I gotta go with Geng, based on this from Jonathan:

I was all in on Geng, as you know, but I have no idea what she sounded like.

But it’s not the voice is it? It’s the content. And listen to what Geng could do (Remorse, April 7, 1986) “I will also spend one hundred hours working with youthful offenders, who, I believe, could profit tremendously from one hundred hours away from the grind of science or math, listening instead to me explaining why I am talking to them instead of their teachers or parents.” If she can do that for youthful offenders, imagine what she can do for those of us lucky enough to attend. And science and math really is a grind, no?

Dalton almost had me going with this counter-argument:

If we’re going solely by Wikipedia, (And let’s be honest, I have been for the entire contest) it’s Nora by a mile. Nora’s got a picture and bio-box. A personal life and a career section. An entire section entitled “Ephron and Deep Throat.” Nicely formatted tables.

I was with him until he got to the tables. I hate tables.

Today two modern secular saints face off. Pele can do anything with a soccer ball. But a Turing machine can do anything computable. We’re a Venn diagram situation here:

– There are some things that are computable but can’t be done with a soccer ball.

– There are some things that are computable and can be done with a soccer ball.

– There are some things that can be done with a soccer ball but are not computable.

I can see a path to victory for either contestant. On one hand, if Pele could implement the Game of Life using a soccer ball, then Turing would be superfluous. From the other direction, if Turing could implement soccer using Boolean operators, then we wouldn’t need Pele. Either of these tasks seems pretty NP-tough to me. But this is a *hypothetical* seminar series, so all things are possible, no?

Again, here are the rules and here’s the bracket: