pull down to refresh
43 sats \ 9 replies \ @Voldemort 5 Nov \ on: My Fellow Bitcoiners: Send Trumpism & its Shitcoinery to the Wastebin of History Politics_And_Law
Every time I read the ramblings of some dumb fuck bitcoin maxi it truly makes me sad that people can be so delusional.
It took one post to remember why I stopped coming to this site.
What did I just read?
How do any of the things you listed imply equality? What does seeing BTC transactions have to do with equality?
I 10xed 2 meme coins this year and lost $100 on another. Put $200 usd in each and bought more bitcoin with the gains.
How is it any different than casinos or sports gambling? It is entertainment.
38 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort 24 Apr \ parent \ on: NBA GOAT Debate Thought Experiment Stacker_Sports
That is a good point too. I could be off. Long rebounds lead to fast breaks and Lebron/MJ aren't getting stopped in transition by anyone on the shooters. If it is not a long rebound you let MJ/Lebron run the court, Duncan/Kareem give an outlet to the same effect.
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort 24 Apr \ parent \ on: NBA GOAT Debate Thought Experiment Stacker_Sports
Yes, totally.
I think 2016 was an excellent example of this. Curry and Thompson are arguably the best three point shooters of all time and they had Durant. A team of excellent shooters had the best record of all time at 73-9. All that fire power still couldn't take down Lebron when he decided to take over the series.
Does that imply that we're thinking about the GOAT wrong?
I forgot to answer this part. I don't think so.
I think there are other teams I could build with fewer GOATs that would beat the shooters more easily/consistently. Or even beat the GOATs more easily.
This is difficult to measure, but for my money, the GOAT is the player I want on my team to win me a game or a series. Or in other words - who would I never bet against while they were playing?
I would never bet against MJ. Kobe is up there, Lebron is up there, Bird is up there, but there are times I would have bet against all of them.
Random thought:
Does changing the shooters lineup to Dirk at the 4 and KAT at the 5 change your thoughts at all? KAT is not a super physical guy, but he'd fare better against Kareem on Defense and has still won a 3pt contest.
86 sats \ 4 replies \ @Voldemort 23 Apr \ parent \ on: NBA GOAT Debate Thought Experiment Stacker_Sports
When I imagine how these games would go, I think The GOATS would dominate in transition, but lose in the half-court.
I had the exact opposite thought!
Having Nash and Curry lead an up tempo attack with that squad would be deadly. Duncan/Kareem are not keeping up with Durant/Dirk. I don't even think MJ/Magic can keep up with Nash and Curry, TBH. Meanwhile in a half court game you've got Duncan and Kareem dominating the offensive glass. The second chance points would heavily favor the GOATs.
I think the shooters win a pickup game due to team chemistry and the matchup. Not sure about a series, but I think they end up winning that as well.
Gut Reaction to the GOATs:
I don't deny Lebron's greatness, but he certainly plays better with a certain team around him. Think of Kevin Love's career. His last year in MN he averaged 26 and 12.5, another year he average 25 and 13. His first year in CLE he averaged 16 and 10. His shot attempts decreased by 33%. Part of that is because he was no longer the best player on team, but I think a bigger part is because Lebron plays best when he can drive and kick. With the GOAT lineup, Lebron would have significantly less room in the paint, not only because Kareem and Duncan aren't 3 pt shooters, but neither are MJ and Magic.
The GOATs would have to win by dominating them defensively and on the boards, but Lebron and Magic would be best suited to play up tempo given the team dynamics (I think Jordan can play either style because of his midrange game). Basically Duncan and Kareem grabbing boards and getting a quick outlet. However, up tempo games generally favor shooting teams and high scoring teams.
On the other hand, Duncan and Kareem would be better playing a low tempo game. Kareem did fine playing up tempo with LA, of course, but he'd be licking his chops to get the ball on the block. Likewise for Duncan.
If I was the GOATs coach I would try to keep the scoring under 90. Make it super slow and physical to throw the shooters off their rhythm. On offense I'd basically want Magic setting up Lebron and MJ as much as possible with Kareem/Duncan gobbling up the board.s
To summarize - I don't think the make-up of the GOATs maximizes the talent on the team. Clogged lane suppresses Lebron a bit. Magic and Lebron are a bit redundant in a half court offense since they both play with the ball. Their biggest mismatches are Kareem/Duncan down low, but a zone defense could potentially mitigate some of that.
Gut Reaction to the Shooters:
I think Nash and Steph are getting to the rim whenever they want. If anyone comes to help you're kicking it to one of three 3-point contest winners and Durant (Nash, Bird, Dirk, Curry all won so it doesn't matter if it is curry or nash getting to the rim). Basically you've got 5 players who have all shot over 40% from three at some point in their career. Playing help defense would be a nightmare. Playing zone would be impossible.
The shooters would try to run to mitigate their weakness at the big positions. It would also potentially tire Duncan and Kareem out.
If I was the shooter's coach, I'd have Nash/Curry push the tempo as much as possible. In the half court I'd have Curry constantly moving (not dissimilar to what he does now or what Rip Hamilton did for the Pistons). Nash would be looking to get to the rim to either score or kick it. My goal would be to get to 120 FGA, with a large portion being threes.
If they need to slow it down, I give it to whoever has the hot hand between Dirk, Bird, or Durant and let them go to work. Again help defense is not possible.
On defense, I probably try to do some sort of zone. No offense to Magic, but I am letting him shoot all day. If we lose one game because of that, I am okay with it. But we are not losing a series because Magic out shout us.
