baxus

Planning on returning to running on days when I'm not lifting weights. Nothing too much, I'll stick to 5k(ish) distances for a while, working up to around 40-45 minute runs. Who knows, maybe I will even get back into it and start with half-marathons again, but at the moment it doesn't seem likely.

I'm not familiar with this guy and his work and would appreciate some more info before making that call. Did he say similar things when some white players were given big contracts? Or is there something in Saka's track record to indicate that he might start acting this way? Is he going out, partying through the night* etc.? Also important, is this guy giving Grealish crap for doing that? And Grealish would also be as good an example as Sterling for a great player that could've been much better had he been "more professional", whatever that means. If he's consistent in his opinions, I'd have no problem with it regardless whether I agree with him or not. But if he's using different sets of "rules" for players of different ethnicities then it most definitely is straight racism. * To be clear, I don't think that would make someone a worse footballer, but most journalists and pundits would disagree with me. Btw, I've never heard Saka doing things like that, but I don't follow him closely either so I might've missed something.

Yeah, and one guy used his rocket launcher on an abandoned train station in Ruma, a small town near Belgrade. He was released from a psychiatric institution a day before, and his first thought was "hey, I know what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna take that rocket launcher I have lying around and blow up that building I hate". Makes you think about more than our gun laws.

I'm a bit late with this update, but these school shootings have caused quite a reaction in Serbian public. For 3 weeks now, on Fridays at 6PM there's a protest against violence in our society in general. Here's an article from Reuters, if anyone is interested.

I'm not trying to run a worldwide boycott or anything. If anyone wants to buy his work or still listen to what he says, I won't call them names or anything like that. It's their time and their money, and how they choose to spend it is up to them. After all, it's not as if I don't spend mine in all kinds of ways. Is there anyone here who's never had their confidence in their own abilities shattered? Why do we keep treating this guy as a gentle snowflake? If he needs help to overcome his issues, he should get it, by all means. If he needed support from his fans, all he had to do is ask for it. Look at what Scott Lynch did. He came out, said "I'm having issues, I need to sort things out and I'll be away for that time" and everyone supported that. It's not as if fantasy authors' fandoms are bunch of whining entitled trolls. Once again, I don't plan on punishing Rothfuss or harming him in any way. My way of handling his behaviour is to ignore him (apart from sometimes posting in this thread, obviously) and not spend money on his products. It's what I'm doing, not as some matter of principle but because I want The Doors of Stone, not some sample chapters or novellas and I especially don't want to watch him play video games. The other stuff just doesn't interest me. Just like, for example, GRRM's takes on New York Jets don't interest me, but I'm not trying to say he doesn't have the right to have them. If Rothfuss needs me to help motivate him, he's in a lot of trouble and should probably get professional help to overcome that. In that case, he should just say that and focus on getting better, not streaming himself playing video games and accusing his fans of trolling when asking about Doors of Stone.

Yeah, we all want book 3, and he did make false representations and behaved like an asshole and all that. He doesn't owe anyone anything, but we don't owe him anything either. I mean, we want book 3? Let's not give money to him by buying his other work or donate for his projects or watch his streams or whatever he does until the book 3 is published. We should just ignore the asshole and cut our losses. Let him be forever remembered as a guy who promised a whole trilogy, released two books and was an asshole to his fans after that.

I'd like to hear what gives you the reason to believe that? He has taunted his fans ("I'm playing games instead of writing"), got pissed off whenever asked about book 3 and overall given an impression of an asshole, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the last one. Maybe we should break the cycle by letting go, maybe he should break the cycle by writing the book he promised was finished over a decade ago, maybe cycle needs to be broken by something else entirely. Whatever it is, the guy needs to at least apologise for acting like an asshole if the relationship is to be properly mended. Having long ago lost hope that I'll ever see this trilogy completed, I haven't been following the news about him outside of this thread so I may have missed such an apology.

On a human level, he can do whatever he wants. He doesn't owe anyone anything and he's no one's bitch. That being said, he has falsely advertised his work. While we may accept the issues he may or may not be dealing with as a reason why he hasn't kept his promises, it remains a fact acted like a petulant child when asked about it. Scott Lynch handled the problems he's dealing with quite differently and I am yet to hear anyone being pissed at him.

How very snobbish of you.

