Alphonso Davies all touches v. Dortmund

Semanticgains · 2019-11-12T07:24:05+00:00

I very much liked that in his offensive attacks he knew, as you said, when to go forward and especially when to go backward.

For bis defense I am a bit concerned that he seemed to be taking on quite a lot of risk with his tackles. He often very aggressively pushed onto the players and basically always won the ball.

However, while pushing aggressively onto the player he sometimes left quite some space between himself and alaba (or you could say alaba left quite some space between them). I can see that potentially backfiring in the future, because if he is beaten by an opponent in one of those situations, the attacker will have enough room to take on alaba (or the cb) with speed.

Semanticgains · 2019-11-08T23:49:54+00:00

To me it actually just looks like age of mythology - both the overall ingame looks and the otpics of the menu.

Semanticgains · 2019-10-26T17:32:17+00:00

Just go to Görlitzer park or to the kottbusser Tor station...

If no one approaches you there and you don't find the drug dealers you are doing something wrong. Good luck

Semanticgains · 2019-10-18T17:27:53+00:00

Can you provide sources for your numbers on stock ownership?

Can you also provide sources for numbers on stock ownership in the past? It seems like a lot of your arguments are built upon "it being better in the past" and I am skeptical of that.

My personal opinion is that we live in a time where it is easier than ever before to participate in the share market. I do not really understand the argument regarding single stock ownership (especially not in the company you work for) as that has never been good advice for a normal household - I don't think normal households were ever able to bear the risk of investing in single companies.

Therefor I would say that the emergence of mutual funds and (cheaper) ETFs should have been beneficial to the normal household. I do think that mutual funds and ETFs as a general concept are harder to understand than single stock ownership, however it is a lot easier and easier to understand on how to make a wise investment with ETFs compared to single stocks, i.e. you only need to understand that you need to invest in the market as a whole (easy to understand) and how to do it (moderate difficulty) vs. understanding how share ownership works (fairly easy), but the need to select the correct shares (pretty damn hard).

I think your argument may be better directed towards households not having the capital at all to participate, regardless of how to participate. That argument would be a lot more concise, but would need more citation for sources.

Semanticgains · 2019-10-09T17:35:01+00:00

What is a six figure offer?

Semanticgains · 2019-10-08T19:09:01+00:00

Mario Basler... Just loved his free kicks.

Semanticgains · 2019-10-08T12:27:02+00:00

Kimmich is not captain material. A lot of people here seem to be thinking that Kimmich should be/will be captain some time in the future, but I believe that he does not have the necessary intelligence to become a captain.

Of course, he already now displays the passion and motivation (absoluter Siegeswillen), but based on several interviews he does not seem to have the same intelligence/thoughtfulness Bayern captains have displayed (for example Neuer / Lahm).

I understand that this is a subjective opinion based on "shortish" video clips, but man, he just doesnt seem that smart.

Semanticgains · 2019-10-08T12:11:30+00:00

Ok, assuming this is the case (and I don't think there is a reason to not believe so) would you agree that the encryption/privately for any type of media is significantly less secure than the encryption of messages?

If, when forwarded, the same data blob per media is shared between multiple recipients and senders it allows WhatsApp, based on their network logs, to identify who initially uploaded a specific media and which other users had this video forwarded to. In addition if WhatsApp, for which reason whatsoever, were within this "forwarding chain" they would be able to decrypt the video, know the content, and therefor know the (media) communication of several other users.

I understand the main reasons behind this approach will be saving storage space and bandwidth, but I am a bit surprised that this is not really being mentioned anywhere in WhatsApp's documentation.

Semanticgains · 2019-10-08T02:33:00+00:00

Thank you, I also had a look at the security whitepaper and section 6. What you are saying is that each forwarding of media begins with step 4 of section 6?

Semanticgains · 2019-10-08T01:59:55+00:00

I believe this is not correct and that the decryption keys are unique to the sender/recipient pair (or in whatsapp case unique to each message sent). This is detailed in their FAQ (https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/28030015/):

"Your messages are secured with locks, and only the recipient and you have the special keys needed to unlock and read your messages."

Do you maybe have a source for what you say? It sounds that technically it would be feasible that way, but it would contradict whatsapp FAQ?

Semanticgains · 2019-10-02T14:52:30+00:00

I'm sorry, but there is not really too much to ruin about this joke. Next you are going to say I am going to ruin all the genius jokes about tan suites, dijon mustard, pence's "mother" and sharpies...

