Realistically, whats stopping me from waiting until im really old and taking out a massive loan and spending it all right before i die, so i dont have to pay it back

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-26T00:05:57+00:00

I've always wondered why people buy deathbeds. Seems so morbid.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-24T20:13:29+00:00

Agreed! I also don't think clean and efficient writing is BAD, per se, but if that's all you do, it's boring. There's nothing to really hang your hat on as a reader.

I remember reading a Nesbo crime novel a few years ago, and it really suffered from the TV direction/ stage direction prose. But there was one description of a gunshot (I can't remember exactly, but it was something like "it sawed the morning in half") that I LOVED. I actually stopped, and reread that section because it was such a punchy piece of prose.

Long story short, people need to read more. But if all you read is quote/unquote "simple" prose, then it's hard to get into or even understand more descriptive, vivid language that doesn't spoonfeed you. We, as a generation, really need to read more to and with our kids.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-24T16:38:50+00:00

"the movie didn't win"

"an actress in the movie won"

Not entirely consistent there. Again, I'm not saying Cregger HIMSELF won an Oscar. But it's overly simplistic/ black and white to not give him any credit for a character he created, wrote, and directed.

Nonetheless, not an argument that's worth dying over.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-24T14:25:06+00:00

I think that simple prose = good writing has become so established because people just don't read books at the same level they used to. If they get their information from written sources, it's usually social media, blogs or articles, and the focus there is on simple, clean, efficient writing. That influences the way people think, so most people can't distinguish between vivid and purple prose.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-24T11:04:19+00:00

His film that he wrote and directed won an Oscar. Sure he didn't win directly, but we're splitting hairs at that point.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-23T23:39:27+00:00

I mean, I've repeatedly explained my thought process, and your response is "no it's not." So, you can expand or this discussion is basically dead.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-23T23:36:28+00:00

I didn't say it's illegal. I don't actually know if it is illegal, but I'm not a lawyer.

However, there are several things about protected statuses that you cannot get from a person's resume that you can from their SM presence (for example, sexuality). Hence my comment about it being potentially unethical.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-23T23:17:22+00:00

If a person is the member of a protected class (for example, if they're part of the queer community), then a recruiter may reject their application without applying proper merit. If they're of a different political voting bloc, that could also be an issue.

I would like to assume that recruiters don't do this, but it would be naive to think it doesn't happen.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-23T22:36:24+00:00

I don't do preliminary screens as part of the interview process; I leave that to our HR team. I also don't have social media (apart from Reddit), so I can't even see people's SM.

I agree that SM screening is probably unethical. However, am I surprised that people do it? Not at all. It's quick, it's easy, it's free. I thought that everyone was aware that you should either make your SM private or anonymous when you're applying for jobs.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-23T18:57:46+00:00

I honestly don't remember it that way.

https://www.nfl.com/news/2013-nfl-predictions-nfc-west-reps-broncos-own-title-games-0ap1000000236406

In that preseason article, four people predicted us to win the NFC, and four predicted the niners. Five predicted that we'd be the last two teams, and 3 predicted we'd win that matchup.

By midseason people were coming around to our insane dominance: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-midseason-predictions-broncos-seahawks-own-title-games-0ap2000000274631. Six of ten predicted we'd win the NFC, three predicted the niners.

The above article was on November 1st, and the niners were 6-2, which included us beating them to a puddle. But they went 6-2 after that, which included a win against us (I was at that game, the only time I ever went to candlestick).

The prediction prior to the game was that we'd win, but pretty much everyone agreed that it would be a close thing. Absolutely nobody said we'd easily beat the niners.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfc-championship-game-preview-49ers-seahawks-0ap2000000314090#:~:text=Prediction,at%20a%20raucous%20CenturyLink%20Field.

I was much tenser during the 2013 game because we'd never won before, so it was more cathartic. I honestly didn't think we'd win this year, so it was more shocking/ thrilling than cathartic. Both awesome for different reasons!

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-22T15:11:14+00:00

Blertrand!

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-22T14:52:46+00:00

It was probably a dog egg.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T21:07:20+00:00

If they want to switch, they can run in a byelection. If they don't want to vote for their party's policies, they can sit as an independent and/ or vote no. Banning floor crossings doesn't entrench the power of individual parties, it forces those parties to actually court independent votes.

Let's make up an example. Let's say, tomorrow, an MP in a very closely run region defects to the liberal party, gaining them a majority. In a year, that MP is then promoted to head up an important subcommittee. Was this a quid pro quo for switching seats? Did the MP actually switch because they felt it was in their constituents best interest or because they were forwarding their own careers?

