Jump to content

aceluby

Members
  • Posts

    6,319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aceluby

  1. 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Lol, I just picked a random top end WR. The Ravens have fail to get Lamar one of those, or something close to it. 

    Not exactly a group of world beaters...

    Instead they give him an offensive line, top tier defenses, and consistently bruising running backs - which happen to all play to his strengths. Like.. come on.. you know this.

    Im still trying to figure out why this even matters when the conversation was about you being confused why Josh Allen is good. Did someone hurt you? Can you point to the doll where they touched you?

  2. 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

    In part because that's what they can do best. Lost in the Tua lovefest is that Lamar crushed it too and had a better passer rating, and he was doing it against a really good defense while Tua was facing three rookie back ups iirc. Give that man Tyreek, for example, and those passing numbers would likely look a lot better. The best WR Lamar has had is Hollywood Brown and he's just another guy.

    So the measurement you're using is whether Tyreek Hill has ever played with him.  Oddly specific, but I guess I'll give it to you.

  3. 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Funny how people never mention Lamar has always had shit receivers too...

    How are you measuring that?  Numbers-wise, sure - but 25 attempts and 200 yards per game through the air isn't going to make anybody look good.  That offense is based on the run and wins when Lamar is rushing well.  He makes mistakes when you make him throw the ball.

  4. 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Week 1 results:

     

    Rank Pick Set Name Total Dropped W-L
    1 Sunspear Shariffs 81 0 9-6
    2 Quiet Isle Septons 79 0 11-4
    3 Castle Black Crows 74 0 9-6
    4 Tywin 73 0 9-6
    5 Bronze Stones 71 0 8-7
    6 Ramsay 67 0 9-6
    7 dbuntings coin flip picks 66 0 8-7
    8 Saltcliffe Pyros 61 0 9-6
    9 rocksniffer 59 0 6-9
    10 White Harbor Bakers 57 0 6-9
    11 Lumpy the Greek 56 0 8-7

     

    Kind of wild only two teams were sub .500 given how whacky the week was. 

    @aceluby, did you not want to play this year? You can still jump in with this week being your drop.

    I'm taking a year off of pick'em this year.  Was in three last year which I think burnt me out a bit.

  5. 10 man money league auction draft last night - definitely ended up w/ one of the better teams, but a little too reliant on San Diego.  All in all though, very happy w/ my picks.

    QB - Herbert (Carr)

    RB - Ekeler, J. Williams, Gibson (Jacobs, Mattison, Herbert)

    WR - Lamb, McLaurin, M. Williams (Waddle, Cooks, J. Jones, R. Anderson)

    K - McPherson

    D - Bucs

  6. 30 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

    aceluby -- no, the numbers are legitimate. Moreover, including 1 million USD as the lowest common denominator was offered in support of Zorral's argument; even then, however, it still indicates an exceptional rarity at 0.007 percent of the total world population.

    To your point, I agree that 1 million USD is not what I'd consider a representation of the wealthy, much less the wealthy elite. If we were to limit the wealthy to 5, 10, 15, or 20 million USD or more; it would only further emphasize the rarity of generational wealth throughout the world today.

    The Forbes 400 reports 70% of billionaires are self-made, up from less than half since the 1980s, pointing out a higher frequency of the self-made. And research done by Forbes reflects the 74% of billionaires worldwide, when reporting as self-made. Again, these numbers reflect the extreme rarity of generational wealth among billionaires.

    JFC, billionaires self reported they were self-made? Of course they do. 

    You haven’t provided anything to actually support your point. Just a bunch of hand waving about how when asked people believe that they never received any kind of help ever - and of course the people who blindly believe them.

  7. 47 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

    Zorral -- yes, I understand you argued generational wealth is a common occurrence in the world; but, it's an anecdotally-based exaggeration.

    Today, there are approximately 56 million individual USD millionaires worldwide. Assuming each inherited all their wealth; and, assuming each heads a 2nd / 3rd generation family or older, that would represent 0.007 percent of the total world population. This translates into 6 millionaires per 800 non-millionaires.

    If you consider the approximately 2700 billionaires (i.e., the truly wealthy), and apply the same assumptions of inherited wealth and generation, they represent an even smaller fraction at 0.00000033 percent. Obviously, these fractions do not represent a "quite normal," or common, occurrence throughout the world; but, an exceptional rarity in terms of generational wealth.

    We agree on the consolidation of generational wealth and consequent inequality worldwide, but we disagree on frequency. Interestingly, my position cuts more deeply given the true degree of consolidation. And, if you take away the assumptions I granted in your favor, and account only for inherited in lieu of other forms of wealth production, the frequency becomes even smaller, and that much more unequal. In other words, world wealth inequality is worse than most people realize. Hence, I consider wealth inequality to be the greatest threat against the USG.

    There is just so much bull shit in these numbers. Yeah, lots of people saved up a million bucks to retire. Having one million dollars in the bank isn’t that special or hard. Yeah, billionaires aren’t inheriting billions, but fuck if not most of them started on third base.

    Just waving your hands and saying that lots of people have a million dollars doesn’t actually do anything for your point. What do the numbers look like for 10, 20, or 100 million dollars? Anything that assumes any kind of common sense with the reader?

  8. 14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Back to comparing books and movies, they should have just made a faithful adaptation of The Lost World. It's not quite as good as the first book, but still worth a read. Instead they took several plot points from it and stretched them out over three movies. I'm certain it would have been the movie you wanted if they just went that route instead.

    I've been saying this since I read the book in the 90's

  9. 14 hours ago, Soylent Brown said:

    Teyon's previous game is any indication, this will be fun to play. Not everything can be AAA, but I guess if you can't get past it not having cutting edge graphics, give it a miss.

    It looks like a really boring first person shooter that wouldn't have brought anything to the table in 2010, much less 2022.

    4 hours ago, Werthead said:

    To be fair, a really good RoboCop game would be awesome if done properly.

    I was actually excited when I saw the thumbnail, then was instantly disappointed by how terribly bland everything about the game looks.  Just the fact it went FPS is an immediate pass from me, unless this went full VR.

  10. 1 hour ago, Werthead said:

    Later instalments in the canon, obviously, threw all of that out the window and showed X-wings being great in all modes, so yeah, why they don't have the X-wings taking out the AT-ATs with proton torpedoes does seem weird.

    I always just assumed that the x wings couldn't take the elements for that long of a time and it was easier/doable to adjust the speeders.  Could also just be limited x-wings and they were getting used to protect the larger ships as they escaped.

  11. 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    I’m going to ask an odd question.  

    Politically the Republicans get a gread deal of hay out of support for “abortion on demand”… many oppose that but agree abortion should be freely available in the first trimester.  Even the Mississippi law currently under review by the SCOTUS protects abortion during the 1st Trimester.  

    As I understand it (please correct me if I am incorrect) most European States that protect abortion rights limit that protection to the 1st Trimester.  Assuming I’m correct about this factual assessment wouldn’t abortion rights and women’s rights be better served by focusing protecting the vast majority of abortions that take place during the 1st Trimester of pregnancy rather than fighting on the ground that abortion opponents love?

    Do you really think they will stop with the "abortion on demand" because of that nuance?  To me, this is saying it's ok that a few women unnecessarily die because the conversation would be less nuanced and might be easier to have, when I very much doubt it would.

  12. 1 hour ago, Zorral said:

    Who would have done what differently and better?

    The guy who played the King of Scotland would have been better, but really anyone who could command the camera and feel strong would have worked much better.  Edward seemed like a child trying to act like an adult, which he was, and it made the character seem childish and weak - which the plotting did not really support.  It worked in season 3, but it did not in season 4, and was one of the worst parts of season 5 IMO.

×
×
  • Create New...