FlailingAce
No bio...
User ID: 1084
FlailingAce
5d ago
An amusing framing, no doubt! But the fundamental skill in kicking a soccer ball is not the propulsion of the ball, it's balance. Specifically, bilateral balance on a single leg under differing conditions and while under stress and perturbation. Ask a PT or OT and they'll likely confirm that this is one of, if not the most important physical skills to learn for lifelong health and injury prevention. It's what we train the elderly on to prevent falls.
Can't speak to hockey as much as I never played, but shooting a puck seems to involve whole body coordination in a similar way, and manipulating a stick with two hands is endlessly generalizable.
FlailingAce
6d ago
I'm not sure is it's talked about in current climate circles, but it's significant in modeling. Models (at least in the 2000s when I learned about this) had a multiplicative factor on climate forcing that was based on a positive reinforcement mechanism from water vapor - in other words, the calculated increase in temperature from CO2 was doubled or tripled because of the assumption of positive reinforcement. Notably, the models did not really model cloud albedo effects, which make water vapor arguably a negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes temperature instead.
Of course, the actual problem was that the models kept all this secret. They were considered proprietary (including the input parameters e.g. 'CO2 forcing' = 3x), so all we the public got to see was the predictions of catastrophe and runaway warming, without any visibility on how those predictions were made. Now that we have a better understanding, it's clear why the predictions of these models were simply wrong, but the trust is quite reasonably lost.
FlailingAce
7d ago
Learning to shoot a basketball has some utility, in the same way learning any skill has utility. But throwing a baseball or football is a much more translatable skill, and biomechanically what our shoulders are designed to do. The proper movement for shooting a basketball is almost unnatural in comparison, which is why most kids do it wrong until they're corrected and properly trained.
FlailingAce
8d ago
Let me bend your ear briefly on why modern basketball is the worst of all sports.
First, it is the only major sport with a freakish morphology requirement. The best predictor of success in basketball is your height - the average for pro players is the 99th percentile. The only other team sport where you see this is volleyball, which nobody cares about, so it's fine if it caters to a small group. But basketball is the sport for many demographics, and yet 98-99% of people can never go pro no matter how hard they work or how skilled they become.
Second, the rules are stupid. Running with the ball in your hands is not allowed, except you can take a few steps I guess? Especially if it leads to a cool dunk! (Pretty sure that's the actual reason, people like dunks so they bend the rules to allow them). On a more serious note, the modern style of play has devolved to take advantage of these silly rules. Many plays I see in modern games are just a big player bull rushing with the ball in their hands for three steps, then leaping through the air and tipping the ball up while in midair. There's no teamwork beyond setting picks, no finesse, just a big flying body that the defender is not allowed to do anything about. If the ball goes in great, but if the defender gets in the way it's usually a foul and free throw so just as good.
Third, shooting baskets is stupid. It requires kids to spend thousands of hours on a movement skill that has no application to anything else whatsoever. Seriously, can someone come up with any other action in life that is remotely like shooting baskets? How much of our kids' time is wasted on this junk?Also, there's relatively little interaction involved in shooting baskets. I should say, there is interaction if the defender is taller and can put their hands over you, in which case you simply can't succeed no matter how good you are (see point one), but most of the time it's just a skill check roll to see if you get the points or not. What, in every similar sport, is a battle of wits between offense and defense, in basketball is often just a roll of the dice. Player XY hits 3 pointers from this distance at 38% chance. What fun! (BTW, how are there professional players who can't hit free throws? What an embarrassing sport!) The result of this is that basketball is a highly statistical game - the opposite of soccer, upsets and comebacks in basketball rarely happen, because there are so many scoring plays, and scoring is so easy. By minute 5, you can already see which team is better, and the same ratio of points will likely continue for the rest of the game. Everything about basketball is boring.
All basketball arenas should be renovated into indoor soccer arenas.
FlailingAce
8d ago
That's actually a good question. My instinct was that this is mocking transgender people, but after thinking more there could be some sort of ironic meta-mockery as well, like associating people who think transgenders are gross with the aristocracy. I think if that was the intent, though, it's a pretty big miss, because people will make the basic association (trans == gross) more easily than the subtle one.
FlailingAce
8d ago
On a science fiction lark at the moment. Just finished A Deepness in the Sky - super interesting concept! Vernor Vinge's stories have such a different pacing from anything else I've read.
Now I'm part way through the newer James S. A. Corey book The Mercy of the Gods, which I'm also enjoying.
FlailingAce
8d ago
If you're not already aware, Deflock is pushing back against this issue specifically. There are also local groups in various areas, maybe there's one near you or you could start one yourself?
FlailingAce
8d ago
"My Lord, the peasants are revolting!" "Yes I know, I can smell them from here."
Classic joke. I can't see this as anything but mockery.
FlailingAce
8d ago
Just got Risk of Rain 2 on Steam sale. Was very glad to see it has aim assist built in! I liked the original Risk of Rain and was worried that this one would require more technical skill to play (the original didn't require any aiming).
Still learning the ropes but having a great time so far.
FlailingAce
13d ago
I think ultimately I am the kind of person who struggles to believe in the supernatural given the world now makes sense without it.
I am right there with you! I struggle to accept when people at my church attribute God's intervention to things that could have happened naturally. But then when I take the inside view on my own life it seems clear that turning and following God had tangible effects, and that things often line up in ways that indicate a guiding hand at work. That includes what I consider an actual miracle: how I met my wife. A story that, when I tell it to others, seems unremarkable!
I think that's the nature of the beast, that another's testimony is insufficient evidence to sway a skeptic, yet may be all the evidence that person needed. Or to put it another way, you won't see the evidence of God's work in your life until you start a relationship with him. I know that sounds like a recipe for self-deception, but it also lines up with my limited understanding of divine hiddenness. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened.
FlailingAce
13d ago
That's good advice. I attend a Calvary Chapel where we teach the Bible chapter by chapter, so the order is somewhat pre-determined. However, I agree that this is the sort of context that needs to be brought in as part of that teaching to avoid coming across as crassly homophobic.
FlailingAce
13d ago
I'm with you in theory. However in practice many people have beliefs that are influenced by secular culture, so I think it's important to have a considered approach when you introduce ideas that people may struggle with.
The other pastor who gave the advice not to teach Romans has had a lot of success growing his church, while the church I attend has stayed quite small. But I actually left that larger church for this smaller one partly because of lack of depth in the teaching. So, what's more important - reaching more people with the basic gospel message of salvation, or tending to a smaller group of more devoted faithful? I don't think there's an obvious answer. Probably we need both. "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it." 1 Cor 3:2 - Lots of infants in Christ out there nowadays!
FlailingAce
13d ago
From a Christian standpoint, the whole world is essentially the domain of Satan and his demons. For instance, Satan is referred to as the 'prince' of the world, and offers worldly power to Jesus when he tempts him.
Certainly, many physical events are not tied to the action of angels and demons, since the world generally follows material laws. But Christians will talk often about 'spiritual warfare', which is when the influence of demonic forces coming against the will of God or the work of the Holy Spirit. Because the world is fallen, the demons have influence here, and it seems that this is the way God has set things up. He could, of course, redeem the world and cast down all the demons - indeed, He has promised that He will do this when Jesus returns - but until then, the demons continue to have influence. I would also argue that most demonic influence comes through people, not through them causing earthquakes or the like (disease might fall somewhere in the middle).
As to why this is a helpful view? Firstly, if it's true then it will help you understand the world. Second, it accurately describes how many people act. The 'demonic' is often seen in self-interest, cruelty or callousness, the kind of behavior that we pretend is not normal. Having a perspective that includes the demonic will allow you to better predict human behavior, because it overcomes a positivity bias that many people have i.e. 'thinking the best of people'. Thirdly, people have better psychological outcomes if they see purpose in the things that happen to them. This is a bit of a cynical take, but it can actually be more healthy for many people to believe in demons than to believe that bad things happen with no reason.
