[washingtonismoney]

I was astroplaning last night and saw a tree fall in the woods.  There being no one around there was no sound.  However, the fallen tree root unearthed an ancient stone, which I saw from above.  It was written in a Minoan version of ancient (is there any other kind? ) Sumerian but, thanks to my Stanford anthropology training, I was able, just before drifting back to my bed.  It read, " Michigan State won.  Behold the words of mighty empires."

So there.

I'm at least 55% serious with my post! How would one declare a simulation obviously wrong? Applied to the Rose Bowl, for example: it's pretty easy to imagine a Stanford win, even with trivial changes -- say, catching one of the three or four dropped first downs, or one of the multitude of dropped picks? That's not to say MSU didn't *deserve* to win, just that a simulation showing a Stanford win isn't, like, crazy or anything. (Assuming we think simulations/hypotheticals have any truth-value at all!)

[washingtonismoney]

I was astroplaning last night and saw a tree fall in the woods.  There being no one around there was no sound.  However, the fallen tree root unearthed an ancient stone, which I saw from above.  It was written in a Minoan version of ancient (is there any other kind? ) Sumerian but, thanks to my Stanford anthropology training, I was able, just before drifting back to my bed.  It read, " Michigan State won.  Behold the words of mighty empires."

So there.

I'm at least 55% serious with my post! How would one declare a simulation obviously wrong? Applied to the Rose Bowl, for example: it's pretty easy to imagine a Stanford win, even with trivial changes -- say, catching one of the three or four dropped first downs, or one of the multitude of dropped picks? That's not to say MSU didn't *deserve* to win, just that a simulation showing a Stanford win isn't, like, crazy or anything. (Assuming we think simulations/hypotheticals have any truth-value at all!)