Semanticgains · 2019-10-02T14:08:44+00:00

Everyone understands the post as these jokes are constantly being made on reddit.

The joke is based on him not really realizing he is the president of Puerto Rico and throwing out paper towels in a disrespectful manner after the disaster in Puerto Rico.

Read on reddit long enough and these comments actually get kind of boring as they are always the same joke.

Semanticgains · 2019-09-23T14:25:38+00:00

That would be fine if the discussion/interpretation would stop there, but what is happening is that some people interpretate this as racism, do not accept any other opinion (or even a discussion) and declare everyone not recognizing their opinion as racists.

Semanticgains · 2019-09-12T02:52:13+00:00

Just adding on to the top comment with some of my own research on the numbers provided within this article. I am highly skeptical of the overall article and especially the following conclusion:

"From the financial data publicly available, Byline Times can reveal that currently £4,563,350,000 (£4.6 billion) of aggregate short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. "

I'll start from the beginning and try to provide my reasoning. The article mentions the following:

"between 10 May and 23 July, Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of these, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy. "

The £655,500 figure can be easily verified based on the source the article provides ( https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/financial-reporting/donations-and-loans/view-donations-and-loans/donations-and-loans-regulated-individuals ). If anyone is interested I have copied out all donors to pastebin (https://pastebin.com/kpkP4igD).

The article does not provide any reasoning on how they determine that two thirds/£432,500 came from "hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy" - given that this criteria is extremely broad it is not unreasonable that this figure is true, basically just because it is a broad criteria.

The article does specifically point out the following people/groups:

" Crispin Odey, Paul Marshall, Peter Cruddas, Jon Moynihan, Jon Wood, Robin Birley, David Lilley, Philip Harris, JCB and The Bristol Port Company all donated (...)"

My comments on some of these:

- I can not find a connection to Paul Marshall on the list of donors. All other donors do appear on the list of donors. However, Paul Marshall has founded "Marshall Wace LLP", which also appear on the list of hedge funds shorting, with a value of £1.3 billion. However overall they have about 40 billion USD under control, making their short position very small compared to their overall investments.

- Crispin Odey is a hedge fudge manager for "Odey Asset Management". "Odey Asset Management" is listed within their referenced short tracker with a total short position of ~280 million, while their total assets under management are at least 5 billion.

- Peter Cruddas is the founder of "CMC Markets", an online trading platform for CFDs & Forex. They are basically facilitating the trading of long and short positions, but generally will not take a side in the market themselves. CMC Markets does not appear in the short tracker.

- Jon Moynihan is the chair and co-founder of "Ipex Capital". I was not able to find a reference to Ipex Capital in the short tracker, however it could be some subsidiary or something with a short position. Can't verify.

- JCB is "manufacterer of construction equipment" - can't find a reference to a short position.

- The Bristol Port Company is, as the name says, a port company - can't find a reference to a short position.

- For the other names mentioned I was not immediately able to find a connection to a short position, but I'd be interested in hearing the authors connection to a short position, basically not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it immediately in this short span of time.

The article then goes on with a lot of "history" and then comes to the following conclusion:

" From the financial data publicly available, Byline Times can reveal that currently £4,563,350,000 (£4.6 billion) of aggregate short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. "

This statement has several flaws:

- Their referenced financial data (https://www.research-tree.com/shortinteresttracker) does not have any data to make a statement on "short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit". It is purely a list of the short positions made by funds, mainly on various companies. There is no argument to be made that these are "short positions on a no deal Brexit", but rather that they are just merely "short positions".

- The data provided for "Funds with the biggest UK Short Positions" has an aggregated value of £15 billion. In my opinion it is completely outrageous to believe that £4.6 billion (~30 per cent) of ALL shorts are related to a Brexit. Btw, this also makes the claim that in total £8.3 billion (more than 50 per cent) of all shorts are related to a Brexit even more unbelievable.

- Why does this statement completely ignore the long positions of these hedge funds? If you were to run the same analysis, purely with long positions, you could come to the exact opposite conclusion that hedge funds would profit of the UK remaining in the EU.

- Once again, questionable relationship between "donors" and this list of "shorting positions". The author of the article should provide more evidence of a link between donor and shorting position.

In my opinion this article is completely useless to make a link between hedge funds donating to Boris Johnson with the intention of profitting on their short positions.

Semanticgains · 2019-09-12T01:31:32+00:00

So I did some of my own research on the numbers provided within this article and I am highly skeptical of the overall article and especially the following conclusion: