I always answer emails, unless I just happen to forget to, or in the rare case that I just ignore them, like when people want me to do their homework for them or something.
When I first envisioned Sentdex, I believed I would be one of the first pioneers to actually do it. Boy was I wrong. There are quite a few companies in this sector. I actually might be one of the first to visualize it globally like this, but most of the sentiment analysis companies could do it too, they just haven't for whatever reason. I know some more authoritarian governments do it on a large scale to figure out where riots and demonstrations might take place, but I think businesses could use it to figure out where they need to improve their image or even where they would have a successful store or restaurant.
I really did just plain do the globe out of curiosity and an intense drive to do it. I can do it for any business or person, to get global sentiment on them. Even something like a politician, which I see as being super useful for them as well. I already do offer political sentiment analysis, but geographic sentiment matters a lot for many of the political figures.
It started off as a flat map, then I found the google experiments and knew I had to do it with that.
I've always been fascinated by odds. My fascination resides in the inherent issue with the human mind, where we believe we have ways to overcome odds, and the most popular method is using some form of progressive betting.
I actually have been toying with the idea of releasing a few videos showing via a program how it is literally impossible to beat 50/50 odds. I've tested every single strategy that I can find. No matter what you do, you will end up with 50/50 odds, and breaking even on average over time. Every strategy I've done is run through a monte carlo simulation, usually with tens of millions of samples.
What I find most fascinating about all of it is that I still refuse to believe that you cannot beat the odds. It's just some crazy flaw in the human mind I guess, but to me it just seems like if you flip a coin 5 times, and you get 5 heads in a row, then you're "more likely" to get a tails in the next 5 flips. It just seems like even when you consider statistics, the whole 50/50 rule should come in and claim it's place. I even understand the gambler's fallacy, and how it is each flip that is 50/50, not a group... but I still just cannot wrap my mind around it.
I think it is one of the few fields where we have brute science to back up a theory and the mind still refuses to believe it. Just utterly fascinating to me, especially since I cannot even convince myself via logic, because it is logic that brings me to the gambler's fallacy.
Anyway, I don't really like deleting comments and such. If you want to delete your comment, feel free.
You can also email me. Harrison@sentdex.com or HSKinsley@gmail.com will get to me just fine.