Overall:
All that said - it is entirely possible Lebron and MJ just trade off dominating games. Personally, I think Dirk, Bird, Durant, and Curry can take over games as well (Nash can in different ways but his style of play relies more on others), but not to the level of Lebron/MJ.
In a series, I think it comes down to who gets worn down first. Can the GOATs be physical enough to wear down the shooters or will the shooters constant running wear down the GOATs? It is also exceptionally discouraging to have opponents constantly hit threes on you.
This could be true - I don't know how the contract between NBA and WNBA works. It might be that the NBA would subsidize the WNBA with or without collective bargaining because they think it can be profitable over time.
Supposing it is true though - who is to say there wouldn't be other alternative leagues or opportunities for her that would be more profitable?
If there was no WNBA, maybe there would be a coed league of some sort that would be more productive? The Big 3 league offered her $5 million to play. Personally, I would rather watch coed 3-3 vs the WNBA. Women guards are fun to watch IMO. The part that is less fun is watching their post players. Throughout Clark's career I thought her game would be supremely elevated if the bigs on her team could catch, run, shoot, and dunk.
Of course that is speculation.
What makes more sense is that critical resources would be stored in enough quantity that if something disrupted the supply there would be plenty of time to ramp up domestic production.
Yes! Excellent observation. Sadly, I had not thought of this. Specialization -> efficiency gains -> surplus.
there would be nothing unlibertarian or anti-market about people signing contracts to live and work in a privately owned space colony.
That is a good point.
I suspect you're right in speculating that a few critical things would never be subjected to market or democratic feedback
I think my view is a little different than this. I think it is more so that nothing will be subject to market or democratic feedback until there is some threshold of level of production.
Just to make it easier to discuss, assume there are 10 goods that are required for survival. If we can only produce 9/10, the population will die off.
If there are two colonies, both colonies should produce their own supply of each in case the other has a catastrophic failure. Likewise for 3 and etc.
However, at some point, maybe when there are 100 colonies, each one produces some subset of the goods such that if any 50 colonies are destroyed the other 50 still have enough of each good. Maybe 10 of them will always produce all 10 goods as well.
I acknowledge this seems like an arbitrary thought experiment, but but consider how governments were formed throughout history.
People weren't worried about dying in space; rather they wanted protection from chaotic crime. Over a decade, a government might tax your supply of wheat more than criminals would steal from you, but criminals might steal too much in a single year and cause your family to starve.
Now, I ask myself, does this somehow apply to what happened in Israel over the weekend? Does this have any implications for political philosophy?
And I wonder if people around here are swept up in a passion for what they're doing, and if so, what you think of these different threads?
My problem is that I am passionate about learning. In grad school, I was obsessed with math. Spent every waking hour thinking about it, often woke up in the middle of the night with the solution to a problem I was trying to solve during the day. However, once I made it to a certain threshold of math skills, I became less passionate about doing it. I wasn't the best in the world, but I knew I could solve any problem I needed to.
I think of this as learning a language. Math is kind of a language in its own right, but that is not what I am getting at. I think of it as a sort of fluency and once I get fluent in a thing, I move on to the next thing. Things I am fluent in, or at least was at one point, are math, economics, cooking, pottery, cycling, and I am sure a few others. To me this makes sense - I am not going to keep trying to get better at Spanish when I am fluent in it. I will continue to practice it, but i don't need to continue to "learn" it.
It's not because you're interested in stuff that you work hard at it; rather, if you work hard at stuff, and progress at it and start to get good at it, the motivational machinery kicks in, and suddenly you're passionate about plumbing, or whatever (to call back to Munger).
I have long believed this is true, and to me it explains why most people don't take up new hobbies as they get older. No one wants to be the worst at a thing. Personally, I love being the worst at a thing because it means I get newb gains, and I get the experience of lots of "aha" moments.
I also think this is maybe more easily observed within fields. I mentioned my obsession with math - but it wasn't all math. I thought all math had interesting elements and results, but I was only obsessed with analysis and topology. I was okay in other areas, but my mental models work exceptionally well in analysis and topology and so progress came more quickly. The rate at which I received "aha" moments was higher.
All that said, I think 99% of shit people say about being passionate is BS, to be honest. You want to know my true passion? Leisure. Within that leisure, I choose what I want to learn on a given day or over a given month.
In reality, I was lucky to find a passion for math and economics. I still find them enjoyable but I would quit my job in a heart beat if I didn't need an income.
The phrase "if you do what you love you will never work a day in your life" simply does not resonate for me. That is only true for people who like to work. As an example - I love to teach. I am excellent at it. However, when I was teaching I often dreaded it.
I think it would be fascinating as well. If one wanted to conduct a less technically sound experiment, one could simply go on various social media and make comments that have the exact same point of view but with and without qualifiers and document the responses they get.
One downstream implication could be how AI models use this data for context. IE, if something needs qualifications maybe it deems it as controversial whereas if something does not need qualifications it is not controversial.
Nothing wrong with that - my point is that if someone wants to invest in other coins, or might be open to it, it is met with derision. Personally, I think there are other tokens that will provide a lot of value that bitcoin, due to its tokenomics, can't provide. If I were to bring it up it would be trolled immediately. So nothing wrong with saying you don't want to, I think when bringing it up becomes a necessity it is worth reflecting on. Are you (not you specifically) so closed to hearing other things that people have to qualify their statements?