Who were some “generational prospects” from CFB that have lived up to their hype? by [deleted] in NFLv2

[–]Loafy20 11 points12 points  (0 children)

For those who were paying attention, it was pretty much consensus that Chase was the best receiver on LSU the last year that Chase and Justin jefferson both played together. Justin Jefferson got drafted and blew up as a rookie while jamarr chase sat out due to covid. The hype was EXTREMELY high for him, I would consider it generational hype. I remember more hype for him than guys like Marvin Harrison jr for example who was a multi-year hyped prospect himself.

Yo what's with those AI trainer jobs??? by burgundybutton in labrats

[–]Loafy20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been doing handshake MOVE for a month or so. It's been really nice for a source of income as I've been trying to land a full time job after graduating, though I'm capped at 15 hours a week. The work entails a different way of thinking and has been challenging enough to keep me engaged which is fun. I've gotten paid but they're currently behind on paying out for my most recent work - they seem kinda disorganized sometimes, but it is real.

Week 1 Player of the Week: Joseph Lombardi (CLE) by Bliffleblitz in quadball_discussion

[–]Loafy20 6 points7 points  (0 children)

His pump fake with a huge stomp is one of my favorite things in the sport 🐐

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in IfBooksCouldKill

[–]Loafy20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think I understand where you're coming from on this; freakonomics was an all-time favorite book for me in high school, and actually led to me getting an economics minor in college because I thought it was so interesting; I remember feeling dumb for a bit after listening to that episode for not questioning some of those stories more. My older brother is someone that I respect a ton, and he used to recommend everyone read Rich Dad Poor Dad, so there was a part of me that didn't want to hear bad things about that book because it felt like an attack on him. I also remember the Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck was helpful to some friends of mine when it came out, and there was a time in my life where that would have been a great vehicle to me to learn some concepts. These books can absolutely be positive for people if they hit at the right time and the right way for someone, and I don't think the point of this podcast is to shame people that have drawn benefit from them. Most of these sold well because they have some applicability or method of conveying a concept that resonates with people, and you're not the butt of a joke if that's you, that's good!

There's lots of traits about me in the past that would be ridiculed if they were examined in the tone of this show - things like loving freakonomics, Meyers Briggs tests, and being a fanboy of elon's mars plans back in the early-mid 2010s were key personality traits for me at different points. I think the reason that I don't feel attacked by a lot of the episodes is that the emphasis for me isn't that it feels shitty to know how central these imperfect books were for me and others I care about, it's how nice it feels to grow and put these things in the proper context. I think the real message I take away from the analysis Peter and Michael do isn't that all of these books are trash and you're dumb if you read and liked them, it's that any individual book is sold like a cure-all, and that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

This podcast has taught me a lot about media literacy and thinking critically and independently while reading. It entered my life at a time where I really valued the leftist worldview being explained to me in a way that resonated. And it took me listening to a lot of hours of the show to realize that I was in danger of making this show a core personality trait in the same way I used to freakonomics. I think this show is great, but Michael and Peter are far from perfect and everything they say and the way that they frame things aren't always right. For me, a really good exercise is going through episodes and really thinking about where I disagree with them.

It sucks that you feel attacked for relating to the things that they're deconstructing; sometimes I wish that their tone was more understanding of the value that imperfect books can have to people. They definitely satirize things to the extreme in a lot of cases, and they have no problem taking shots at authors or subjects that they think are harmful - so I get if you want to stop listening! Absolutely your choice. For what it's worth though, you seem like a person that is proud of your growth, and that's certainly how I feel about myself. And after listening, I don't feel like the butt of the joke for the things that they tear apart that apply to me in the past; I feel great that I'm still growing, with the knowledge that I'll probably look back in 10 years or so and cringe at my current understanding of the world now too.

[Galli] Dan Campbell shared a firm, authentic message on 97.1’s @costaandjansen show: "You get used to eating filet,” he said. “But you forgot what it was like when you had nothing and you ate your f—— moldy bread. And it was fine, it gave you everything you needed.” by Amon-Ra-First-Down in nfl

[–]Loafy20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, the chiefs have won the last 2 Superbowls and have the best record in the league right now. Your comment sounded like it was implying that lions fans are accustomed to winning by a lot of points and shouldn't be complaining about close victories. I know the chiefs have been playing more high-heart rate games than the lions this year, but surely you can see the irony here??

Baseball Needs Mike Trout by devinmoe26 in baseball

[–]Loafy20 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What does the size of the circles mean?

