAuth

It’s not a mystery that I have a problem with Twitter and their API. I never made that a “hidden agenda” of sorts: I always said publicly that they suck, plain and simple. Their API is full of holes, bad bad designs (like returning blocked content to the user and requiring applications to do their filtering) and they insist in aiming for new, stupid features while leaving a lot of bugs behind. Personally, I think their programme manager should be fired and get someone with at least half-brain to lead their development.

But there is one thing that is really annoying me as a user and they never tried to solve: Applications that require write access even when all they want is to read your data to do some calculation. Do they really need write access? No, they don’t. All they want is that access to spam your account without your consent. And don’t even tell you what they want to write on it.

Take, for example, this application (and I recommend you to not put your account info there). Simply put, it tells you who you’re following that are not following back (and who is following you and you’re not). All good and such but, in the end, it posts, on your timeline, a spam back to the site. In no point, the app told me that and in no point I was able to configure what kind of access I’d give to that app.

Not only they took away the user preferences over their own account, but the authorisation screen is so empty and devoid of information that it doesn’t even say what the application do, much less why it wants read or write permissions.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Twitter will ever fix that. Forcing applications to declare that they require write access to post spam (with any more “friendly” terms) would ruin their “ecosystem” and reduce the number of applications. At the same time, adding a preferences pane to the user account would be “unnecessary” ’cause applications should “behave”.

Twitter making it hard to use OSS apps with their API

Twitter, the biggest microblogging tool around, decided to change their policy to applications and it’s making it hard to OSS developers create applications that can be as good as the other applications.

First, let me explain what is the problem they are trying to solve, how they are trying to solve and how this will make the life of OSS developers harder.

How things work today?

Today, applications can use the Basic Auth, which send your username and password to Twitter, which checks and, on success, returns your messages, direct messages, post your update and so on. The flaw in this is that someone could be “listening” to your communication and easily guess your username and password. Or you computer could get hacked, attackers could just retrieve the file with your password. And then, one day, you wake up and see some of your updates saying, for example “Buy viagra” or “I liek cocks”; not good.

Solving the password stolen problem with OAuth

To solve the problem of someone stealing your password, Twitter decided to embrace OAuth for two reasons: First, you store an authorization token on your side and not your password, so if you your computer gets hacked, they still don’t have your password. Second, if one application misbehaves, you can remove its permission to post and you should be all good.

On top of that, for applications that are very very naughty, they can completely revoke your application access. Why? The logic behind it is that spammers don’t really care if their spammy applications are misbehaving, as long as they post spam all the day. It also makes the spammers life harder by forcing them to create accounts manually (which they do already) and applications manually, or a group of fake accounts could suddenly stop working ’cause one single application was revoked.

And where is the problem?

Basically, to avoid someone to listen to your communication and use your authorization token, the application must have an identification and a secret token, which is used to encrypt the authentication token and message signature. So, even if your computer is hacked and their stole your authorization token, they still can’t use it ’cause they don’t have the application secret and, that way, can’t sign the messages as being that application.

So Twitter said to all developers today: “Never share your keys! I”

And here lies the problem for open source developers: We were forced to chose amongst two options:

  • First, we could follow Twitters idea and not share the application keys with the application itself. For a user to be able to use the application, then, they would have to register they application themselves, with another name. For an experienced user, it may be ok, but for users that simply want to read new messages, going all the way of registering an application, knowing if it is a desktop or a browser app, provide some URL and so on it’s too damn complicated. Most users would simply forget about, and think that their friend’s application, which is closed source, is way better.
  • Second, we ignore Twitter’s recommendation and distribute our application with our keys. In this case, we can either suffer from someone taking those keys and spamming Twitter, thus revoking the application secret and letting our users without any access till we provide a new secret; greately reducing our users protection ’cause their authorization tokens can be easily exploited in case their computers get hacked; or, simply, Twitter decides that since we are providing our keys publicly, and that’s bad for the ecosystem (because of the two previous maybes) and revokes the application anyway.