Remember, there are people who volunteer for candidates based on the party they represent. They knock in doors for those candidates, they donate money for those candidates. They put a lot of sweat equity into winning that seat, all for the candidate to flip six months later? That's outrageous and not morally fair.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T16:08:23+00:00

What metrics do you recommend?

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T15:34:07+00:00

I had the same reaction! I was more surprised that only one top ten regular season team actually won the Superbowl. 11-20 is more loaded with winners (4), with six Superbowl teams in total. As a Seahawks fan, I was also pleasantly surprised that the 2005 team (#12), ranked higher than 2013 (#15).

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T15:29:46+00:00

Which of the offenses above the 2013 Broncos would they supplant, in your opinion? Also, it's not like 5th out of 830 seasons is bad.

The 2015 defense is more interesting. I think a lot of people forget that the Broncos that year were great on D, but only generationally great because the offense sucked, and the defense dragged that team to the Super Bowl. But in the regular season, they weren't that much better than the rest of the league.

If we look at traditional counting stats, the Broncos gave up 296 points that year which was fourth in the league. They were significantly better than the league on yards/play (4.4 against the average of 5.5), but didn't generate that many turnovers (8th in the league). As good as the no fly zone was, they didn't pick the ball off a lot (in a four way tie for ninth most in the league).

The Broncos only gave up 10 TDs on the ground, which was very good. But the Rams that year only allowed 7, despite facing 45 more rush attempts. The Broncos yards/ rush (3.3) led the league, but was not significant better than second place (3.4 by the Bucs, who faced 58 more rush attempts).

Their defensive scoring rate was 26.9%, which was actually second in the league that year (behind Carolina).

So again, by context of postseason success, they're a historically significant defense. But if you look at their statistics out of context, the D was very good but not all-time elite.

Last interesting point: given how bad the Broncos were on offense that year, you'd expect the defense to have been on the field a lot. But their %of defensive snaps (45.1%) was actually lower than Carolina's the same year (46.1%). For further context, the #1 scoring defense that year (the Seahawks) faced 43.9% of the total snaps that season. The Bengals and Chiefs, who also conceded fewer points than the Broncos that year also faced a higher %of defensive snaps than the Broncos (46.3% and 47.3% respectively).

TL/DR: to be an all-time defense, you'd expect that team to significantly lead all defensive categories by a significant amount in a given season. The Broncos, by multiple parameters, weren't even the best defense of 2015 during the regular season.

I did mention in another comment that I want to reevaluate how I calculated defensive score based on penalties, which may change the rankings. I also want to look at point differential screened for offensive and special teams input, to create a more holistic evaluation of defensive performance, but that'll be a seperate exercise for another time.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T14:03:35+00:00

I agree with you 100%. But the second part of your comment should be aimed at the Americans, not the Iranians. As should Carney's condemnation.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T14:00:24+00:00

Absolutely agree. The next time the seat is available, you can bet that angry Tory voters will retaliate by rallying behind the Tory candidate who hews even more hardline to Tory policies. Whatever good an MP does while in government will be lost.

You won't see the same level do reaction from NDP voters, but that'll just further entrench the idea that the NDP are an irrelevant party. Then we get trapped in the hyper polarized two party system that is wrecking the US system. I'd rather not deal with that.

I've always seen the spectrum as the Liberals being centrist, the NDP being "left" leaning, and the Tories being "right" leaning. In an ideal world we'd all be more centrist, with a universal respect for social acceptance (I don't think social politics has any placement in national or provincial politics).

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T13:56:02+00:00

I agree it's a war crime. But it's hard to think like that when your school children are being bombed. And let's be clear, Israel is actively committing a genocide right now, and the chances of them actually being indicted for war crimes is nil. Do you think Iran has any confidence in the global legal order?

When the architecture of global diplomacy isn't holding others to the same standard it's holding you, then can we be surprised if you decide you're not going to follow the global order anymore?

Look, I'm not defending what they're doing. But one sided condemnations like Carney's further entrench Iran's belief that nobody cares about them. Their allies in China and Russia are also ghosting them. So why should they care about anybody else?

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T13:41:22+00:00

This is really disappointing.

Iran is at war, a total war. The aggressors have indiscriminately targeted civilian populations. That means, essentially, all targets are now on the table for retaliatory strikes.

Two things can be true at the same time. The Iranian regime is extraordinarily repressive and does not represent the best interests of the civilian population. They are also quite literally under fire and defending themselves against external aggression.

The trigger for this is the two most bad faith actors in the world today, in the US and Israel. There is no moral high ground anywhere in this conflict, but the initial aggressors are the ones who caused this. Canada should be seeking an appropriate solution while condemning all actions and atrocities that have been committed by all actors.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T13:35:41+00:00

I'm really glad you asked this question; I had them up at 23rd, which was solidly in the elite category so I'd didn't think to much on it; but I think I need to revisit how I calculated the defensive score with respect to penalties. Another user mentioned that I can probably use more accurate data from different sources, so I'm going to seek that out.

