chasfh

Rage Against the Voting Machine.

The draft might be the biggest reason any American professional sport is different from eurosoccer, at least as far as talent is concerned. Pre-draft a team could sign any players anywhere they wanted—they were limited only by the reach of their scouts. But expanding their amateur talent acquisition efforts is what supercharged the Cardinals into becoming the NL Yankees. And, of course, the reserve clause allowed them to keep their best players basically indefinitely. I saw where MLB suggested a new free agency benchmark as being 29-1/2 years, whichever comes first. That’s a little better for many players of course since you would have as many players going through arb in their 30s. But it’s worse for the best young players since it would tether stars like Vlad Jr and Juan Soto to their teams for close to a decade. Under such a system an organization like the Rays may be able to identify good 20- and 21-year old players and keep them for a long time and pay them cheap, but most organizations wouldn’t be able to pull that off with much regularity. The thing you suggest would happen is teams bringing guys up at age 26 or 27, then losing them two or three years later. That might happen to most organizations, but I bet they Rays would adapt and figure out a way to go younger. Or, flip side, maybe with a change like that everybody would force their best young prospects into the majors at age 19 or 20 or 21 or 22, just so they could try to get more than six years out of them. More younger players coming up greener would probably hurt the quality of the game overall, though. MLBPA might counter with either-or: age 29-1/2 or six years, whatever’s first. But the thing they have to be careful not to do is to agree to a system that floods the market with free agents, which could drive down contracts in general since it would become more of a buyer’s market. As for dumping ten years on a 32 year old: that’s happened only three times out of 14 ten-year-plus contracts, and two of those were uniquely silly contracts by uniquely clueless ownerships. Ten of the fourteen 10-plus-year contracts have gone to players 27 and under. All four nine-year contracts have gone to players 30 and under (including Prince), and 13 of 17 eight-year contracts have gone to under 30s. So this may not be as big a problem as popular media portrayals make it seem.

Your router has the same SSID as your gateway? I didn’t even know that could be done. Every router I’ve even had has asked me to assign a new SSID for it—at least that’s what I thought. One thing I did figure out with ATT gateways right away is to split the 2.4 and 5ghz signals into separate SSIDs, which ATT definitely prefers we not do. I do that so I can reliably run just the 5ghz signal, as opposed to allowing ATT to engage in band-steering as it sees fit.

I supposed a trained professional might be able to tease out whether negligence is even a little culturally driven, which would mean it is manifested on a more industry-wide basis, as opposed to a strictly individual negligence that is a one-off random incident. I’d bet there will be stories that come out during this media cycle that will discuss general armorer practices in Hollywood, so maybe we can glean clues from those.

European soccer has no draft, and as far as I can tell no salary or roster restrictions, except maybe nationality restrictions, which is why they have that kind of stratification. Theirs is a dog-eat-dog capitalist system where if a team can't keep up, they'll wind up. Since baseball has a draft and numerous rules on just how players can get compensated, all within a socialist revenue-share system ensuring not only their survival, but guaranteed profits, there will not be that kind of stratification.

I would also clarify that I am not talking about an all or nothing proposition here: meaning, it must be either the epitome of care and caution, or else it’s zero caution taken at all. Even a marginal drop in caution applied, whether due to a minute degree of nonchalance, or fatigue, or lack of full competences, or whatever it may be, could mean the difference between a safe experience and a deadly experience.

Hoping that nonchalance applies less to professionals does not necessarily mean that nonchalance could never apply to any of them, and that all armory professionals are of the exact same unimpeachably high quality, and never subject to error or negligence. Just as someone in America has to be the worst doctor, someone in Hollywood has to be the worst armorer. I’m not making any statements about this case in particular since I can’t possibly know for sure. I’m just talking in terms of general possibilities i don’t buy the nonstarter premise than nonchalance with the handling of weapons among Hollywood armorers could out possibly exist. If oblong’s comment that negligence in this case is true, I would certainly hypothesize that nonchalance in handling is quite possibly a factor, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

And the only reason anyone is trying to make them feel better about themselves is because Anyone wants their money and votes, and that’s the extent of it.

We really did miss Stan, didn't we? 😃

The Apprentice.

I don't think it's a matter of immaturity on the part of Trump, as though he expected to win and he's throwing a tantrum because he didn't. I think that's an act. I think it always was the plan to use the loss of the election as the springboard to dismantle the very idea of democracy and its elections. They know their base thrives on feeling like they're an oppressed minority. It's their superpower, but it doesn't manifest itself if they actually win.

Anyone who characterizes a crowd in which several people were armed as being "an unarmed crowd" is a person with interest.

I see, OK.

I don’t think “courage” is the operative concept here. Trump could be a coward in this case only if he was afraid to keep the crowd from doing something he didn’t want them to.

So if I’m understanding you right, you have an Internet gateway from ATT, an aftermarket router plugged into the gateway, then a “first unit” plugged into the router?

This circles back to my comment about nonchalance. It appears too many Americans are too comfortable around guns, and that’s not always (or maybe not even mostly) because they’re expertly-trained to handle them. I believe much of it has to do with their ubiquity, both physical (they’re all around us) and cultural (they’re everywhere in TV, movies, news stories, social media, etc.). I can envision where such comfort around something so dangerous can extend to even situations that are supposed to be airtight with their caution.

Ha ha, analyst said Stanford was “pissed” at the loss of the free play. Awesome.

Next handoff worked nicely, though.

I can’t believe the Masked Singer is an actual thing still. It’s, like, decline-of-western-civilization-level bad.

Good coverage of the middle on that double fake handoff play.

Who had Lions up 10-0 midway through the 1st quarter on their bingo card?

Which might be the most offensive part of the tweet. But hey, he’s in Georgia. If it’s not SEC football, it’s not a sport.

Interesting tweet mixing politics and sports, from someone whom I totally assume is in the "shut up and dribble" crowd when it comes to athletes.

I'm not talking about the difference between not-at-all serious and heart-attack serious within this country. I'm talking about how seriously it's taken among different countries. I would also expand it to include people beyond those tasked with the technical implementation of firearms on set.

Reading through this I see they suggest this system in place of a router. Did you replace a router with this system, or else connect it to you original ATT gateway without a router? We have an ASUS router on top of our ATT gateway and I have tried a mesh system using our old ASUS router once we got an updated router, but it didn’t seem to work, at least the way I set it up. Could this be used on top of a router+gateway setup?