Yeah, you could suggest that, but you'd be wrong. I have never underestimated any job. It's just that I don't think that "handling an office environment" is such a difficult task. At least it wasn't for me so far. Other than some company-specific stuff, it's basically requires a skill set one should grasp in early stages of elementary school - playing well with others, recognising and respecting hierarchy, doing your "homework", doing a team project etc. Btw, accounting on a basic level is a useful skill and will help you understand some things you otherwise wouldn't, but it will not land you a job. Well, it does, doesn't it? You do go to the university to learn new stuff, that's the whole point. I mean, once I graduated from university a lot of doors opened for me that wouldn't be open straight out of high school, or even after a couple of years of working experience straight after high school. Well, while there's definitely snobbery, it does depend on what position we're talking about here. How big this space of jobs that university graduates in philosophy and McDonald's workers apply for? The person with a media or philosophy degree applying for a starter job doing admin in an office has made some wrong turns along the way.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. Your logic is flawed. You are comparing people at 2 very different positions in their lives and expecting a relevant result. If pointing out flawed logic in a debate is snobbery, I guess I'm a snob then. And by the way, I think you are overestimating the complexity of behaving in a work environment and grasping expectations needed in a job, and by quite a margin. It basically comes down to "you do this this way and you do that that way, and here's the kitchen, and off you go", especially in jobs you described as menial.

I'm not alluding to anything. I'm stating outright that in my first job I've faced a whole new environment. And I'm not talking about office environment and all that, I'm talking about a tech stack entirely new to me. Something I've never used or seen before - from a completely unknown OS to software and tech concepts. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if I stepped out of university into some extremely high tech stuff that only a select few can grasp, but it was still an unknown. The stuff I learned in university made it possible for me to be a productive team member within a week or two. Had I not the experience gathered in university, it would be much more difficult for me to adapt. Not saying that university is the only place where you can learn what I learned there, especially nowadays when everything is pretty much available online. If you can learn all that on your own, more power to you. But you do need to learn it if you're planning on a career in that field. Saying that a difference would only be being 5 years older is a gross oversimplification. The question that you've posted is obviously flawed, and I think you are aware of that and that was the reason why you asked that one. Why would we compare someone with 5 years experience and someone with 0 years experience? We are talking about the point at which you join a company. The company doesn't care how old you are, they will need to train and onboard you anyway. They care whether you can do the job they need you to do or not. As DMC already stated, you are exaggerating how much grades have risen over time. Also, the only time when my GPA was a factor was when I was enrolling high school and university, for ranking purposes. And in both instances I also had to pass an entrance exam in order to be accepted.

Gotta love the people who feel they're the authority on who is what and why.

While I do agree that for the company it would be better to get someone and train them perfectly for the company's needs, I feel the need to point out that you are ignoring the benefit of university education for the person. University education (or an equivalent) allows the person to switch jobs when they get an opportunity or just plain feel like it. If you think it's better to create perfect drones for company's beehive, then we'll have to disagree on that. You are aware that the sum of all human knowledge has increased significantly over time? Nowadays, for pretty much every single job you need some "basic" computer skills that would be considered witchcraft mere hundred years ago. You are comparing apples and oranges here. The real question is whether an 18 year old with zero workplace experience is more or less likely to do something stupid than a 23 year old straight out of uni? Starting age is irrelevant for the company, it just considers time an employee is spending at the company, not what he/she does before and after. Systems in other countries probably differ more or less, but in Serbia you need a 4 years university education (where you do mostly theory) plus 2 years apprenticeship at a law company or court (where you are supposed to learn how to be a trial lawyer) plus passing the bar exam which is basically 7 exams taken within a space of a couple of days, a week max. One of my best friends is a lawyer so I've seen what he's had to go through. Definitely not something that can be covered in 3 months, as someone said earlier. This is exactly my experience. Sure, I've learnt a lot in university, having known very little about comp sci after graduating from high school, and that knowledge allowed me the flexibility to adapt to new things I've encountered once I started working. This is exactly the reason why I haven't enrolled Masters program at my college. It had some courses that were interesting to me, but they haven't been held in years since there haven't been enough people interested in taking them. I would have to take some stupid courses that I had no interest in and that would have no positive effect on my knowledge and career. Basically, it would come down to me just grinding out a few courses and getting a piece of paper with some fancy lettering. Decided to start working as soon as possible and haven't looked back since.

I get the pros of player switching their national team for the player's career, it's just that I don't see how anyone can think about playing for their country that way. I mean, you grow up dreaming of playing for your country, scoring a winning goal in WC finals and all that, and then you just replace the country in your dreams and go with that? I mean, every player knows what country he dreamed of playing for as a kid and that is a country they should be playing for. I'll willingly admit to being naive on this one, but that is not something that should be traded like that. If you think that players have no real connection to their parents' countries, you haven't met Balkan, Turkish etc. parents Joking aside, a lot of immigrants really stick to their roots in their new country, and a lot of that rubs off on their kids so dismissing them as "having no real connection" to those countries is just wrong.

This whole "I'll play for X at U21 and then switch to Y at senior level" is just stupid to me, but I guess England can't really complain after doing the same with Rice.

As someone from STEM field (Electrical Engineering officially, but Computer Sciences), I can say that university degree helped me out a lot, even though all the knowledge I've acquired in university can be found elsewhere, with less hassle. University degree is basically a stamp that confirms I know certain stuff* and not much more than that, but a degree (and knowledge it verifies) is not the only worthy thing you get at college. You get challenged mentally, you improve your work ethic, you meet people with similar interests, you create a network of friends and colleagues etc. If someone already has all that covered, then I'd advise against spending 4 years (or more) in university. Long story short, university education is important, but universities are not the only places where knowledge can be obtained. Placing too much importance on degrees is just as bad as diminishing their importance. *There are types of "certain stuff" that require that stamp, though. I doubt anyone would want to have a surgery from a guy who saw a YouTube tutorial

And what did this best player in the league by far do with the Bucks that season? Knocked out of the playoffs in the first round, just like Jokic was with Nuggets last season. The point is that there's no clear-cut best player in the league now. Giannis, Jokic and Embiid are all great, pretty much universally acclaimed as best three in the league. And still, Jokic was left out of all NBA first team. Some eyebrows were raised, just like they would've been if he was in and Giannis or Embiid were out, or even if all three were in. Most importantly, none of them can win on their own, they all need teammates performing at high level for that.

I don't remember even the biggest fanatics ever claiming that at all, let alone seriously. There's even a widespread running joke about Serbia expanding beyond its current borders that goes "Srbija do Tokija" which means "Serbia all the way to Tokyo" and no one ever takes that as anything other than a joke. Unfortunately, drug gangs and our government are very closely intertwined. Hooligans are just parts of those drug gangs that are used as a tool for the current regime. Vucic's regime is different in that regard from Milosevic's regime. Milosevic definitely had use for gangs, but his main tool was the police with military in second place. Vucic uses his power to control police and military and has had them do some unlawful stuff but he relies mainly on gang enforcers to do most of the dirty work.

Give him Murray injured for the season instead of Middleton and see what happens.

I'm not much of a cycling fan, but if the info I've come across is correct, there have even been years when no Tour de France trophy has been given out since so many of the top finishers tested positive during or soon after the race.

Yeah, that's a really powerful PED. It's a good thing powers that be finally decided to put a stop to that Also, didn't some players get banned for using their wives diet pills or something like that?

Yeah, I've most definitely encountered those movements, it's just that not "many of us" are living in Italy or Spain. But I guess I should have known that if you take Gomorrah as a relevant source then there's not much sense in even starting the debate. I just couldn't help myself once I heard that Serbia has pretensions to Italian and Spanish territories for the first time in 40 years I've spent living in Serbia. Must have been living under a rock. It's a good thing @Zorral hasn't come across the saying "Srbija do Tokija" (yet) Must be our covert operations agents. You know, prepping everything for a takeover.

I see that as part of the problem, not an equaliser. A team can do everything right - have a great strategy, do great pit-stops, base their moves on what's going on on the track only to have it all demolished when a driver at the furthest possible point of the track slides off track and hits the wall so safety car goes out or stewards wave a red flag. Sure, such crashes must have priority over the racing but it can really mess everything up. Championship is pretty much over and done with, but #1 spot is not the only thing you can watch. There's a whole range of teams there and there's always something that's interesting. Sure, it would be great if we had Re Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari decide the championship at Abu Dhabi, but when you don't have that you get to watch WTF is going on with McLaren or something like that. It's like football - there's a title race, competing for a European slot or a relegation battle. I don't remember a single season when all of those were boring.

Wouldn't the willingness to take down the biggest stars of the sport make cycling LESS corrupt? Do we remember any star football player getting busted for doping? Not sure we even need "star" there, anti-doping in football is a joke. I remember Maradona and Mutu getting busted for cocaine and Rio Ferdinand getting banned for 8-9 months for avoiding testing NOT a positive result. Not many more (if any).