A small thing, but I’m finding the automatic conference call link detection in Fantastical is saving me a great amount of effort, given my days are now filled with Teams meetings

Different watch faces for work and home

watchOS 7 has some interesting new features for enhancing and sharing watch faces. After an initial explosion of developing many special purpose watch faces, I’ve settled on two: one for work and another for home.

Both watch faces use the Modular design with the date on the top left, time on the top right, and Messages on the bottom right. I like keeping the faces mostly the same for consistency and muscle memory.

My work watch face than adds the Fantastical complication right in the centre, since I often need to know which meeting I’m about to be late for. Reminders is on the bottom left and Mail in the bottom centre. I have this face set to white to not cause too much distraction.

A digital watch face displays the time 17:41 on Thursday the 9th, with a calendar notification for Post-work Drinks Microsoft Teams Meeting until 18:00, and icons for calendar, mail, and messages with a count of seven.

My home watch face swaps in Now Playing in the centre, since I’m often listening to music or podcasts. And I have Activity in the bottom centre. This face is in orange, mostly to distinguish it from the work watch face.

A digital display shows the date, time, current weather, and music information for Nils Frahm's All Encompassing on a smartwatch interface.

Surprisingly, I’ve found this distinction between a work and home watch face even more important in quarantine. Switching from one face to another really helps enforce the transition between work and non-work when everything is all done at home.

The watch face that I’d really like to use is the Siri watch face. This one is supposed to intelligently expose information based on my habits. Sounds great, but almost never actually works.

I added a HomePod to the newly renovated house. The sound quality is definitely as good as advertised and I appreciate the Apple Music integration 🎢. Siri has worked just fine for me so far, though I only really use it for reminders and calendar events.

We’ve compared our predictions of the 2019 πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ election to the actual votes. Overall, we were within 5% with no obvious geographical biases, though we did slightly overestimate support for the NDP at the expense of the Liberals. I think we’re on to something good here!

Comparing predicted to actual votes for the 2019 Federal election

Our predictions for the 2019 Federal race in Toronto were generated by our agent-based model that uses demographic characteristics and results from previous elections. Now that the final results are available, we can see how our predictions performed at the Electoral District level.

For this analysis, we restrict the comparison to just the major parties, as they were the only parties for which we estimated vote share. We also only compare the actual results to the predictions of our base scenario. In the future, our work will focus much more on scenario planning to explain political campaigns.

We start by plotting the difference between the actual votes and the predicted votes at the party and district level.

A bar chart visualizes the distribution of differences between estimated and actual results, highlighting areas of underestimation and overestimation with a vertical orange line marking zero difference. Distribution of the difference between the predicted and actual proportion of votes for all parties

The mean absolute value of differences from the actual results is 5.3%. In addition, the median value of the differences is 1.28%, which means that we slightly overestimated support for parties. However, as the histogram shows, there is significant variation in this difference across districts. Our highest overestimation was 15.6% and lowest underestimation was -18.5%.

To better understand this variation, we can look at a plot of the geographical distribution of the differences. In this figure, we show each party separately to illuminate the geographical structure of the differences.

Four maps display election result differences by party (Conservative, Green Party, Liberal, NDP) across geographic divisions, with color variations indicating levels of underestimation or overestimation. Geographical distribution of the difference between the predicted and actual proportion of votes by Electoral District and party

The overall distribution of differences doesn’t have a clear geographical bias. In some sense, this is good, as it shows our agent-based model isn’t systematically biased to any particular Electoral District.

However, our model does appear to generally overestimate NDP support while underestimating Liberal support. These slight biases are important indicators for us in recalibrating the model.

Overall, we’re very happy with an error distribution of around 5%. As described earlier, our primary objective is to explain political campaigns. Having accurate predictions is useful to this objective, but isn’t the primary concern. Rather, we’re much more interested in using the model that we’ve built for exploring different scenarios and helping to design political campaigns.

Photosynthesis is a pretty elaborate game with more strategy than you might expect from trees β˜€οΈπŸŒ²

A colorful board game is set up on a table, featuring various 3D trees and a circular board with geographical features.