Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Before ebikes became common there were plenty of similar rental programs for pedal bikes, and the program in Pittsburgh still has pedal bikes. They're just slowly replacing them with e-bikes because they're an easier sell to the typical American who's allergic to exercise.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
You fire the coach before trading the QB because replacement level coaches are nearly as good as great coaches, while replacement level QBs are essentially useless for a win-now roster.
I think you have too optimistic a view of replacement-level coaches. First, we need to define out terms, and since it's raining this morning, I took a look at every head coach who has coached since 2007, the year Mike Tomlin, the longest-tenured current head coach, was hired. The trouble with defining replacement-level is that head coaches are normally judged on one thing and one thing only: Wins. The median winning percentage for all head coaches is .427. The mean is only slightly higher, at .430. And this is average, meaning a full half of all coaches are going to have worse records. In order to divorce wins from the equation, I looked at the number of seasons each team coached, under the presumption that good coaches tend to coach longer than bad ones. I used the same coaches as before, but eliminated anyone currently coaching to reduce the sample size problem, e.g. it makes Mike McDonald look like the greatest head coach of all time, though no one thinks he's going to end his career anywhere near 1.000. I will also add that I included data from these coaches' entire careers, not just 2007 and later. The goal was just to limit the coaches sampled to ones who are reasonably recent (I don't want oddball data from the 20s and 30s skewering the results), and I want to be able to name "replacement level" coaches one would actually be familiar with.
The median coaching tenure among NFL head coaches is 4 years, including current head coaches, and the mean is 6.4 years, though this is heavily skewed by people like Bill Belechick who coach forever and by the fact that I didn't include anyone still on their first year. Numbers are similar for men no longer in the game; a median of 4.2 years and a mean of 6.3 years. What kind of guys coach for 4 years? Think Pat Shurmur, Frank Reich, Mike McCoy, Kliff Kingsbury, Jim Mora, and Matt Nagy. If you want average coaches in terms of win percentage you get guys like Todd Bowles, Tony Sparano, Herm Edwards, and Dick Jauron. Remember, this is an average. Dick Jauron coached 9 years with a losing record. Ken Wisenhunt coached 7.4 years with a .403 winning percentage.
The point of replacement level is that average guys are hard to find, since half the guys hired are going to be worse than that. When looking at replacement level coaches, I first looked at the shortest tenures (I didn't include interim coaches or interim stints in this, since these guys were only coaching out of necessity, even if they ended up with the job the next season). The guys with very short tenures are who'd expect, and I'll call these guys "below replacement". Urban Meyer, Bobby Petrino, and Nathanial Hackett didn't even last one season. Cam Cameron did, but at 1–15 he has the lowest winning percentage of any coach on the list. Every coach who lasted fewer than 2 seasons has a winning percentage below .400 with 2 exceptions: Mike Singeltary (.450) and Ben McAdoo (.464). The way I see it, the true replacement level guys are those who lasted 2 or 3 seasons and have records somewhere in the .300 to .400 neighborhood. These are guys like Matt Patricia, Greg Schiano, Brandon Staley, Rod Marinelli, and Tom Cable. Brandon Staley, with a .500 record is a steal. If any of these guys look attractive to you, then fire Sirianni, whose .667 winning percentage is behind only Jim Harbaugh, Matt LaFleur, and Tony Dungy among coaches surveyed, and ahead of Reid, Belichick, and Tomlin. Remember, if you're firing your coach, you're lucky if you get anyone better than Kliff Kingsbury.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Though blue collar, these longshoreman are extremely well paid. With overtime, 1/3rd of the union members earn over $200k per year.
Where are you getting this from? Per an NPR article, the current top rate is $39/hour. With time and a half and regular double time on Sundays and Holidays you'd have to average 70–80 hours per week to hit 200k. While I'm sure there are some guys who can keep up with such a schedule for a full year, even the most hardened blue-collar guys I know can't work that much. And the way they talk about the guys who do, they're the ones who end up dying of heart attacks three weeks after retiring.
