Projecting the NFL’s best: Our experts ranked players from 1 to 100

We ranked the top 100 players in the NFL for the 2019 season. Here’s the complete list, starting with a dominant defensive lineman.
www.espn.com – TOP
SuperStarTickets

NBA preseason predictions: Our experts’ picks for 2019-20

We polled the experts on the ESPN Forecast panel for their predictions heading into the 2019-20 NBA season.
www.espn.com – NBA

The NFL Pick 10: Build a team with any 10 players — here’s who 55 experts picked

We asked our experts to play general manager and build a team around any 10 players for the next three seasons. Here are the results.
www.espn.com – NFL

NBA free agency questions: Our experts on Kyrie, the Lakers and best values

Here’s what our experts will be watching most closely when the action begins on Sunday.
www.espn.com – TOP
SuperStarTickets

Where are the top NBA free agents going? Our experts predict

We polled the experts on the ESPN Forecast panel for their votes on the next teams for star players.
www.espn.com – TOP
SuperStarTickets

The Best Haircuts to Try This Spring, According to Experts

You’ve been asking your barber for “the usual” for too long now. These three styles are trending for spring, but they’re also fairly low-maintenance and easy to wear for most men. Whether you’re going for something with a little length or shorter on the sides, here are the best spring haircuts and styles to consider this season, according to three experts.


How to Clean Up Your Facial Hair for Spring

Fade
illustrations by ULI KNÖRZER

Grown-out Fade

“Instead of that buzzed, faded look, where the sides go from thick at the top to sparse, opt for more allover evenness on the sides. It’s a very tailored, groomed look that’s still short.” — Oscar Blandi, celebrity stylist

illustrations by ULI KNÖRZER

Totally Textured 

“Have your barber use shears and razors instead of clippers for a rounder shape. To style, use a foam or pomade and blow dry and shape hair.” — Paul Wilson, American Crew’s global artistic director

Buzz 2.0
illustrations by ULI KNÖRZER

Buzz Cut 2.0

“For fine hair, a choppy cut with a little length in front keeps you sharp. For texture, I like Acqua di Parma Serum—it’s great for all the hair on your head.” — Natalia Bruschi, celebrity groomer

Looking for more hairstyle and cut ideas? Here are 10 that always work that’ll help you get looks like Brad Pitt, Charlie Hunnam, and more.

The post The Best Haircuts to Try This Spring, According to Experts appeared first on Men's Journal.

Men’s Journal Latest Style News

Our favorite 2019 NFL draft picks: Nine experts weigh in

The Jets got an interior game-wrecker. The Cardinals got their QB. Our insiders pick their favorite prospect-to-team fit.
www.espn.com – NFL

NFL experts on the schedule: Picking best matchups and biggest winners

Baker Mayfield gets four prime-time games. The Patriots have an easy schedule — again. Here’s what you need to know from the schedule.
www.espn.com – NFL

NFL experts predict: The most head-scratching free-agent moves

Do the Giants have a plan to contend, and where does Golden Tate fit? Our insiders put a bow on the free-agent frenzy.
www.espn.com – NFL

Forgery Experts Analyze a Fake Jackson Pollock Painting

Forensic scientist Thiago Piwowarczyk and art historian Jeffrey Taylor PhD examine a purported Jackson Pollock painting and use their expertise to determine if the painting is legitimate or a forgery.
WIRED Videos

Experts’ Finals predictions: Who’s picking against a Warriors 3-peat?

Are the Warriors a lock for their fifth straight Finals appearance? Who from the East could join them, and does it matter?
www.espn.com – NBA

Experts’ award picks: Will LeBron’s move to L.A. lead to an MVP?

Who will win top individual honors in 2018-19? Our NBA writers and analysts make their predictions for MVP, top rookie and more.
www.espn.com – NBA

NHL experts’ predictions: division winners, Stanley Cup, awards

Our picks for each division, Stanley Cup Final matchup, 2019 champion and all of the major awards.
www.espn.com – NHL

Episode 185 Scott Adams: Cancelled Military Parades, Joke Experts and Opioid Lawsuits

Topics: 

  • President Trump hired an African American woman and trusted her too much
  • CNN has less anti-Trump news items today…let’s review them
  • China is effectively well managed, well run
  • NY Governor Andrew Cuomo’s inflammatory statement
  • Suing pharmaceutical companies for the opioid epidemic
  • Weed legalization discussion before midterms

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 185 Scott Adams: Cancelled Military Parades, Joke Experts and Opioid Lawsuits appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Experts’ predictions: Conference finals, Stanley Cup picks

Our NHL experts — including Barry Melrose, John Buccigross, Linda Cohn, Steve Levy, Emily Kaplan, Greg Wyshynski and Adnan Virk — forecast the conference finals and Cup winners.
www.espn.com – NHL

Video Game Sounds Explained By Experts

Four video game sound designers explain the thinking behind some of the world’s most recognizable video game sounds.
WIRED Videos

When to Trust the Experts (Climate and Otherwise)

 Our duo of hurricanes, Harvey and Irma, have elevated the perceived risks of climate change in a lot of people’s minds. Are these disasters, and the record heat in many places, a sign of climate warming already out of control?