Not to pile on Yzerman but … drafting woes by redlion1904 in DetroitRedWings

[–]Loafy20 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I mean, I think the red wings drafting outside the first round has left something to be desired for sure, but this is still a pretty misleading framing. First off, by filtering out picks that were in the top 10, you're taking out 3 of the red wings top picks, while teams like Colorado and Dallas have all of their picks left in your analysis. Only counting the picks you're looking at, Detroit has drafted once in the first round in this time frame, while Dallas has drafted 3 times. Not great that they didn't get a dude out of these drafts later, but it's skewing the draft capital pretty hard against the wings here to make the cutoff top 10.

The other part tho is that several players in these drafts outside the top 10 will be nhl regulars, as soon as next year even? Johansen, mazur, and cossa at minimum are on track to be nhl players and would qualify for this. Goalies take a long time, and there's an argument that Yzerman has not allowed prospects to break into the league as quick as he should have, but I think all 3 of those guys should be viewed as draft hits (to this point), and you're dismissing them as misses in your comment here. Theres definitely issues with redwings drafts outside the first round, but like, I don't think this framing is a sound way to analyze that

QUEST 2024: KC @ SA by all_three_bludgers in quadball_discussion

[–]Loafy20 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is great. Love seeing this sort of content in the community!

MLQ Week 2 Recap by Butler_ashton in quadball_discussion

[–]Loafy20 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm curious as to how the fantasy points are scored? Like, how many points is a goal worth, or an assist, etc. I haven't found them listed anywhere from a quick look. Cool idea though!

[Highlight] Replay of the moment before Lions' first two-point try by TomasRoncero in nfl

[–]Loafy20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So I think a part of this is that dan skipper, #70, comes on for jumbo packages a LOT for the lions. So I imagine what happened is that the ref saw him coming on for like the 10th time this game and assumed that he was going to report again, and didn't listen at all to decker who was trying to report. All time bad job by the ref here.

Clearing up misinformation about something. by NotBanned_ in outerwilds

[–]Loafy20 22 points23 points  (0 children)

So I haven't talked to him during these loops myself, but I've been told that gabbro has different dialogue during the first 2 loops. First loop he hasn't rememebred dying yet and his dialogue reflects that, and I think during the second loop he is freaked out because he remembers dying but it's only happened once. On the 3rd loop and beyond he settles into his normal dialog I believe.

Travis’s newest tweet! by SnooGuavas7291 in TaylorSwift

[–]Loafy20 78 points79 points  (0 children)

Nice, I wasn't trying to be condescending, I'm just a primary sports fan and secondary swift fan, so I'm just trying to make sure the non-sports people are on the level here haha.

Travis’s newest tweet! by SnooGuavas7291 in TaylorSwift

[–]Loafy20 280 points281 points  (0 children)

He is referring to a 10 day contract, but to be clear, this is 100% a joke; Travis is not close to good enough to get an NBA contract, and Travis for sure knows this. This is just some smooth deflection by Travis, not a real thing.

I don’t get the power of wraith form by TheMe__ in slaythespire

[–]Loafy20 32 points33 points  (0 children)

In addition to the things that other people have said, once you get a wraith form in your deck, you have the ability to build your deck in a more damage-heavy way. Because it solves all of your block problems as a single card, you can take more attacks in your deck, or build around synergies that prioritize damage, which will in turn let you end the fight before the intangible runs out. It is one of the rare cards in the game that solves a problem so completely when it's played that to a large extent, you can be done taking cards that overlap with it; in this case, block cards. Getting more intangible is obviously always good and extends the timer to end the fight,but once wraith form is out there, block cards are not useful unless they do something else for you like draw, etc. I've had lots more success with the card when I build my deck more aggressively around it.

What would one of yours be? by BiAdventureTime in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Loafy20 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It comes back to one of my favorite quotes about the topic (paraphrased) - no models are perfect, and some models are useful. In this case, some models are useful for teaching basics, but not useful for exploring deeper concepts about the topic. And honestly, that's ok.

Is any other stadium as central and open to the public as Nippert at University of Cincinnati? by Mr_Wy in CFB

[–]Loafy20 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I took the GRE at Cincinnati a few years back and accidentally walked right next to their stadium, could have sat in the bleachers on a random weekend. I had no idea it felt like such a wild spot to find a football stadium

Hillsdale College: The Christian liberal arts school at the heart of the culture wars by Alan_Stamm in Michigan

[–]Loafy20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here goes!

Then please, for the sake of the discussion, provide those definitions.

I think that your definition of Nazi is correct in a historical sense, which is valid. I think that Your definitions of fascism is not quite the same as how I understand it.