This is all before an election season. The Biden administration could in theory wield the Taft-Hartley Act to break the strike, much like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. But breaking a union, even a very well-paid one, is not a great look right before the election.
Biden has already said that he won't invoke Taft-Hartley, and that he's encouraging the sides to reach a resolution. This is the correct move from a political perspective; he can't force a contract upon management, so Taft-Hartley is the only card he has to play other than (possibly) mediator. Republicans have been trying to court unions in recent years (and have been pretty successful among the rank and file), but most of them still harbor many of the sentiments expressed downthread. Hell, even Trump complimented Elon Musk on his supposed union-busting tactics. If there is a strike it will take a hell of a lot of restraint for Trump, or any other Republican, to blame Biden for not sending them back to work. Putting this fornt and center within a month of the election isn't a good look.
Of course, I don't think Trump is stupid enough to make that kind of error. More than likely he does his usual schtick where he invokes his self-ordained status of Master Negotiator and says that if he were president then this strike wouldn't have happened because he would have been able to mediate an agreement. At which point Kamala Harris informs him that if he's so great at it then he could end the strike immediately be leaving the campaign trail to mediate a deal. There is, of course, zero chance that Trump actually does this, and if he tries, there's little chance that he'd be able to do anything (if the parties involved even let him get near the dispute), at which point he has to move on to do something else. But my guess is that no one will make a big deal about this.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I certainly have the ability to evaluate hypotheticals. Where I get off the train is when people treat these hypotheticals as though they're short-term inevitabilities. You can take any technology you want to and talk about how improvements mean we'll have some kind of society-disruping change in the next few decades that we have to prepare for, but that doesn't mean it will happen, and it doesn't mean we should invest significant resources into dealing with the hypothetical disruption caused by non-existent technology. The best, most recent example is self-driving cars. In 2016 it seemed like we were tantalizingly close to a world where self-driving cars were commonplace. I remember people arguing that young children probably wouldn't ever have driver's licenses because autonomous vehicles would completely dominate the roads by the time they were old enough to drive. Now here we are, almost a decade later, and this reality seems further away than it did in 2016. The promised improvements never came, high profile crashes sapped consumer confidence, and the big players either pulled out of the market or scaled back considerably. Eight years later we have yet to see a single consumer product that promises a fully autonomous experience to the point where you can sleep or read the paper while driving. There are a few hire car services that offer autonomous options, but these are almost novelties at this point; their limitations are well documented, and they're only used by people who don't actually care about reaching their destination.
In 2015 there was some local primary candidate who was running on a platform of putting rules in place to help with the transition to autonomous heavy trucking. These days, it would seem absurd for a politician to be investing so much energy into such a concern. Yes, you have to consider hypotheticals. But those come with any new piece of technology. The problem I have is when every incremental advancement treats these hypotheticals as though they were inevitabilities.
Again, doomers are worried about future, better models. What would you be worried about if you found out that models had been made that can do your job, and all other jobs, better than you?
