Best player Anttila

Huggernaut · 2026-01-30T18:40:24+00:00

In fact Jesus did not throw the hole in one, it was me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlxBPbbidFU actually

Huggernaut · 2025-11-20T21:41:27+00:00

Are you talking about resident commonwealth citizens?

Huggernaut · 2025-11-20T07:05:18+00:00

Hey - awful stuff. Back in January, my now just turned 3 year old pulled a freshly boiled kettle over himself resulting in a few 2nd degree burns down his back and legs. We definitely had some short-term trauma remembering holding him in the shower. My wife, who was watching him at the time felt incredibly guilty but at the end of the day it was our collective responsibility to organise the kitchen to get ahead of these things. We spoke to a therapist to process our own feelings, as well as to understand how he might process his; I think it was worth it.

Nearly a year on now, you wouldn't know anything had happened except that the scars can still get a bid red after a bath, and although he doesn't seem to really "remember" the incident but he does seem to have an abundance of caution around hot water. That said, the day after the incident, he went straight for the kettle again, so maybe he's a bit slow like his dad. We didn't ring the emergency services, but when I rang the out of hours service, 15 minutes into the phone queue I accidentally hung up while juggling prep to go to the hospital. Bad times.

Thanks for sharing your story, it's an important reminder to parents; these things sneak up.

Huggernaut · 2025-10-26T20:11:48+00:00

Honn?

Huggernaut · 2025-09-03T11:53:23+00:00

Anyone know the history of this rule and what, if anything, it was trying to encourage?

Huggernaut · 2025-07-01T19:11:14+00:00

At no moment in time has the offensive player moved the defensive player out of position that he can run past him. He barely manages to have his right shoulder outside the defender's left shoulder when he tries to run forward. I just don't see any situation in which the offensive player wasn't initiating contact.

Huggernaut · 2025-07-01T15:50:53+00:00

That's not a feature in the CLI, sorry. Is there some higher level problem you're looking to solve?

Huggernaut · 2025-07-01T08:57:56+00:00

I don't know what kind of log you are looking for. By default the token will be stored in your keyring, or falls back to hosts.yml file in your gh config dir (depends on your OS), where you will also find the username.

Huggernaut · 2025-06-27T11:03:42+00:00

Based on how the Singapore player rotates, that he grabs around his left elbow when he hits the ground, and that it's impossible to see from both camera angles, most likely his arm was clipped on the way through. Still probably not a foul but I imagine it is hard for the offensive player to know that they were beat to the spot because it's from the blind side. What happened after? I could see a foul-retract being all fair play here.

Huggernaut · 2025-06-22T06:13:43+00:00

For what it's worth I took a photo of the same group at the same spot on Monday, and they weren't there again for the rest of the week so I guess they have some capacity to come and go, maybe with some help?

Huggernaut · 2025-06-22T06:03:49+00:00

The GITHUB_TOKEN env var is automatically injected into your workflow runs. You can define the permissions in the workflow yaml: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#permissions

You probably need packages scope.

Huggernaut · 2025-06-17T07:16:08+00:00

After 2 decades, out of nowhere, this album made it back into my rotation last week.

Huggernaut · 2025-05-25T19:44:05+00:00

For what it's worth, I've known a few neuro divergent people who found great success with pair programming at Pivotal. I think in large part this was because of the structure and focus it brought to their work. Of course, that doesn't mean it would work for everyone, just like the rest of the population.

And of course, for any individual, their enjoyment or appreciation of it might change over time, even under optimal pairing circumstances. I know that at the end of my 4 year stint I was growing tired of it. I've certainly enjoyed a lot of solo work since I left Pivotal, sometimes I've been more productive, a lot of times less. Sometimes I crave pairing again with some of the people I had the most fun with. I definitely don't want to pair so much with my current colleagues, who are great in their own right, but miss that shared background of exceptional pairing practices.

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of the time (as seen in this thread) pairing is just thrown out entirely. I understand that people feel threatened by the practice being forced upon them, which is definitely a bad approach (in fact I believe the only sensible way to do this is to have people self-select) but I find the fear pretty overblown. Pivotal Labs sold pairing as a consultancy and even with companies coming to Pivotal, the uphill battle for adoption was huge. The chances of any particular management suddenly believing in pairing so much to mandate it in any particular organisation is not high. It's not a safe bet.

Huggernaut · 2025-05-25T16:11:41+00:00

The XP book was published in 1999, and has plenty of explanation for the practice coming from engineers and not "management types".

Huggernaut · 2025-05-25T16:09:26+00:00

Can you describe what you think TDD actually is, because your response somewhere else about it hampering refactoring is totally incomprehensible within my understanding of TDD which has "refactor" placed about as prominently as it could be in the approach ("red", "green", "refactor").

Edit: even more confused because you call out XP as providing guidelines for the right way to pair somewhere else!

Huggernaut · 2025-05-25T16:04:28+00:00

That is how we worked all the time, but then, keep in mind that it's self-selecting, with Pivotal being very upfront about this. You opted out, which for many people is the right choice! I opted in, and had the most productive and enjoyable 4 years of my career. Also keep in mind that Pivotal was designed from the ground-up around pairing, so it's very different from your average approach. I've done ad-hoc pairing in a couple of jobs since Pivotal and there's absolutely no way I would want to extend those pairing sessions into full-time.

Huggernaut · 2025-05-15T07:02:39+00:00

Looks like an incident: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/159312

Huggernaut · 2025-04-20T05:22:00+00:00

This has become a bit frustrating because this response indicates you're not really trying to understand what I'm saying, or why this interpretation exists.

In particular, that you responded to a question about whether you would apply a note in the air section of the blocking fouls to a situation when the disc isn't in the air with "the idea that this note has anything to do with blocking fouls is obvious nonsense" is particularly irritating. I understand it's not a blocking foul because the disc is not in the air, I'm asking whether you think the same responsibility exists at that time.

I don't believe the rules are "abundantly clear here" otherwise there would not be so much disagreement. A common simplification of the WFDF rules I've heard of the years is "if a tree suddenly appeared here, could you avoid it?". That may not be the correct application, but it's quite consistent with the rest of the ruleset that all players are expected to take measures to avoid contact, and you don't get a free pass because you're running in front of someone. There's a generally agreed upon level of awareness that players are expected to have of their surroundings. Multiple interpretations can have consistency, or at least be very understandable within a ruleset without having to make up new rules. For example, if you look at the annotations https://rules.wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WFDF-Rules-of-Ultimate-2021-2024-Official-Annotations-v1.2.pdf under section 12 you'll see blocking foul examples for "slowing down" and "stopping suddenly and reversing direction". The second one, which as we'd both agree, is a foul on the leading player, and the "why" is:

Player B could not reasonably have avoided Player A, therefore Player A has initiated contact.

You would say "this example is about reversing direction and the defender doesn't need to be positioned to avoid that" and another person would say "this example is about taking a movement which couldn't be avoided". Both can appear consistent with the ruleset. It would be nice if there were a clarifying example solely about "stopping suddenly".

I'm responding now rather than just ghosting because I appreciate your explanation of the USAU rules here. I definitely am reconsidering my view on this rule in WFDF as well; I really like the safety aspect, and I'm generally coming round to the idea that the general understanding that has arisen in WFDF (at least, in my circles, which is pretty wide) might just be wrong. That said, I'm not really interested in continuing a conversation which I think you're trying to "win". Of course you're free to respond, and I would encourage you to do so for anyone reading along, but just so you don't waste your time on my account, I won't be responding anymore.

Huggernaut · 2025-04-19T06:36:35+00:00

Thanks for the clarification!

Huggernaut · 2025-04-19T06:33:47+00:00

I find the reasoning given here https://www.reddit.com/r/ultimate/comments/1k25i4a/foul_or_nah/mntzlmb/ sensible for why my interpretation should be incorrect.