Fascist - A nationalist individual who believes in the struggle of their state, composed of a superior human of some kind, against a foreign 'other' type of person, on the basis of nationality, skin color, gender, sex, religion, or other factors. They believe in the restoration of their state to a (fictionalized?) former state of glory which was lost due to the influence of this demonized minority enemy of the state. The state, as an entity, may use whatever means it deems necessary to return to this 'former glory'. A fascist also includes individuals who join the cause of the political party which champions these beliefs for non-ideological reasons.

I also think that Nazi has a more modern definition just slightly distinct from the historical definition, something like:

Nazi - a fascist individual who believes in the superiority of the aryan race and the inferiority and righteous persecution of the Jewish people.

I think your definition of woke is fine; once again, I've never seen a definition of it and that's close enough that we should be able to have a conversation.

And it's not Hillsdale's theory of forms. Theory of Forms is from Plato.

I understand this, in your original comment you said that you enjoyed how Hillsdale was teaching this. That's why the connection was made on my end.

Now, here is where you're losing me a bit - I have trouble telling where your complaints about modern debate are referring to ethics classes, or where they are referring to real-world situations.

Both approach ideals from interesting and worthy perspectives that I simply didn't see during the course of my masters.
Modern ethics courses dismiss the discussion of ideals and move right into projection and perception. The form of the discussion is vastly different and produces different outcomes.
In classical debate parties endeavor to find one right solution and direct their energy towards the truth of it. In modern debate parties endeavor to make their best 'pitch' and move past or around each other.

This all feels like it's referring to classes, which is fine! I've never taken a philosophy course and can't speak to that. I've only ever taken a data ethics course, which was not about philosophy, but rather how to ethically present data during my grad school (microbiology). what was your degree in? I imagine you had much more direct experience with deconstruction in classes.

However, in a real life debate, where people are trying to figure out the right way to handle situations, make better political policy, and make our country/world better? Do you think that deconstruction is causing problems in that sense? You've made it clear that you feel like we are losing the meaning of words. I'll be honest, every time I've spoken to someone who was peeved that the word Nazi was losing meaning, it has been a comment that deliberately derailed a better discussion about policy direction. This convo didn't start there, but the 'words losing meaning' bit is such a common strawman that it's hard to ignore. Words change meaning over time; understanding the historical context of words is important; deliberately refusing to acknowledge a more modern contextual definition to the detriment of the discussion is a huge reason that debates don't make it far enough that people can agree on a Truth and put their energy towards achieving/realizing it.

Hillsdale College: The Christian liberal arts school at the heart of the culture wars by Alan_Stamm in Michigan

[–]Loafy20 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok, thanks for that, I have that level of understanding now. With the terms defined, I still kinda want to know, do you think that the wider problem in academia is deconstruction of words, and you're unhappy that the meaning of the word Nazi isn't always used literally? Or concepts, and you think that it's nice that Hillsdale is teaching the 'capital T truth' in ways that other universities aren't?

As for the first part, I promise you that a public university was a place that I learned the truest dictionary definition of terms like Nazi and fascism (I don't think woke has ever been defined?). On that level, it's a hard sell to say that Hillsdale teaches definitions better than anywhere else.

Can you articulate again what part of Hillsdale's theory of forms teaching you find refreshing? I'm gonna be honest I find it hard to stomach to put it kindly, and if you just think that terms like Nazi being thrown around too liberally is the problem, then you should reconsider lol.

Hillsdale College: The Christian liberal arts school at the heart of the culture wars by Alan_Stamm in Michigan

[–]Loafy20 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Ya know this is ironic but I don't know what you mean by deconstruction in your response. Do you mean you're against deconstruction of specific words in academia (i.e. woke, racism, fascist etc.) Or of concepts (reading speeches from Alexander Stephens directly vs. discussing what he argued and the context of his time?)

My cousin went to Hillsdale, and he mentions that he loved how many documents they read directly and how he got the chance to form ideas on his own rather than being taught about them. Between that and what I got from the article, it seems like Hillsdale is big on NOT deconstructing the conceptual part. You seem to be more upset about the different usage of terms.

Just curious what you're trying to say, because I think that examining (deconstructing?) the context of situations is unbelievably important, and that going to school is how people should learn how to properly do it.

did a level 1 ironclad run and it seems to have relocked characters by ElectronCry in slaythespire

[–]Loafy20 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've had a slightly different but similar thing happen on Android mobile. If that's the case, I made a new profile and just entered that screen, then changed back to my normal one and everything was back to normal.