I'm a lawyer, and people here have repeatedly said that LLMs were going to make my job obsolete within the next few years. I doubt these people have any idea what lawyers actually do, because I can't think of a single task that AI could replace.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I have considered it, but that's just science fiction at this point. I'm only going to evaluate the implications of Open AI being a private company based on products they actually have, which, as far as I'm aware, boil down to two things: LLMs and image generators. The company touts the ability of its LLMs based on arbitrary benchmarks that don't say anything about its ability to solve real-world problems; as a lawyer, nothing I doing in my everyday life remotely resembles answering bar exam questions. Every time I've asked AI to do something where I'm not just fooling around and want an answer that won't involve a ton of leg work it's come up woefully short, and this hasn't changed, despite so-called "revolutionary" advancements. For example, I was trying to get a ballpark estimate on some statistic where there wasn't explicitly published data that would involve looking at related data, making certain assumptions, and applying a statistical model to interpolate what I was looking for. And all I got was that the AI refused to do it because the result would suffer from inaccuracies. After fighting with it, I finally got it to spit out a number, but it didn't tell me how it arrived at that number. This is the kind of thing that AI should be able to do, but it doesn't. If the data I was looking for were collected and published, then I'm confident that it would have given it to me, but I'm not that impressed by technology that can spit out numbers I could have easily looked up on my own.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Because I eventually found what I needed in non-paywalled internet articles.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
The only danger AI, in it's current implementation, has is the risk that morons will mistake it as actually being useful and rely on the bullshit it spits out. Yes, it's impressive. But only insofar as it can summarize information that's otherwise easily available. One of the reasons my Pittsburgh posts have been taking as long as they have is that I'll go down a rabbit hole about an ongoing news story from 25 years ago that I can't quite remember the details of and spend a while trying to dig up old newspaper articles so I have my facts straight and reach the appropriate conclusions. I initially thought that AI would help me with this, since all the relevant information is on the internet and discoverable with some effort, but everything it gave me was either too vague to be useful or factually incorrect. If it can't summarize newspaper articles that don't have associated Wikipedia entries then I'm not too worried about it. I'd have much better luck going to the Pennsylvania room at the Carnegie Library and asking the reference librarian for the envelope with the categorized newspaper clippings that they still collect for this purpose.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
As a lawyer who litigates in Pennsylvania, that seems about right. I'm honestly surprised that anyone litigates anywhere in the state other than Philadelphia, since they tend to award the biggest verdicts, and I've seen comparable awards tlgo to plaintiffs who couldn't claim nearly the same level of economic damages . I can't find any info on the appellate ruling that isn't pay walled, but I doubt there were any good grounds for appeal. I'm not sure what you're angle is here.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
If Hurts can't figure it out, there will be broader implications for the league going forward. The past few years have seen QBs getting huge contracts with a lot of guaranteed money on the theory that it's impossible to win without one and you have to strike when the iron is hot, whatever the cost. But two things have happened since 2020 that have challenged that idea. The first is the sheer number of albatross contracts — Cleveland, the Giants, Jacksonville, Denver, and now possibly Philly are all saddled with them. Arizona is still questionable, as is Dallas. Of the 5 undefeated teams, Seattle, Pittsburgh, and Minnesota are all starting QBs who were considered washed, and Josh Allen is past the point where guaranteed money is an issue. That leaves Kansas City, winners of 3 of the last 4 championships, and Mahomes's contract is more complicated than the others. He's also Patrick Mahomes.
That leaves Cincy, which leads into the other reason these contracts might be on their way out: Burrow is good; the Bengals aren't. A lot of this can be chalked up to their non-existent defense, but one wonders how much of that is due to salary cap considerations. The days when teams can win by chucking the ball deep and hoping that speed will defeat man coverage are over. The return of cover 2 means QBs can't rely on the long ball like they used to. The elimination of blitzing in favor of a spy or additional coverage means that they can't rely on their legs to get out of trouble if there's nothing open. Even without the blitz, sack rates are actually up, since the paucity of open receivers and lack of escape lanes has QBs sitting in the pocket too long.
The upshot is that offenses now have to pound the run game, run heavy packages, and take what the defense gives them on pass plays. There are occasional opportunities to go long, but these rely on being able to read the safeties post snap and not just having a good, accurate arm. Kansas City figured this out early and won two Super Bowls because of it. Miami hasn't figured it out yet, which is why they can't beat good teams. San Francisco figured this out early, which is why they were able to get to the Super Bowl with a seventh round pick.
Take a look at Justin Fields, for example. He was a physical freak who could throw a good long ball and had an excellent set of legs on him, but in Chicago he had a tendency to force deep passes that weren't there and he couldn't transition beyond his first read. Put him in an offense where he isn't expected to win games on his own but play ball control all game and he's in the catbird seat. Now, Fields is more talented than the average bum off the street, but his success, limited as it's been this far, is proof that you don't need a guy making 50 million a year to win games.
As for Hurts, I don't think that lack of talent is his problem. The problem is that Sirianni continues to run the same kind of RPO-heavy college offense that he ran two years ago, when you could still get away with shit like that. The problem is that when you've already given him a contract like that it's hard to put him on a short leash. It worked with Mahomes, but there the Chiefs were getting out ahead of the curve and not making a desperate attempt to adapt to a changing league.
Does this mean that the Eagles should fire Sirianni? I don't think so, but as Steelers fan I'm of the opinion that coaching changes should only be made in the most dire situations, and the Eagles situation is nowhere near dire. If the problem is that they're simply a bad team, a coaching change isn't going to do anything; at best you'll get a truly terrible coach who can play scapegoat for a couple years while the team rebuilds. But you also run the risk of going through coaching carousel hell where guys come in alevert other year with high expectations and get canned as soon as those expectations aren't met.
On the other hand, he's also the kind of guy who cut his teeth in the league post-2010. He's similar to the "system guys" you see in college who have a system they run and don't know anything else. A few years ago these guys seemed like they were the future. Now they seem irrelevant while old guys like Andy Reid have no trouble adapting. I have a theory that any time a coordinator is deemed an " offensive wizard" he's doomed as a head coach.
That being said, firing a coach with a winning record who's taken you to the Super Bowl and made the playoffs every year a few games into the season because the team looks bad is a bush league move. It's like something Cleveland would do.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I used to work a job doing inventories where we used machines that were nothing but a keypad and a one-line LCD display. After banging on that for 8 hours a day I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who can enter numbers faster than me without one.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I thought about posting this last night in response to the question about the new NFL kickoff rules, but since that thread is a bit stale I'm posting it here today. First, the new kickoff rules are dumb. There are more returns, but it seems like all these returns end up at the 30 yard line anyway, so there's no point in not kicking it out of the end zone. If we want to "fix" kickoffs, here's my proposal: At the beginning of the 1st and 3rd quarters, the receiving team simply takes the ball at their own 25. Onside kicks are rare enough in these situations that little is lost by eliminating them. We move touchbacks back to the 20 where they belong. After a touchdown the scoring team kicks from their own 40, practically guaranteeing a touchback. After a field goal, though, they have to kick from their own 25, pretty much guaranteeing a return and pretty good field position to the returning team. The obvious positive consequences are fewer field goals and more 4th down conversion attempts. But the real benefit is less obvious: More situations for mentally overwhelmed coaches to fuck things up in comedic fashion.
Consider the following situation: The Steelers are trailing the Chargers by 4 points on Sunday with 7 minutes remaining in the game. After a third down pass that ends up short of the sticks after the receiver inexplicably runs backwards after catching the ball, the Steelers are 4th and 3 at the Chargers 22 yard line? If the Steelers kick the field goal, they're still down a point and give LA excellent field position to finish off the game. If they score a touchdown, they have the lead and LA will almost certainly have to start the ensuing comeback drive from their own 20.
So what does Mike Tomlin do in this situation? First he wastes a timeout unsuccessfully challenging the spot of the ball. Then he wastes another timeout so he can think about the decision. Then he kicks the field goal anyway, because of course Mike Tomlin was going to kick the field goal. Then the Chargers start the ensuing drive at their own 40, but the Steelers defense forces a 3 and out. The Steelers then take over deep in their own territory and begin to quickly march down the field, only for time to expire before they can get into field goal range because they were out of timeouts (they wasted their other timeout to avoid a delay of game penalty on first down early in the third quarter). Then I get to listen to yinzer heads explode on talk radio the next day because they totally would have scored a touchdown if they had had Justin Fields run a keeper / given the ball to Jaylen Warren / run some other dumb play that probably wouldn't have worked. At no point would the poor clock management come up.