The quick answer is maybe, but climate scientists will need a lot more data and probably a few more years to know whether we are seeing a blip or a trend. From a persuasion perspective, the fascinating thing to me is that the climate science “sides” have reversed because of the storms. And here I am only talking about non-scientists on social media. 

Last winter I saw climate skeptics (or deniers in some cases) proclaiming climate change a hoax because it was cold outside. The scientists and pro-climate-change folks mocked those poor souls for not understanding the difference between anecdotal evidence and science. You can’t determine a long term trend by looking out the window, say all scientists. And if you think you can, you’re being a big dope who doesn’t know the first thing about science.

If you don’t understand that anecdotal data in isolation is generally useless to scientists, you don’t understand anything about science. A year ago, that described a lot of climate skeptics who were looking out their windows, seeing snow, and declaring climate change a hoax.

But that was last year. This week the sides reversed. Now I keep seeing climate alarmists on social media looking at the hurricanes and declaring them strong evidence of climate change. They might be right. But if they are, it is by coincidence and not by science. Scientists say it is too early to tell. So now we have a bizarre situation in which the pro-science side is disagreeing with the scientists on their own side. That’s what confirmation bias gets you. Both sides see anecdotal evidence as real. Both sides think they respect and understand the basics of science. Both sides are wrong.

Please excuse my generalities here. Obviously there are plenty of smart people on both sides who understand that anecdotal information is not confirmation of anything. But in terms of what I see on social media, the hurricanes have turned a lot of people on the pro-science side into believers in anecdotal evidence. Here’s one example. Read from bottom up.

And this brings me to my topic of the day: How do you know when to trust experts? My hypothesis is that people who have the most experience in the real world trust experts the least. To make that point, allow me to give you a brief tour of my experience with experts.

Nutrition

When I was a kid, scientists seemed to agree on what constituted good nutrition. They even put that knowledge into a handy visual aid involving a food pyramid, and provided it to every school. We now understand the science behind it to be bunk.

Fitness

I’m old enough to have observed fitness experts revising their advice countless times. I’m no longer sure if stretching is good or bad. And the exercise experts also had the nutrition stuff wrong, along with the rest of the world, for most of my lifetime. 

Psychology

When I was a kid, Sigmund Freud was considered the leading expert on psychology even though he was dead. Now the experts in psychology considers Freud a fraud. His science wasn’t science at all.

Finance

When I was young, I assumed experts could pick stocks better than a monkey with a dart board. It turns out I was wrong. Index funds with no experts whatsoever routinely outperform the expert stock-pickers. 

I have a degree in economics and an MBA from UC Berkeley. I did financial projections for a living, first at a major bank and later at the local phone company. People considered me an expert in that narrow field. In a number of cases, I got to track how my projections compared to actual results. They were rarely close. As an expert, I deserved no credibility whatsoever. And for a good reason. My projections required human judgment on lots of variables, so the output was little more than guessing and massaging the numbers to meet my boss’s expectations.

Medical

Some of you know I lost my ability to speak for over three years because of a bizarre disorder called spasmodic dysphonia. The experts almost unanimously agreed that the source of the spasmodic dysphonia is in the brain, not the vocal cords. I ended up diagnosing myself correctly after my primary care doctor and his recommended specialists were totally stumped. (I figured it out using Google.) Once I knew the problem, I found the one surgeon in the world who claimed he could fix my problem by rewiring the nerve pathways in my neck. The operation was a success, and I recovered from an “incurable” problem. Had I listened to 99% of the experts who said the problem was in my brain, I would not have considered an operation on my neck.

I could go on like this for hours, but I think you start to see my point. At my age, and given my type of experience, I have seen experts get the big stuff wrong lots of times, even when that seemed deeply unlikely. 