In summary: Either we give applications with a terrible user experience or we have to bite the bullet and give our users an application with incredible reduced security for them (or that, one day, will simply stop working even if the community of users around it behaves nicely, just because someone took the keys and abused the system.)

Twitter came with a solution for open source applications that, basically, mimics the application registration thing: The application is marked by them as open source, so we would have access to another URL, which basically registers a new application with your application as template, gets a new application secret and identification, returns to you and then you keep using that from now on. So, in case the secret is hacked, only one application is compromised and only one application is blocked. But that won’t be available on the day they will kill the basic authorization. So there will be a gap where open source applications and their users will be completely vulnerable to attacks.

Personally, I hate this instance from them. With Mitter, I always aimed for a simple application that would be easy to use and secure, whenever possible. Their current position forces me to chose one in favour of the other.

Medos que se tornam verdade

Quando coloquei que o Tadeu Schmidt deveria calar a boca eternamente, acabei concluindo com uma preocupação (que poderia mais ser um reductio ad absurdum) de que se nos esportes aceitam-se os trocadilhos engraçadinhos e deixa-se a notícia, o fato, de lado, isso logo espalharia para as demais áreas do jornalismo. Obviamente, um grande salto de lógica.

Infelizmente, não levou muito tempo para que eu achasse um exemplo real do meu medo.

Na Zero Hora de hoje, bem na capa, há a seguinte manchete:

“Um goleiro enredado”

É, obviamente, uma alusão à prisão do goleiro Bruno do Flamengo, acusado de ter sequestrado a amante, força-la a abortar e, como a criança chegou a nascer, acabou por planejar a morte da mesma. Ou, pelo menos, é a linha que está sendo seguida pelas investigações da polícia e cujos fatos estão surgindo para confirmar a hipótese.

E, com um caso bárbado destes, a Zero Hora, que deveria ser um jornal sério (em contra-partida com o já não sério Diário Gaúcho), coloca um trocadilho destes. Se jornal tivesse som, a manchete seria seguida por algum imitador do Sílvio Santos rindo.

Um homem abusa da posição de sucesso na mídia para participar de orgias, engravida uma garota de programa, força-a a abortar e depois planeja sua morte e a executa com a ajuda de traficantes. E vira trocadilho de um dos maiores veículos de notícias do estado.

Realmente, “jornalismo” é uma atividade rara no país, sendo gradualmente substituido pela comédia.

Porque o Tadeu Schmidt tem que calar a boca

Tudo começou como uma brincadeira no Twitter: O já “batido” cala-boca Galvão, que se murmurava por aí a tempos, conseguiu ser um “trending topic” mundial na rede social. Por uma coincidência, isso aconteceu um pouco antes do técnico da seleção discutir com um jornalista. Na mesma noite, Tadeu Schmidt veio à público com um editoral rechassando Dunga. Aproveitando o embalo e apoiando a atitude do técnico, apareceu o novo trending topic: “Cala boca Tadeu Schmidt”.

“A reportagem é um conteúdo jornalístico, escrito ou falado, baseado no testemunho direto dos fatos e situações explicadas em palavras e, numa perspectiva atual, em histórias vividas por pessoas, relacionadas com o seu contexto. A reportagem televisiva, testemunho de acções espontâneas, relata histórias em palavras, imagens e sons.’ — Wikipedia

Quando se ligou do que estava acontecendo, a Globo resolveu botar o Tadeu Schmidt e o jornalista envolvido na questão na geladeira. Ambos sumiram da telinha por uma semana e depois voltaram aos poucos à programação, com notícias e comentários curtos. O que eu vejo, é que o Tadeu Schmidt tem que calar a boca definitivamente.

“Jornalismo é a atividade profissional que consiste em lidar com notícias, dados factuais e divulgação de informações. Também define-se o Jornalismo como a prática de coletar, redigir, editar e publicar informações sobre eventos atuais.” — Wikipedia

Meu problema todo com o Tadeu Schmidt é o que ele representa.

Para ilustrar a questão, deixem-me utilizar uma parábola:

Quando o PlayStation 2 foi lançado, a Sony disse que poucas empresas conseguiriam tirar o proveito máximo de todas as capacidades do aparelho. 2 anos depois de lançado, o jogo “Shadow of the Colossus” foi aclamando pela mídia e, segundo a Sony, era (e ainda é) o jogo que consegue explorar melhor tudo que o aparelho oferece. “Colossus” é o ápice dos jogos para PlayStation 2.

E isso é o que é o Tadeu Schmidt: ele é o “Shadow of the Colossus” da “comédia esportiva”, o ápice da falta de jornalismo esportivo. Ele é a consagração máxima do “comediante esportivo.”

Eu sou do tempo que se ouvia jogos de futebol com comentários do Ruy Carlos Ostermann, que conhece o jogo, conhece a história do jogo e relacionava fatos novos com os antigos para demonstrar a visão geral do que estava acontecendo.

Outro exemplo de “jornalista esportivo”, embora em outra área, é o Reginaldo Leme. Quem nunca se surpreendeu com a capacidade que ele tem de buscar fatos na história da Fórmula 1 para explicar acontecimentos da corrida atual? Ou buscar as informações necess´rias para explicar porque o novo desenho de asa da equipe X dá à equipe um melhor coeficiênte de arrasto e que isso daria uma maior velocidade nas retas mas não nas curvas?

Mas, a tempos, essa visão do “jornalista esportivo” começou a mudar. Eu acredito que o primeiro passo (ou o primeiro largo passo) dado foi o Sílvio Luís e seus rebuscados jargões, numa época que o Galvão Bueno era bem comportado neste aspecto até. Como o narrador estrapolava, os jornalistas começaram a estrapolar também, e começaram a colocar pequenos comentários humorísticos nas suas reportagens. Até chegarmos no Tadeu Schmidt, onde “reportagem” é o que menos existe e piadas cobrem tudo o que ele fala. De novo, ele é o ápice do “humorista esportivo”, a profissão que atirou o jornalismo na lixeira e mandou reciclar em outro campo, mas não foi o primeiro.

Colocar palavras na boca dos jogadores, fazer “interpretação” corporal, falar com o replay em câmera lenta, tudo isso é o que Tadeu Schmidt faz. A preocupação com a informação fica num distante segundo lugar. A piada vem sempre primeiro. A falta de “reportagem” é tão grande que, num sketch sobre a copa (ou seja, não dá pra chamar de “reportagem”), Tadeu parou na frente de um fosso próximo do campo e falou:

“Este fosso deve ter… hm… hm… uns 2 metros.”

“Uns 2 metros”. Depois de parar para olhar. Numa “reportagem” pré-gravada, não ao vivo. Com funcionários arrumando o campo. Logo, haviam várias oportunidades para pesquisar, perguntar, verificar a altura correta. Mas, como a piada é mais importante, o fato real não importa.

Meu maior medo é que esta tendência de adicionar piadas e acabar se tornando mais importante que o fato central da “reportagem” acabe se espalhando por outras áreas. Se funciona no esporte, porque não iria funcionar com, digamos, as reportagens policiais?

Tadeu Schmidt é o primeiro passo para que a Idiocracia se torne realidade.

O Caso Dunga

O maior “escândalo” da Copa do Mundo com a esquadra brasileira foram as declarações do técnico Dunga chamando um jornalista de “merda, cagão”. Dunga é conhecido por sua raiva com o jornalismo brasileiro, mas todos falaram que foi descabido os insultos falados. Eu realmente consigo entender a raiva que o Dunga tem com o jornalismo brasileiro mas, assim como muitos, me pareceu um pouco exagerado. Foram aí que alguns fatos passaram por mim:

Fato 1: “Vergonha Alheia”

No matinal da Rádio Gaúcha (cujo nome eu sou incapaz de lembrar e me recuso a chamar aquilo de “jornal”), Túlio Milman, que escreve a segunda página da Zero Hora, comentou o seguinte numa das entrevistas (aproximadamente, não consigo lembrar exatamente as palavras usadas):

Me sento envergonhado como jornalista quando vejo as entrevistas coletivas em que um jornalista, que deveria perguntar sobre a seleção, vem com um conjunto de opiniões próprias e termina com ‘O que você acha?’. Isso não é jornalismo.

Fato 2: “Memoria de Elefante”

Em uma das coletivas, o técnico respondeu para um jornalista que tinha “memória de elefante” sobre o mesmo jornalista ter perguntando se o Robinho deveria realmente ir para a copa e agora estar perguntando porque o Robinho não entrou no lugar do Kaká. Ao que tudo indica, o jornalista no caso
Dunga falou para jornalista sobre sua memoria de elefante (aparentemente, Robinho) era o mesmo jornalista que teve que ouvir de Dunga.

Fato 3: “Jornalista nao deve misturar pessoal com profissional”

Ontem (23 de junho), ao retornar para casa, fiquei ouvindo o programa “Pretinho Básico” no rádio. Como a Atlântida é parte do grupo RBS, assim como a rádio Gaúcha, houve uma brincadeira entre os apresentadores e o apresentador Sílvio Benfica (acredito eu, sou terrível com nomes) e foi perguntando, em tom de leve brincadeira: “E então Sílvio, o que os teus colegas da SporTV estão achando do comentário do Dunga?”. A resposta veio (de novo, não exatamente com estas palavras):

Olha… Eu realmente não quero comentar sobre isso, eu não quero atiçar essa fogueira mas, na minha opinião, jornalista não deveria misturar questões pessoais com profissionais.”

Perceba que, na opinião de alguém que está perto do evento real, quem não deveria misturar o pessoal é o jornalista.

Fato 4: “Dossie UOL”

Em vários lugares da internet, estão colando um link para uma notícia do UOL que afirma que a Globo tem sido vetada sem parar pelo técnico, mesmo com ordens da CBF. Há, ainda, alguns dizendo que o jornalista fez o comentário de propósito, justamente para provocar Dunga e, assim, fazer com que o mesmo baixasse a cabeça e cedesse.

Fato 5: “Nem tava olhando pra ti”

As informações da entrevista em questão contam que a conversa entre o técnico brasileiro e o jornalista foram algo do tipo:

Dunga: “Hein?”
Jornalista: “Nada. Eu nem tava falando contigo.”
Dunga: “Ah…”

Bom, eu não se mais alguém vai concordar comigo, mas se, por algum motivo, tu interropme alguém, é costumeiro pelo menos pedir desculpas. Como pode ser visto, não foi o ocorrido.

Não espere respeito de quem não te respeita.

Fato 6: A Camêra

Alguém me apontou que o Dunga deveria pelo menos lembrar que as caméras estariam viradas para ele e que alguém poderia “ler” o que ele falou. Neste caso, meu problema é que, justamente, não temos como ver o que o jornalista estava fazendo (rosto, postura corporal.) De novo, fica a pergunta se realmente o que foi feito não foi uma provocação pra cima do técnico.

“Efeito Coreia do Norte”

A grande questão que sobra é não temos como perceber exatamente o que aconteceu porque o “prejudicado” nesta história, segunda a imprensa, é quem tem todos os direitos de transmissão e pode, a seu bel prazer, simplesmente não transmitir coisas que poderiam explicar o evento inteiro.

First you don’t read; then you don’t know how to do math

Note: This is a WoW related post. If you don’t like MMOs, games, think Blizzard jumped the shark with the “Wrath of the Lich King” expansion, rage quit the game after a paladin killed you in one cooldown or simply aren’t interested in WoW at all, you can skip this.