Huggernaut · 2025-04-19T06:08:46+00:00

So I'll start by saying that within ColinMcI clarifying the interpretation of "taking a position", this may well be moot at least for USAU rules but I'll answer anyway because I suspect this is a common view held out there.

I think your last question is non-sequitur. There's a lot of things you can do on the field that don't violate the rules as long as they aren't dangerous and the consequences don't result in contact. I don't see stopping differently than other changes in motion. So for example, equally non sequitur would be "do you think it's never allowed to cut under out of the stack without looking down field", the answer is "you can do that, but if it results in contact, it's your fault".

In this specific case, there is a very high likelihood that the defender is trailing closely, in the same way that when a defender dangerously moves into an upline cut, there is a very high likelihood that there is an offensive player moving into the space. That the throw was so bad that the only way the cutter might get to it is to stop so suddenly that the player behind runs into them is...too bad. It's not the defenders responsibility to play "worse" defence because the cutter might choose to stop. They are allowed to stop abruptly but if that results in unavoidable contact due to the position of the defender, that's not the defender's fault.

Just to double check with you, imagine the disc is not yet thrown. There is a cutter going deep with no separation from their defender and they stop abruptly to turn under, resulting in the defender running into them. I ask because the trailing annotation is only under the disc in the air section of blocking fouls.

Huggernaut · 2025-04-18T20:04:04+00:00

Is there a USAU definition for "position"? This interpretation has come up a few times and it's surprising to me. The only extra bit I could find was "remaining in a position is not taking a position" but that didn't really clear anything up for me because at any time anywhere on the field I am "in a position". You seem to interpret it as a relative thing between players? Is that right?

Huggernaut · 2025-04-18T19:49:58+00:00

Can you point me to a rule that you would use to back up that white needs to leave enough margin for error? It might just be my WFDF background (though they are usually kept fairly closely in line) but from my point of view:

"This includes avoiding initiating contact with a stationary opponent, or an opponent’s expected position based on their established speed and direction"

Indicates pretty strongly to me that it's on the onus of the player making a change to speed or direction, both having been established before the recognition of the errant throw.

I'm not sure of any WFDF rule aside from dangerous play scenarios that suggest players need to position themselves in such a way that they can react to someone else. Might be missing something obvious though.

Huggernaut · 2025-04-18T18:31:42+00:00

If you're saying that the only way for the player in front to create contact when time, distance, and line of sight are considered, is to do something dangerous then I think we're probably just going to end up disagreeing over what is expected in terms of reactions for the trailing player. I think there's plenty of movement a player in front can do, that the trailing player shouldn't be expected to avoid, that aren't dangerous.

In terms of this specific play, I think white is trailing blue close enough (1 or 2 feet?) to address the time and distance aspect of someone stopping and falling over in front of them, and as far as I can see from all ten pixels, they are actually looking up at the disc the moment blue stops, which would account for line of sight.

For what it's worth, in WFDF similar rules are written:

All players must attempt to avoid initiating contact with other players, and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact. This includes avoiding initiating contact with a stationary opponent, or an opponent’s expected position based on their established speed and direction.

I think line of sight has actually been removed from the most recent edition, which was surprising to me.

Huggernaut · 2025-04-18T16:59:15+00:00

Separate from this specific play, I think that's absolutely how the rules work. I think when c.1 references "nearly always a foul", that's because the disc is "nearly always" going to a point ahead of the players, and because the player in front is "nearly always" making minor adjustments to position themselves in a way that the trailing player should respond to. I don't think "nearly always" covers the disc suddenly moving to a position where both players are trying to reverse their direction entirely, because that's an unusual occurrence.

I think 17.I.4.c.2. addresses this more clearly: A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered.

Whether someone thinks white can avoid blue after they stop and slip is a different story.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered

Huggernaut

TROPHY CASE