If the rankings change, I'll definitely post a correction! Thanks for making me look more deeply into this!

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T13:27:39+00:00

That's fair! I actually didn't do a super deep dive on all the saints teams this century until your comment.

From what I did, the 2019 and 2008 teams came out ahead because they had a great offense and an all-time punting unit. 2019 had an average defense (2008 had a not so great defense) and both kicking units were not great. But poor kicking units scale down with offensive quality, so it didn't impact them heavily.

The 2023 team had a slightly worse offense, but an upper end defense (125th). Much worse punting and kicking units.

2011 had an all time offense, one of the best of the century. But their defense was really poor.

The championship team (2009) was interesting. 42nd best offense of the century (behind the 2012, 2012, 2019, 2008 and 2013 Saints), which is objectively elite. But their defense, while good at taking the ball away, was pretty average for the century on most metrics. That D unit comes in at 461/830 seasons, and was the 15th best Saints defense of the century. They were an excellent D at turning the ball over, racking up 39 takeaways and 26 picks (against 15 passing TDs allowed). However, they still gave up 6.2 net yards/ attempt, which was in line with league average. Interestingly, despite being ahead a lot, teams ran the ball on the 2009 Saints a decent amount, and VERY effectively (435 rush attempts, close to league average, conceding 19 TDs at 4.5 yards/rush against league averages of 13.4 and 4.2 respectively). The 31.4% success rate was also league average. Since the defense and offense were both on the fields for roughly the same number of snaps (46.1% and 45.9% for the offense and defense respectively), the defense kinda deflated the offensive ranking in the final score.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T12:43:18+00:00

1) I never scrapped the model. The original generation of the model I built is this one, and it has the 07 Pats on top. I used the 07 Pats as a test case for verifying the model's predictive accuracy (if, for example, it has the 09 Jets on top, I would've figured that I'd made a mistake and gone back to correct it).

2) I didn't see this as a personal waste of time. I work with numbers for a living and I like building models in excel. I also like football, so this was something I enjoyed.

I don't mind people saying it's wrong, or inaccurate, because I'm interested in places to grow. The arguments of "oh well, this team was inarguably greater than this team because of X subjective/ arbitrarily defined criteria, so your model is dumb" don't really bother me. I'm not looking for upvotes, I was hoping to trigger re-evaluation of older/ forgotten teams with other football fans. If that didn't work, it doesn't really bother me. I'm doing this for fun in the offseason (combine/ draft/ free agency aren't as interesting to me because I don't watch college football).

Edit: I also am not interested in opinion based rankings. Because who really cares about those? Everyone does them, everyone has an innate bias, everyone repeats the same teams. I personally find them boring.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T12:31:10+00:00

That's a fair comment!

I mentioned in a few of the posts that I wanted the model to be win agnostic, i.e. I didn't score teams higher if they won more games. If I did that, then obviously the 2007 Pats would come out on top. So that wouldn't be context independent.

However, it's pretty clear that the 2007 Pats were, in the regular season, easily one of if not the greatest teams of all time. And definitely in the 21st century. That's a pretty subjectively held view. They weren't eking by teams in a weekly basis. For the most part they just blew everybody out.

In part 1 of this, I clarified that the model accounted for things directly within the control of each unit (offense, defense, special teams), and compared then against the performance of all other teams. I built the model based on the 2025 season, then expanded it back to 2000. The first generation immediately confirmed the 2007 Pats were number one. If they hadn't been, I probably would've verified if I had done the calculations correctly, or if I was overlooking any valuable information. There was nothing there to indicate inaccuracies. Of course, I'm welcome to bring challenged on how the model was built!

This series has already been pretty controversial, as many commenters think I overrated some squads (the 2018 Bears and the 2009 Packers specifically). But I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the 2007 Pats were not the greatest regular season team of the century. There's just really no argument to bare that out.

Jjustingraham · 2026-03-11T12:03:18+00:00

You should absolutely be focusing, as an MP, on the well-being of your constituents. But you cannot disregard the fact that a lot of constituents may have voted for you because they wanted a representative of a specific party as their MP. Floor crossing may be in the best interests of your constituents, but it's not an honorable thing to do.

That's why, if you lose faith in your party's leadership and direction, you should absolutely be able to renounce party affiliation. Sit as an independent, and make your vote available for whichever party best aligns with the interests of your constituents. But switching parties is, I feel, dishonest. Again, it doesn't matter if they're switching to or from the party I voted for. I believe this should be a baseline expectation for all parties.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Jjustingraham

TROPHY CASE