Today, reading WoW.Com (which is not run by Blizzard, I must say), I read this article about Prot Paladins outhealing Holy Paladins in PvP. As a protection paladin that does the healing job in PvP, I thought it would be worth the read. But the problem show up right in the first paragraph: The author’s solution is remove the Spell Power plate from the game. Wait, WHAT?

For those that don’t know WoW or don’t know how paladins work, here is a brief explanation:

Paladins can fill the three roles in a group, depending on the abilities (or talents) they chose: A healer paladin would take talents from the “Holy” tree; a tanking paladin would take talents from the “Protection” tree; and a damaging (DPS) paladin would take talents from the “Retribution” tree. Of course, there is always some mixing of talents from different trees (e.g., for PvP, a retribution paladin would pick some talents in the protection tree, to improve his survivability), but most points would go to the proper tree.

Also, there is the difference of gear. Since damage is what retribution paladins are going after, they would chose gear with more “Strength” and “Attack Power”; tanking would go with more “Stamina” and “Defense rating” and some “Strength” and “Agility” (I’ll not dwell on how those two attributes help survivability at this point); healing would go after “Intellect” and “Spell Power” (just to know, the more spell power a healing paladin have, the more powerful their healing abilities will be.)

At it’s core, the paladin is a caster. This means that most of it’s abilities are not normal attacks, but magic spells and since everything paladin related is magic, the “Spell Power” can help the class a lot. As the holy paladin is the only one that have gear with “spell power”, talents exist in the other trees to help them: The retribution tree have a talent called Sheath of Light, which increases the “spell power” based on “attack power” (which makes sense, since the retribution paladin would go after “attack power”), holy paladins have Holy Guidance, which increases the “spell power” based on total “intelect” (which helps them to have better heals) and the protection tree have Touched by the Light, which increases the “spell power” based on the total “stamina” (again, makes sense since “stamina” is the base survivability stat tanks go after.) Those talents help retribution paladins to make more damage, the holy paladins to have better healing and the protection to keep the enemy they should prevent running around and killing everyone else attacking just them.

Now that we put the basics down, comes the part that “don’t read”: The Blizzard forums point the problem of Protection Paladins using Holy Paladins PvP (Player versus Player) gear. The author’s solution is to remove the “spell power” plate from the game since holy paladins are the only class that have a use for it. First of all, removing won’t solve a thing, since PvP gear is “bought” with honor and, thus, doesn’t affect any other class. Every class is capable of getting honor no matter what (some may have some difficulties, but it’s not impossible.) But he seems to confuse the PvE part of the game with the PvP part. In a PvE (player versus environment), you go into what it’s called an instance (which is put as a cave, house, cathedral, building), kill some monster till you get to the big monster and, when he’s killed, you get your rewards in the form of new gear. Since holy paladins are the only ones interested in plate with “spell power” (the other plate wearers have no use for it, not even non-paladins) if there isn’t a holy paladin in the group, the gear is lost — it can still be sold, but it’s basically lost ’cause it comes to “it could be some gear that other class could use”. That’s the life of playing a game with random number generators: You can’t just say “I’ll go there and get that gear” ’cause you don’t have any control over the gear that will appear.

And the part that “don’t know how to do math”: As I pointed, holy paladins are interested in gear with “intellect” and “spell power”. But with holy guidance, if maxed to all available points, increases spell power by 20% of the total intellect or 10 intellect increases your spell power in 2. Since your gear also have spell power already, that’s a good trade off.

Stamina, for protection paladins, just turn into health and no other stat. But you may remember that talent that helps Protection paladins to have spell power based on stamina. If you put 3 points in that talent (which is the maximum), you get 30%, which basically makes 10 points in stamina give you 3 more spell power points. Things are starting to look clear, don’t they?

So take a look at this: Let’s take a piece of the PvP gear for holy paladins: the chest. It have 115 stamina, 50 intellect and 98 spell power. For a holy paladin, that means the total spell power of that chest is 118 spell power. For a protection paladin, that means around 132 spell power. And no, you can’t have both talents due the amount of points required to enable those abilities.