That brings us to climate change. The experts are strongly aligned on one side. If you have neither the age nor the experience to know how often experts can be wrong, you probably assume the experts are credible. But if you have my type of experience, watching the fields of finance, diet, exercise, psychology, and medicine get the big stuff wrong, you start from a place of skepticism. Ideally, we would look at the details in any given situation to make our final decisions on the credibility of experts because no two cases are alike. Unfortunately, we humans are not good at using facts and reason. We tend to use our biases and then rationalize them later.

So how do we know when to trust experts and when to be skeptical? Here are the red flags you should look for in order to know how much credibility to assign to the experts.

Money Distortion

When the players have money on the line, the truth gets distorted. In climate science, money influences both sides of the debate. That’s a red flag.

Complexity with Assumptions

Whenever you see complexity, that is a red flag. Complexity is often used to deceive. And complexity invites human error. When you see complex models that claim to predict the future, stay skeptical, especially when humans are making assumptions that influence the results.

The exceptions are planetary predictions and other straightforward physics. We can predict the future location of planets without any human assumptions. That is just math and physics. But in the fields of finance and climate science, to name just two, humans are influencing the models with assumptions. That is always a red flag. I am aware of no complex prediction model populated with human assumption-tweaking that is credible, in any field. Is climate science the first exception? Maybe. But it would be unusual in my experience.

The Important Fact Left Out

When people have the facts on their side, they are quick to point it out. When a key fact is glaringly omitted, that’s a red flag.

In the world of climate science, most of you would not know the answer to this key question: Are the temperature measurements peer reviewed?

You probably assumed the temperature measurements are peer reviewed. Maybe some, or most, are. All I know for sure is that climate scientist Michael Mann says his temperature data is proprietary. He refused to release it to a Canadian court for that reason. is that a common situation, that data measurements are “secret.” I don’t know. Neither do you. That’s a red flag. It is conspicuous that you and I don’t know the answer to that basic question. Because if the raw temperature data is not peer reviewed, is it really science?

To be perfectly clear here, I don’t know the state of peer review for temperature measurements. But it is such a key question it raises a red flag as to why scientists aren’t making sure we know the raw data is clean and widely reviewed. 

Conflation of Credibility

Whenever you see someone conflate a credible thing (such as the peer review system in science) with a less-credible thing (long term prediction models), that’s a red flag. If you question the accuracy of climate models, someone will mention the gold standard of peer review, even though that doesn’t address climate models that involve human assumptions. Conflation of credibility is a red flag.

My view on climate science is that different elements have different levels of earned credibility. Like this:

Basic Science: The chemistry and physics of climate change seem solid. When you add CO2 to an environment, expect some extra heat, all other things being equal.

Temperature Measurements: The temperature measurements used by climate scientists might be solid. But the way science has so far communicated this topic does not inspire confidence. I think you have to put a lower credibility on the temperature measurements than on the basic science, simply because of the way the topic is presented to the public. If the measurements are credible, why not tell us all about the peer review process that has validated them? And why would Michael Mann even have “proprietary” data? Isn’t everyone looking at the same stuff?

Climate Models: As soon as you hear that someone has a complicated prediction model, that’s red flag. If you hear that the model involves human assumptions and “tweaking,” that’s a double red flag. If you hear there are dozens of different models, that’s a triple red flag. If you hear that the models that don’t conform to the pack are discarded, and you don’t know why, that is a quadruple red flag. And if you see people conflating climate projections with economic models to put some credibility on the latter, you have a quintuple red flag situation.

To be fair, none of the so-called flags I mentioned means the models are wrong. But they do mean you can’t put the same credibility on them as you would the basic science.

Economic Models

Have you noticed that I seem to be the only person talking about economic models when it comes to climate change? That’s because there is a tendency to assume the economic decision is so obvious no study is needed.

That’s the sort of thinking that no economist would find credible. Moreover, economists don’t believe anyone can forecast the future with long term economic models. Science might tell us we have a big problem, but economists have to tell us when to start addressing it and how hard. That part is missing.

I have seen some economic guesses of how much damage would be caused by climate change. But I have not seen one that considered opportunity cost, or the benefit of waiting for better technology. No economist would respect a prediction that ignored those two enormous variables. And those variables are deeply unpredictable by their nature. 

The One Sided Argument

When I see climate scientists in the media, they are never accompanied by skeptical scientists who can check their statements in real time. Likewise, articles by and about skeptics are usually presented without simultaneous debunking by the experts on the other side. Those are red flags. Any presentation of one side without the simultaneous fact-checking by the other is useless and almost certainly designed for persuasion, not truth. The problem here is that both sides of the climate debate are 100% persuasive when viewed without the other in attendance. If you think your side is the smart side, check out the other side. They look just as smart, at least to non-scientists such as me.

I’ll summarize by reminding readers that I am not a scientist and I don’t have the tools to evaluate the credibility of climate scientists. If you think you do have that ability as a non-scientist, my guess is that you are younger than me or you have less experience of the type I described above. 

When I present this sort of framing to climate change believers, they generally retreat to Pascal’s Wager, which says in this case that we should treat any risk of catastrophe as if it is likely, so we aggressively address the risk and eliminate it. That makes sense in a world where resources are not constrained. But our world is the opposite. Everything we do is at the expense of something else we wanted to do. And I am aware of no economic model that considers the opportunity cost of spending a trillion dollars for perhaps a half-degree temperature improvement. 

Climate change isn’t our only mortal threat. We have pandemics, terrorism, nuclear war, the singularity, asteroids, and probably a dozen more threats I don’t even know. If we could eliminate all of those threats and have money left over, I say let’s do it. But if resources are limited (and they are), I need a strong argument to put a trillion dollars into any one of the risks.

My new book, Win Bigly, is available for pre-order. It’s about persuasion in a world where facts don’t matter to our decisions. (Even when they should.)


Scott Adams’ Blog

Rob Kardashian May Have Broken California’s ‘Revenge Porn’ Law, Experts Say

It’s illegal in the state to post explicit photos of someone in order to exact revenge or cause distress.
Entertainment News, Photos and Videos – HuffPost Entertainment
Entertainment News-Visit Adults Playland today for the hottest adult entertainment online!

Hot Tip Alert!

Click here for more.

Design Industry’s Leading Experts Discuss LA/NY Rivalry


As New York’s creative brain drain intensifies, East Coast ex-pats tout the Golden State.

read more



Style

Design FX – Find Out How FX Experts Created Mars in “The Martian”

Visual effects companies Framestore and MPC were tasked with creating the red planet in “The Martian.” From realistic landscape shots of Mars to simulated gravity differences, see how it all came together with a shorter-than-usual timeframe for post-production.
WIRED Videos – The Scene

Hollywood’s Rash of Interview Walkouts: PR Experts Offer Solutions


Robert De Niro becomes the latest (following Robert Downey Jr. and Cate Blanchett) to flee (or fuel) social media flames: “If you feel something going negative, you don’t have to tie a noose for your own hanging.”

read more


Hollywood Reporter

David Simon’s ‘Show Me a Hero’ Recap: Two Experts on Urban America Weigh In


A pair of distinguished American historians of racial discrimination are writing about the show each week for THR.

read more


Hollywood Reporter

How to Make a Giant Creature – Watch FX Experts Build the Prototype of a 14-Foot Creature

The design phase is over, and now it’s time to prove that the 14-foot-tall creature can be built. As the team starts to build the prototype, challenges arise due to the creature’s size and scale.
WIRED Videos – The Scene

International Anal Experts

International Anal Experts

Ebony and ivory are opposites, but when a big black cock meets a wet white cunt, they can reach any agreement.

GameLink.com – Anal

Expert’s Top 10: Celebrity Makeup Artist Lina Hanson’s Picks For a Greener Makeup Bag

Celebrity makeup artist Lina Hanson shares her top 10 picks for a more eco-friendly makeup bag.
InStyle
MillionaireMatch.com - the best dating site for sexy, successful singles!
MillionaireMatch.com – the best dating site for sexy, successful singles!

Up Your Beauty Game! These Are the Beauty Experts to Follow on Instagram

They’re the masterminds behind the hair and makeup looks you’ll find on red carpets, editorials, and on the runways that act as the barometer for the next season’s beauty trends. No matter how classically trendy or daring, (take Pat McGrath’s exaggerated spider lashes at Louis Vuitton), theses makeup artists change the beauty landscape enough that […]
InStyle
MillionaireMatch.com - the best dating site for sexy, successful singles!
MillionaireMatch.com – the best dating site for sexy, successful singles!

Les Experts De La Seduction

Les Experts De La Seduction
Produit Reccurent : 5 Interviews Avec Les Experts De La Seduction. Les Meilleurs Coachs Francais Repondent A Vos Questions Sur La Seduction, Le Developpement Personnel, La Vie Du Couple, La Sexualite Etc…
Les Experts De La Seduction

Les Experts De La Seduction

Les Experts De La Seduction
Produit Reccurent : 5 Interviews Avec Les Experts De La Seduction. Les Meilleurs Coachs Francais Repondent A Vos Questions Sur La Seduction, Le Developpement Personnel, La Vie Du Couple, La Sexualite Etc…
Les Experts De La Seduction