I love the Steelers, but I must admit that the inevitable meltdowns make losing almost as good as winning.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Not unless you allowed unlimited scoring per possession, i.e. the scoring team gets to receive the ensuing kickoff and possession doesn't change unless the defense makes a stop. Otherwise it would be like baseball if teams were limited to one run per inning. One side effect of this is that there would be a lot less going for it on 4th when in field goal range, since 3 points and maintaining possession is worth more than the risk of turning the ball over on downs. The real reason this would never happen, though, is that it would lead to longer games, and the accompanying injury risk. Instead of teams running out the clock you'd have teams putting scrubs in to manage their starters, which I doubt would make for entertaining football.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I don't think Tannehill is interested on signing with a team that plans on benching him as soon as the starter becomes available in a few weeks. Especially considering how he was running out of town a few years ago. I imagine he's looking for the ACL tear or something that means he's in for the rest of the year, especially if it's a competitive team. If he wanted to be a backup he'd probably have been signed before the season started.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Yeah, but you gain him as a down field blocker, and that's a much bigger advantage. I think that you're opinion of this is based on when you've seen it called — which are otherwise legal plays that broke down — but haven't considered the implications of a permanent rule change and what that would mean for play design. You could run a play that effectively neutralizes the d line by having the o line slip past them for a quick pass to the TE out of shotgun, a sort of jailbreak screen on steroids. The only way to defend against this would be to stack the box on every play, opening up the long ball. Zone defense would be a thing of the past. Even run plays become easier since the defense doesn't know if they need to crash the RB or stay on their man. There are a lot of implications for this rule change.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
This might be sleep-deprived anger after MNF, but I've never really understood the purpose of the ineligible man downfield penalty.
Like most penalties, it's to avoid giving one side an unfair advantage, in this case, the offense. Since it only applies on passing plays before the ball is thrown, as it stands now defenses know that if a lineman starts blocking downfield that it's going to be a run play.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
The fact that it's an affidavit is suspicious in and of itself, as the right has, in recent years, acted as though anything in an affidavit must be The Truth (see all of the Sidney Powell affidavits). The most common use of affidavits is in litigation. If I want to depose someone, standard practice is to execute an affidavit that gives an outline of their testimony and the points I want to make. I'll submit that to opposing counsel, and if they have no objections, the affidavit will be admitted in lieu of the deposition. In this case, they're simply a tool for greater efficiency. Even if opposing counsel always wants a deposition (so they don't waive their right to cross examine), they're still useful in at least we have a concise outline of the major points counsel is trying to make.
They have other uses, mostly in property law where someone will execute an affidavit as to the property's history or something like that to make it easier for title researchers to get a picture of the land in the absence of formal recorded documents. Again, they're a tool, but since they aren't deeds, etc., they aren't dispositive and can be challenged in court.
I don't know what purpose an affidavit like this serves. Is there pending litigation? Even still, affidavits only attest to facts, not opinions. ABC is allowed to be biased. It may be a political scandal but there's no legal cause of action here. Even if this is completely legitimate I don't see the purpose for it; it's not like Trump can sue ABC for being biased. And even if they could, and this guy was their star witness, I wouldn't execute the affidavit like this. It draws conclusions rather than simply state facts. I doubt this is real, because no lawyer would draft this.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
One example: A guy and two women attempted to enter a bar but were denied admission because the guy had an expired ID. As they were walking away the man was approached by a man who had been in a relationship with one of the women several years earlier. The other man started yelling at the first man and cornered him in a doorway. The first man claims that the other man threatened to kill him and it looked like he was carrying a concealed weapon in his sweatshirt. So the first man shot him with a licensed gun that he was carrying legally. It seems like a fairly anodyne story when told that way, but when the news starts out with a story like "23-year-old Javonte Diggs was arrested outside the Pause nightclub after an apparent dispute with 22-year-old Martavius Allen", the online right doesn't start making the guy a martyr of self-defense and concealed carry.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Oh, it's totally strawmanning. But in court I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt in any argument; if you say something, I'm going to run with it. Unfortunately you won't get to point out my illogic to the jury because you've already taken your turn, and I doubt your client will take too much comfort in the fact that his guilty verdict may rest on a fallacious argument.