Also, just to add insult to the injury, you may notice that there are two “slots”, available for gems. The most powerful intellect gem gives you +20 intellect and the most powerful stamina gem gives you +30 stamina (the gem color is not important, in this case.)

So, removing the spell power plate from the game would help? OF COURSE NOT! If paladins where changed to use mail to have spell power, it would still gave protection paladins more spell power than holy paladins and the overheal would still be there.

The proper solution isn’t so easy, though. Reducing the stamina from the PvP holy gear would damage holy paladins survivability; reducing the spell power from the talent in the protection tree would hurt their ability to keep an enemy attacking everyone in the raid; increasing the Spell Power returned in “Holy Guidance” would make holy paladins in PvE too power to be compared to any other healers.

But there is one insightful comment in the article: Make the amount of spell power increased by stamina based on the total “defense rating”. That stat is only used in PvE by protection paladins and it’s not so helpful in PvP. Since the holy paladins have no use for that, the PvP gear have none and, thus, can be used as base to not hurt protection paladins (since their have large amounts of defense rating anyway) and not overpower holy paladins.

Why the new Star Trek bothers me

For a while, I’ve been ranting about the new “Star Trek” movie by J.J.Abrams and written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. This morning I finally realized why it bothers me and why the line “OMG, boobies in Star Trek?” makes me giggle.

First, let’s take a look at the list of main Star Trek characters in the series:

  • The Original Series: James T. Kirk, Spock, Dr Leonard “Bones” McCoy, Montgomery Scott, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Checkov, Uhura (and let’s throw Christopher Pike just for the sake of it.)
  • The Next Generation: Jean-Luc Picard, William Riker, Geordi La Forge, Worf, Beverly Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Deanna Troi, Data.
  • Deep Space Nine: Benjamin Sisko, Kira Nerys, Odo, Julian Bashir, Jadzia Dax, Quark, Miles O’Brien, Jake Sisko, Worf (yes, again), Ezi Dax.
  • Voyager: Kathryn Janeway, Chakotay, Tuvok, B’Elanna Torres, Tom Paris, Harry Kim, The Doctor, Neelix, Kes, Seven of Nine
  • Enterprise: Jonathan Archer, T’Pol, Charles Tucker III, Malcolm Reed, Hoshi Sato, Travis Mayweather, Phlox.

    Go on. Go clicky-clicky and try to find the two that doesn’t fit. I’ll wait.

    Did you spot the two?

    Ok, the answer is: Wesley Crusher and Jake Sisko (although I made it hard for you to noticed why Jake doesn’t belong there.) They are the only teenagers in the whole list of series that were main characters (there we some kids in “Voyager”, but they would appear in only one or two episodes.) All the others look like they are in the late twentys or early thirties (with a few exceptions that look more like they are getting into their fourtys.) And that also includes non-human, ageless forms, like Odo, Data and the Doctor, and the ones with longer lifes, like the Vulcans. Even the youngest crew of all series, the Voyager (they were going into final training before going officially into service when they were transported to the Delta Quadrant) looks like they were in the later twentys.

    And that’s why the new Star Trek bothers me. All the actors (with the exception of McCoy) look like they are in their early twentys and in full operational status already. Even in the original series, when the Enterprise goes into its official mission of “explore strange, new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations”, Kirk looks like he’s in the late thirties. And now you have a Kirk that looks like he just out of puberty.

    Yes, there were boobs in the TOS. But they belonged to mature females, not some out of puberty, hormone full chick.

    To me, it looks like the tone of Star Trek changed from “When you get out of your studies and do some real life training, you may be a member of the most important ship of the human race” to “jump into the most important ship of the human race! All you need to do is be able to talk!”. Sign of the times, maybe, when you’re supposed to finish college and be a full experienced whatever-they-call-you-in-the-field. But, still, Star Trek looks a little bit tainted with an “easy way to get there” view.

    But, then again, I’m an old trekkie (although I never remember if the proper way is trekker or trekkie…)