FlailingAce
13d ago
"Upon further consideration I have decided to become more extreme in my religious beliefs"
This is me. In college I was an edgy libertarian who thought the Wicca creed of "though it harm none, do as you will" was the height of wisdom. As I've matured, it has become clear that certain ways of being are simply better. And then I came (returned, really) to Christ which has increasingly made me a radical in the eyes of the secular world.
Just last night, in fact, I was approached by my senior pastor about taking a teaching role at my church, with the idea that I would eventually take his job. So I've got a lot of thinking to do about many of these issues, and how to address them in a compassionate but biblical way from the pulpit. My pastor says he was advised, for instance, to never teach the book of Romans, because when you teach Romans 1 (which condemns homosexuality among other things) you will lose half your congregation. He teaches it anyway :) This may not be that relevant to you all or to the discussion but I just wanted to share.
FlailingAce
14d ago
From what I understand, it doesn't require nuclear war, but nuclear war would be the most straight-forward way to achieve their ends (both apocalyptic war and the destruction of Israel). It's not that Iranian leadership definitely wants to launch nuclear Armageddon, but that there are some within the IRGC who would conceivably launch a nuclear weapon at Israel or western countries if they had the capability. Their theology means that normal incentives (mutually assured destruction and the like) do not constrain them - they have a similar mindset to a suicide bomber, ignoring worldly consequences in favor of presumed eternal rewards.
Here's a paper from 2022 from the Middle East Institute that goes into some depth.
While there is hope that the IRGC’s senior leadership will act pragmatically, internal structures within the Guard — including its indoctrination and promotion system — certainly open up the possibility that devoted Mahdists could occupy senior leadership positions. Such a scenario could have far-reaching consequences as it would bring the three pillars of the IRGC’s foreign policy — militias, ballistic missiles, and the nuclear program — under their control. Even if a small number of devout Mahdists occupy senior positions in the Guard, it is possible that they may seek to facilitate and speed up the return of Mahdi.
If you look at Iran's actions through this lens, they make sense. In particular, the Iranian insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
FlailingAce
15d ago
It's a specific sect of Shiism called Twelver Shia. They believe that the twelfth Imam, Muhammed al-Mahdi, is miraculously still alive, and that he will return to bring in an eternity of peace and prosperity (and global Muslim rule of course). However, for this to happen certain signs must take place, including an apocalyptic war and the destruction of Israel.
Technically, quite a lot of Shia groups believe in the return of the Mahdi, but Iranian Twelvers in the IRGC are particularly radical, and believe they are required to proactively pave the way for his return.
FlailingAce
15d ago
Aren't you conflating different spheres here?
I want my military leaders to be good a keeping secrets, lying even. I'm very happy that nobody knew about the Maduro raid until it was over. Similarly, much of what's happening in Iran is being kept secret because it literally is top secret.
Politics is a different matter. We should desire maximum transparency from our elected leaders, since their actions are the basis on which we elect them and hold them accountable. In fairness though, much of what they do is also classified, or has effects that require deliberation before sharing information.
But I think op is actually more concerned with the media. We absolutely should, and largely don't, hold them to the highest standards for integrity.
Conflating these spheres just muddies the issue.
FlailingAce
15d ago
best case scenario
Definitely not what Eetan said. Best case might be something like: the costs of war for Iran lead to internal regime change that replaces the theocracy with technocratic moderates. Or something along those lines.
What Eetan described is probably closer to a below average but survivable outcome that would achieve some US goals at a moderately high cost.
Iran is in open warfare with the US and its allies, and has been for decades.
It's also run by a radical religious sect that honest-to-God believes a nuclear war is necessary to bring about the return of their messiah. Depending how credibly you take that belief, they are arguably an existential threat to humanity if they acquire nuclear weapons.
Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily mean this is sufficient reason for the war, just that it's much more convincing to me then the reasons for Iraq and Afghanistan
I don't disagree with much of this. But I think the US goals in Iran would be much more modest than the occupation and nation building we saw in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I'm sure there's a plan that's in development for e.g. seizing Kharg Island, and I think there's a good chance that Trump gives the go ahead some time in the next few months. There are also likely plans for direct action against specific sites related to nuclear enrichment and the like. We already had a test run for insertion/recovery into the country with the missions to retrieve those pilots, and they went as well as could be expected.