It seems to me that you're simply arguing a policy position; namely, that lethal force is an appropriate response to any attack. And while that's a perfectly fine position to take from a policy perspective, it doesn't get around the fact that the state criminal statutes are pretty clear that this isn't the case — lethal force is an appropriate response to some attacks but not to others. If you don't like this then what you're looking for is a political solution, not jury nullification.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
No, not really. As I said in another comment, the legal standard is whether there's a reasonable likelihood of death or serious bodily injury, not the worst-case scenario. If the person is carrying a concealed weapon, and there's no evidence that the attacker either knows or has reason to know that his victim is armed, there's no way the victim could form a reasonable belief that the attacker is going to take his weapon and shoot him with it. Especially consider that the vast majority of fights, even one sided fights, don't result in death or permanent disability.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Go ahead and make that point at trial... and prepare to get destroyed on closing. Seriously, if I'm the prosecutor in this case, I can pretty much ignore whatever other arguments you've made (or just hit on them briefly) and run that point to the end of its tether. "Is someone acting crazy? Who knows what they're crazy enough to do; better shoot them before anything bad happens. The defendant wants to convince you that this is a reasonable course of action." I'd then go on to describe a series of examples of "crazy" behavior and suggest that your argument would require them to view any shooting or the perpetrator as justifiable self-defense, and the examples would get progressively more absurd. I'd characterize the entire defense as "people should be able to shoot anyone who looks suspicious", and by the end there's the possibility that the jury would forget that the defendant had even been attacked. If this is "the point", then it's not a very good one.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Maybe we should be advocating policies that place a greater proportional tax burden on those who society caters to already: corporations and white-collar PMCs?
There's already a much easier way to do this: Increase marginal rates on higher earners. This comes with the added benefit of actually increasing government revenue and not decreasing it.
Sorry, I was on mobile yesterday and while I was trying to give the general principle I wasn't sufficiently clear as to the details. It's highly fact dependent. The general principle is that you're allowed to defend yourself, but the degree of force has to be proportionate to the threat. So if someone attacks with fists, I'm allowed to respond with fists. In the scenario you describe, where someone is being pummeled with fists while defenseless, then yes, I do believe that a self-defense justification would be appropriate. But that's not most attacks or scuffles, and it's not what happened here.
Every single punch to the head is a spin of the roulette wheel.
Exactly. Remember, the standard isn't that death or serious bodily injury is a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood. A roulette spin is not a good analogy for something that is reasonably likely to happen. Getting shot or stabbed is not a mere "spin of the roulette wheel" as to whether you could die or be seriously injured.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
If you had statistics suggesting that tackling onto concrete presented a risk of serious bodily injury or death comparable to being shot or stabbed, then you could call someone like an epidemiologist at trial to testify to that effect. And it would be a fairly strong defense, if tempered by the fact that the prosecution would call their own expert reaching the opposite conclusion. That's not relevant here, though, because Hayes shot the guy after he was tackled. You're only privileged to defend yourself out of apprehension of an imminent threat, not out of a response to a past threat. Once Hayes was on the ground he wasn't getting tackled again, and any argument about the supposed dangers of being tackled on concrete is moot.
Rov_Scam
2mo ago
The standard is only concerned with what is reasonably likely to happen, not with worst case scenarios. The likelihood of an attack with fists or tackling isn't reasonably likely to result in death or serious injury, absent some aggravating factor that isn't present here. That's pretty much black letter law in any jurisdiction.
Because, depending on the program, it can be significantly cheaper than owning. In Pittsburgh, the bikeshare program charges $120/year for a subscription with unlimited 30 minute rentals. Compare that to owning one, which is going to cost at least $2,000 for one that's worth buying, and comes with the attendant maintenance and theft risk. Compare that to transit, which in Pittsburgh is over $1,000 for an annual pass and requires you to operate on their schedule. Compare that to a parking lease, which is going to run you between $170 and $350 per month depending on where it is. And the network of stations is much larger than I would have thought, covering pretty much the entire East End plus the South Side and most of the lower North Side. (It should be noted that other parts of the city are cut off from any potential bike network by extreme topography and dangerous roads. This is doable for some people, but most will balk at the idea and it's certainly a liability nightmare.) For a certain kind of person, this subscription makes sense. Based on the pay-as-you-go rates, this makes sens for anyone who thinks they're going to use the service 20–30 times per year. I can't speak to how this works in New York or any other city.
More options
Context Copy link