I'll be surprised if the Enhanced Games meaningfully outdo the normal games in performance. Inherently only people outside the top echelons of their respective sport will sign up to something that'll likely lead to their banishment from normal athletic events for life, and the actual Olympians are already using reasonable amounts of doping based on how often caught drug cheats aren't exactly romping the competition.
Yeah but Golf in like a corporate/social content is likely to be towards the fucking around end of the spectrum.
Also something I've come to appreciate about Golf and Bouldering lately is that they function well in a social sport context for being remarkably self-handicapping. A group of 4 people can all go casually and have a reasonably stimulating experience.
If I were going to debut a new advance in ad blocking workarounds I'd probably try and debut it a month or two before the election in order to maximally benefit from the proverbial firehoses of money that are going to be coursing through, personally.
I think a reasonable assumption of the presence of firearms in every encounter, due to the US being the US, means there's inherently higher tension and more reasonable cops get deterred from the career.
I remember it being the opposite in my spaces (admittedly very martial arts focused). Nobody could reliably recreate a strangulation from that position even if it is a highly uncomfortable position
That's essentially what I pictured. Big wishlist of things from a Conservative grouping that'll inherently overlap with Trump, but probably more by 40-50% than on all the culture war issues that are now essentially obliquely being pinned to Trump's campaign.
As opposed to staging getting hit by a glass projectile in the ear at short distance?
Could somebody give me a summary of Project 2025?
My very loose understanding is that it's a large, ambitious pile of conservative coded objectives by a Right Wing thinktank with some potential links (albeit not strong ones) to Trump's potential administration, some of which align with Trump's objectives and some of which don't?
I think he's probably in a moderately-bad state (but not terminal) plus not cooperating. If he hadn't taken a downturn, I think he's not coerced to resign.
Indians have been plugged into the Anglosphere & Western Democracy for centuries at this point, plus there's a level of gamesmanship that comes from sheer population scrabbling for limited resources that seems to outstrip Western equivalents.
I've got a young child and my parents live interstate in the Australian equivalent of a Floridian retirement community.
We're fortunate to have the resources between us to enable visits back-and-forth with minimal stress, but I do definitely feel that it makes it hard to ensure the grandkids have as deep a bond with their grandparents as I'd ideally like. Also in my case my parents moved away a few years ago before grandkids were 'on the table', and as an unfathomably young parent in my demographic of 29 years old, that has to be somewhat increasingly common these days. I'm pretty sure if grandchildren were an ongoing concern prior to the move that it would have been enough to change the plans.
Had the most aggressive attribution modelling, the highest population of US citizens, incredibly fallow grounds in terms of the vulnerable (More obese, elderly, immunocompromised exist today than at any other point in human history). It was the biggest in a while (though I do think if the same laxitude of attribution was extended to other historic bad flus it'd likely be very similar), but was hardly an outlier.
The point of COVID was the noticing more than it having any insane outlier effectiveness as a disease
NBA players are still massive by ordinary person standards but there's less rewards for assembling stationary 7-footers.
I work in the gambling industry, and having seen more than my fair share of 'man deposits $1k, runs it up to $1.5M, ends up in the negatives' I think it's a fundamental truism that the sort of person who gambles sufficiently to win the lottery tends to be the sort of person who is going to be then gamble that money.
This goes for venture capital and the like.
Also in the above case I'd probably expect it'd be more a product of taxes/ongoing costs of shiny new things/investment ideas than strictly burning a huge lottery jackpot on 'lifestyle expenses'
I've always felt similar about Australia's Superannuation system. There's definitely ways of deriving a tax advantage, but as a 29 year old now I'm not super confident in the withdrawal ages and sanctity of the product for the next half-century.
Yeah but if they're not liable what relevance does that have to their share price?
Betting markets think it's most likely Harris
What you're describing is essentially the modern NBA, though. Curry brought an era that made spacing and mobility more important than pure height for various reasons. NBA height & weight peaked in 2013, just before the Warriors and Rockets made the 3 pointer so much of a pivotal part of the game. We're now starting to see true ridiculous freak 7-footers like Wembanyama who have the ability to shoot 3's/move dynamically whilst still being gigantic, but you're essentially criticizing a NBA product that hasn't existed since Jordan's era.
A huge part of Phelps was his frame, though. Guy is 193CM tall, 200CM wingspan and would not have been anywhere near as dominant without those two things. Usain Bolt 195CM and had probably the highest topspeed ever as a result of it.
Modern NBA's actually cut down quite a bit on the slow moving, lazy tall players, largely as a result of the 3 point revolution that Steph Curry was a large part of.
Also what raises the question of what is greatness?
Steph Curry optimized the hell out of middling (by NBA standards) physical gifts and redefined the game. A Lebron has way better hardware but arguably achieved more as an individual. Also how do you calibrate a Shaquille O'Neal (absolutely absurd frame, middling work ethic, great career) or a Wilt Chamberlain (S+++++++ athleticism relative to peers but noted asshole and not particularly winning)?
Yeah but realistically most of the candidates here would be using something.
Usain Bolt an outlier upon outliers in a very simple/easily-optimized sport in which most of his contemporaries popped for doping at some point? Either he's like 3-4 levels of outlier from the fastest people ever, or he was doing approximately the same stuff and was only a tier ahead.
I feel a lot of sports would not get any traction if they were debuting for the first time ever now in this media and attention environment.
Yeah. Hasn't really been a ton to discuss lately beyond the absurdity of the matter.
More options
Context Copy link