Comments by "redfish337" (@redfish337) on "Vox"
channel.
-
25
-
13
-
12
-
9
-
3
-
2
-
I understand common metric and imperial units. It's not hard. If metric is better for scaling up and down to very large and small numbers. Imperial is better at subdividing at practical human levels. So yes, I think a video like this with large scaling would work better in metric. However, it's perfectly reasonable for other videos to be BETTER in imperial.
Is it great if everyone speaks the same language? Well, sure, people being able to communicate with everyone else at a basic level would be great. But we Americans usually just read over your metric numbers, do the conversions in our head or otherwise, and move on. We're mostly bilingual for measurements, just a bit slower with some metric, and we don't have as good of a natural grasp on the values.
But NO language out there is as comprehensive as ALL languages put together. All languages have strong and weak points. If you're a bilingual person talking to another bilingual person you have a greater degree of expression and clarity than if you had only one language to choose from. Homonym or similar sounding in one language? it's probably not in the other. Fifteen and fifty ... can be a bit hard to differentiate. Quince and cincuenta? Much more clear. So is Spanish better than English? Here, yes, usually- though you may actually WANT to be vague or confusing sometimes. But Spanish has its own issues where a bilingual person may prefer English for clarity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Baseball is high skill, but since, homeruns aside, you only actually score by chaining together offense- it's like bowling. Look at this ridiculous bowling score: 0. Spare, 0, spare, 0, spare, 0, spare, 0 spare... you knock down 100/100 pins (eventually), and get a score of 100. But if you got say... five strikes to start, and then gutter balls the rest of the way, you'd score 120 having only knocked down 50/100 pins.
Baseball, you can be skilled... but if, for example, all 6 of your hits are in the same inning, you'll almost certainly be in much better than than if you made 1 hit in 6 different innings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
James VS Well, good for you that you made it over the hump without being hustled. Maybe that means you hardly ever frequent the areas where they hit, or you look like you're too much trouble- tourists are the ones with cash afterall, people who live there, even if foreign, won't have much on them. Look savvy to the city, unimpressed by the sights you see everyday, and that you aren't a big score, and you probably get by without trouble. But if you ever get visitors from abroad, you do them a disservice by not warning them.
As I said, the articles just serve to corroborate my PERSONAL experience, where we got to spend the better part of a day helping a friend make a report at the police station, to police who obviously didn't give a crap because that's just business as usual there. And, a facebook friend was score number two for them of people I know.
1
-
What they're measuring is the skill/luck ratio. Not the total amount of skill required. The ratio.
As an example... let's say I had to play Michael Jordan in his prime, no holds barred, one on one for 5 minutes. Who will win? Jordan will win. 100% of the time. And expand this out to non-professionals, and I think it'd still be 100%. Why? Because I, and no other amateur, could stop Jordan. He can score every single time.
But let's say I have to play Wayne Gretzky in his prime, against an average NHL goalkeeper. Who will win? Gretzky of course! But... it's no longer 100%. If you ran the simulation against random non-professional people over and over, somewhere, someone would beat him. You see, that goalkeeper is the spoiler. He's good enough to stop most shots. And eventually he's going to have a game where he's really on his game and stops everything... except for one stupid deflection from the novice player.
Now, you can look at hockey and say that MORE absolute skill is required because it uses a goalie, and a player usually must beat that goalie to score. And that may be true. But that goalie makes it so much harder to score that it increases the effect of flukes. Own goals and such are embarrassing but usually inconsequential in basketball. But when you're looking at 2-4 made goals an NHL game, compared to 30-50 in the NBA, you can see that the NBA team will tend toward an average score considering how many shots they make, whereas a goalie in the zone can just shut everyone down.
1
-
1
-
Baseball has threshold scoring. It's not scored by hits, but by runs. A team could scatter 9 doubles throughout a ballgame and lose to a team that got a player to first base on a bad call, bunted, and hit a sacrifice fly.
Soccer has almost no scoring. One bad bounce... or frankly, a bad call, could easily decide a game. And shootouts, while requiring skill, are still highly luck based, with the goalie often having to commit pretty hard one way or the other. All that skill and practice and it can come down to that. When you have very little scoring, each point really matters. But when each point really matters... other stuff can start to interfere.
Basketball... everyone takes a whole bunch of shots on goal. If it goes in, it's scored. Even if you say... tip in a shot while attempting to get a defensive rebound... a lousy luck sort of play... it's 2 points out of like 80-120. Luck tends to average out a lot more in basketball because any particular #%#$ up is rarely game changing. One bad bounce rarely costs the game.
1
-
1
-
There's always luck involved. The reason luck is mitigated more in basketball is because there are more shots on goal in a game, and the odds of any particular shot going in are much higher due to the lack of a goalie.
In the modern NBA game, the fewest number of goals is a game has been 19. Free throws and such aside, even in that lowest scoring game, there were 19 goals. Can a ref still interfere with a game with a bad call? Sure, but it's only worth 1 of those 19 goals... so they have to make a bunch of bad calls for it to usually make much difference. If a terrible shot bounces around and goes in, it's one of 19 goals. If you own goal for some reason, it's one of 19 goals. The large number of goals means the luck factor is reduced.
You can do something really damned stupid and it's still just 1 goal out of +19. The ball hit a little mound and pick up some spin in soccer/football and the goalie totally wiffs it... that has a very strong possibility of being deciding. It doesn't matter how much skill those players had- the very high percentage of soccer/football games with fewer than 3 goals means one bad bounce or frankly, one bad call, can easily cost a game, all that training be damned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is well known that English is the best language in the world. Why do so many idiots use other languages when English is clearly the best? We should continually tell the Chinese that they are idiots for using an antiquated system of thousands of hieroglyphics that requires years of memorization. Didn't anyone every tell them there's gotta be a better way than all their stupid characters? English just has 26 letters. Why do you need thousands? That's stupid. Ban your stupid language and learn English.
*In case that went over your head, that was all sarcasm. Having a lingua franca... nowadays English, is valuable. As everyone who's ever learned English would know, spelling and pronunciation is all over the place in English. It's terrible in all sorts of ways. And Chinese is terrible in a bunch of other ways. As is every other language, all with their own advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't really matter what is the lingua franca, merely that one exists.
And with that in mind, all kids in the US are still taught Celsius. We don't have as good of a grasp of it in terms of like, hunch power (though I've lived abroad now so I can make a good guess either way, or convert in a few seconds). But we know about it. So we use global common systems of English and Metric.
But in our day to day measurements we use what amounts to Japanese or whatever. Relatively useless outside of our "island" in terms of getting people to understand the meaning. So we'd have to convert to the shared language of metric. Nevertheless, would you just suggest wiping out say, the Japanese language, on account of it being relatively useless globally? You know every language has certain advantages and disadvantages, and knowledge of multiple allows for a greater range of expression than can be given in one- the disadvantages of one tend to be covered by the advantages of the other.
And such is true for measurements too. Overall, metric systems may be superior, but Imperial systems can still shine in certain applications. Perhaps more importantly, driving all other systems to extinction would suggest that metric is the only way, when it is merely the way of the majority. Metric system proponents end up being the real Imperialists. =P
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1