But there's also unconventional warfare, which takes much longer but may eventually bear fruit (assuming it's even happening, but I think that's a fair assumption). This may even be the main effort, with the bombings, economic sanctions, etc. serving to shape the environment. But we won't learn about all that until the declassified retrospectives are published in a few decades.
FlailingAce
16d ago
The frustrating thing to me is that this is all so tied up in American electoral politics.
I'm firmly of the opinion that we should escalate the war in Iran until we win it. The cost in treasure and lives would be far less than in Afghanistan or Iraq and for a much more worthy cause, and many of the people I know in the military would absolutely love to get in there.
Unfortunately, there are midterms coming up! The US is largely incapable of pursuing long-term thinking (at least in the open), because any short-term sacrifice will be parlayed into an election loss for the party in power and the long-term plan will be discarded or reversed.
It seems to me that Trump actually wants to win this war. That's why the MOU and the negotiations have largely been a sham. They are not intended to work. They are intended to pacify people until the votes are in. Trump went for a cease-fire because it would lower gas prices, end of story, that's literally all most voters know or care about the war. And after the midterms pass, I expect him to use the overwhelming might of the US military to violently pursue his goals once again, and more power to him.
I don't have specific analysis to back this up, it's just how the overall picture looks to me.
FlailingAce
17d ago
If the price they pay for it is enough to discharge the mortgage debt, then they should be free to do so. If not then yes it's potentially abusable.
But according to op the first right of refusal has never been exercised. I think that's because if your spouse or kid can afford to buy your house at a discount, it's likely much better for them to help you avoid foreclosure in the first place.
FlailingAce
17d ago
I guess we can agree to disagree. From my vantage, LLMs are a limited form of 'intelligence' that seem to be approaching their asymptotic best case performance. They cannot reason on their own because they are simply statistical models that index the corpus of human knowledge.
General intelligence is theoretically replicable using silicon or any other material. But the question is whether it is replicable using digital logic-gate computers. That's not a theoretical physics question, it's a computer science question. I am happy to take the other side of the bet from you, I just hope AI boosterism doesn't ruin the economy and human society in general in the process.
FlailingAce
18d ago
I quite like the first right of refusal part of this law, and find the second right of refusal for non-profits to be a pretty obvious opportunity for abuse which has been rightly litigated.
I also think such a right of refusal should side-step the foreclosure rules. The problem is that the debts on the property are discharged in foreclosure, whether they're paid off or not. If I'm a tenant who wants to purchase the building that the owner defaulted on, either I should pay enough to discharge those debts, or I need to take them on myself. The whole reason foreclosure exists is for a mortgaged property that nobody is willing to buy normally - if there is a buyer, but at a discounted price, then foreclosure shouldn't even apply. Or am I missing something?
I appreciate your thoughts! I intended my original post as somewhat hyperbolic, I thought the last line made that pretty clear - that said, I do think the criticisms I leveled are valid reasons why basketball is comparatively worse than other sports in its fundamental design.
Fair enough, I didn't distinguish roles in my first post. Point guard is the one position where shorter guys can be successful (mostly because it's the position that doesn't take shots). Although apparently the average height of point guards has been increasing in the last few decades - they used to be able to be much shorter!
I'm saying that shooting baskets is a far worse activity than shooting goals in other sports. It's interesting that you highlight "coordinating in real time with a group of peers" when practicing shooting baskets is largely a solo activity - again, in comparison with shooting goals in soccer (which you do against a goalie) or throwing a baseball around. In fact, have you ever seen basketball players get together and have fun practicing passing the ball? Of course not, instead they take turns shooting baskets, because that's the activity that requires the most practice. It's fundamentally less pro-social compared with other team sports.
What are you even saying here? If basketball were replaced by indoor soccer then obviously soccer would make more money...
More options
Context Copy link