@wrwlumpy
Cumbertatch is the Olivier of this generation.
Probably better.
Olivier was probably better on stage.
Cumberbatch is far better in front of a camera.
Great photo and reference.
Having said that, here is a but...
But remember. KU winning by a small margin in no way refutes KENPOM's quantitative portrayal of KU.
QA is never about being right, or wrong, any more than a radio telescope is about producing a life like image of Alpha Centauri. QA is about capturing and analyzing the quantities counted in numbers produced by a facet of a phenomena to understand it from that perspective. Nothing more. But nothing less. Events are multi-faceted. Events have quantities, so quantity is a facet of events to study.
To the point, it is better in QA to be wrong by a narrow error factor, at least in predictive estimations and simulations, than to be right with a huge error factor because all QA is, whether it admits so or not, arriving at confidence intervals; this is something a lot of folks--though not odds makers--struggle with. :-)
And not just odds makers and Quants and scientists grasp this, but artists, too. Any really good artist understands that the rightness of a composition of an image rests on a constellation of approximately equilibrated and juxtaposed forms, colors, textures, symbols and signs in a dangling mobile-like balance of internal references in the image itself and amongst the image and the artist's (and hopefully the viewers) perceptions of reality beyond the image.
Your image of Cumberbatch as Turing with the masonry matrix of the past behind him on the Z-axis of time back of which he lacks recollection juxtaposed against his invented computer cypher of the moment that is a formal externalization of his mind revealing both its structure and connectivity projected beside him on the X-Y axis expresses visually Turing's complicated immediate past and increasingly formalized present and immediate future.
This is the form language of cinema that great directors speak without expecting audiences to necessarily grasp it, any more than great Italian Renaissance painters expected artistically untrained persons of their time to necessarily "read" the compositions of their paintings. It is quite enough for even the greatest artist just to have some ordinary folk enjoy the heck out of what he has done. He does not need them to get all his techniques he uses to create the effects he creates that dazzle and delight. Nevethe less, the image you chose has a sense of aesthetic formal visual rightness that orders and makes it compelling to an audience to one degree or another, with and without their understanding of his methods.
Further, a computer in this image is fundamentally a device for processing quantities of events in quantities of time, which was one of Turing's great insights. The smaller the increments of time made possible by the evolution of time keeping (from the large increments of sun dials, to the shrinking increments of pendulum clocks, to coiled sprung and geared chronographs, to atomic clocks, to quantum clocks) the greater the richness and complexity of simulations become possible. If a computer is tasked with a computation that takes a millionth of a second, but your clock only works in seconds, then you can only coordinate with real time with intervals of seconds. But split a second into nano seconds, or Graham number seconds, or smaller, and you can orchestrate a lot more computations with real time events with a phenomenally fast computer. With a quantum computer breaking seconds into near incomprehensible near simultaneities of time increments, a driverless car with a feed back loop of sufficient complexity and speed becomes utterly feasible to achieve. So might simulating the computational speed and richness of a human mind, though we run into the initial limits of not being interpret the reliability of outcomes of what we are enabling to happen at such high speeds in such short times.
Breaking codes and pass words as Turing set out to do with brute force serial processing is nothing more than combining great quantities of combinations of symbols matched against known sequences of symbolic meaning (pattern recognition) in tiny quantities of time. It seems obvious now, but it took a Turing to make the connections between what IS inside the mind with what is possible to build outside the mind to augment it to a rather specialized, rote task. The mechanical type writer and the mechanical calculator, telegraphy and radio, mathematical modeling, concepts of statistics, basic chemical, mechanical and electrical engineering, as well as higher mathematics and Base 1 were indispensible foundations that had to be in place for Turing to externalize the conception of human deciphering of meanings from the brain across the the skull wall barrier to the machine manifest beside Cumberbatch, as Turing.
It was one of many extraordinary moments of human thought externalizing across that skull wall boundary into something unprecedented and enduring, rather than atomizing in ephemerality. We would see and know something similar in an image of Isaac Newton holding a book of the calculus standing beside a canon, Watt standing beside a steam engine in a coal mine. Ford standing besides a Model T on a wagon road, or Crick and Watson standing beside a model of a DNA helix, r John von Neuman beside a formalized strategic game on a black board. We could think: when this shizz gets outside the skull it can go viral and change the world and ourselves in startling, only partially predicatable ways. Or we could be visual artists and make images with the tools of aesthetic form languages and graphic punctuation. And both actions would reveal insights about facets of the phenomenon.
You overlaying tongue-in-cheek your white, perhaps New Century School Book (I would enjoy such an allusion to the pedantic) font exclamation, as satiric and ironic reference to what I wrote about statistics in regard to JNew and KENPOM's QA of KU and the B12 both destroys (or redirects as is the vogue expression these days) the equilibrated composition of the director's image and in the destruction (redirection) creates an new meaning and new, or re-equilibrated composition, as good satire does in all the contexts and art forms that satire may be applied in.
I suspect I am mastering the obvious for you here, but I am taking the opportunity to use another one of your marvelous image/message combinations as an excuse to share with others a basic insight about QA and perhaps help them appreciate its potential contribution to our understanding of what is happening.
QA is about being close for the right reasons.
KENPOM's prediction was close and so one should look more closely at his profile of reasons to discover controllable elements of it that might enable KU to escape its determinism. All systems can be open ended, or closed, depending to some degree whether we choose to reinforce them, or break out of them, as Turing chose to break out/externalize a game changer (the computer) across the skull wall boundary and so move beyond his analog, masonry past and agonizingly into a digital, vacuum-tubed and electron-flow connected Base 1 present. And the director brilliantly puts the audience in a perspective that feels like one is looking back at Turing who is in our past.
Capice?
:-)
