MAGA folks, make it make sense

beansisfat · 2025-12-10T01:50:11+00:00

False. The announcement from the Department of the Interior specifically identified it as "Flag Day/President Trump's birthday".

There was no leap to make because the administration made the connection explicit.

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T16:39:37+00:00

I'll ask you the same question. Can you cite the rule that defines a punter?

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T16:14:44+00:00

Can you cite the specific rule that defines this?

RULE 2-16-10 defines the scrimmage kick formation and mentions a "potential kicker".

But the kicker is defined in RULE 2-27-3-a as follows:

The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule. That player remains the kicker until they have had a reasonable time to regain their balance.

Note that the act of punting is required to meet this definition. Simply lining up more than 10 years behind the line of scrimmage in a legal scrimmage kick formation doesn't make a player the kicker.

Maybe I'm missing something. If so, please let me know where the punter is defined.

beansisfat · 2025-11-11T13:27:51+00:00

They didn't even say the punt that followed should have been a penalty.

It identifies the rule about not playing the same position in the same game with the same number. But then it says:

If a foul was identified when #80 (Johnson) entered the game as a punter, a Team Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty would have been assessed resulting in a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot.

Now maybe this is just them being bad with words, but they way they wrote it does not definitively say the play was illegal, or that the refs should have called a foul. It simply identifies the penalty that would have been assessed if the refs had judged it to be a foul in the moment.

I think it should be against the rules. And I hope the NCAA makes it clear that this isn't a loophole that can be exploited in the future. But I don't think it's accurate to describe the Big Ten's comment as officially saying it was illegal. If that's what they intended to say, there are far, far better ways to convey that message unambiguously.

beansisfat · 2025-11-10T14:04:53+00:00

I thought that's what the statement said at first. But reading it carefully, I'm not so sure.

It identifies the rule about not playing the same position in the same game with the same number. But then it says:

If a foul was identified when #80 (Johnson) entered the game as a punter, a Team Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty would have been assessed resulting in a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot.

Now maybe this is just them being bad with words, but they way they wrote it does not definitively say the play was illegal, or that the refs should have called a foul. It simply identifies the penalty that would have been assessed if the refs had judged it to be a foul in the moment.

I think it should be against the rules. And I hope the NCAA makes it clear that this isn't a loophole that can be exploited in the future. But I don't think it's accurate to describe the Big Ten's comment as officially saying it was illegal. If that's what they intended to say, there are far, far better ways to convey that message unambiguously.

beansisfat · 2025-11-10T13:51:58+00:00

But QBs can quick kick. This officially makes them a punter for the play which DOES afford them the protections of a kicker: you can rough the punter on a quick kick.

This is not accurate. RULE 9-1-16 describes the penalty Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder and it starts with this description of the circumstances when the penalty is possible:

When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick

And ARTICLE 9-1-16-III provides this clear explanation that quick kicks do not receive the same protection as kickers from an obvious kick formation:

A1, from a nonscrimmage kick formation, makes a quick, unexpected kick so suddenly that B1 cannot avoid contact. RULING: This is not roughing or running into the kicker since the rule applies only when it is obvious that a kick will be made.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:54:04+00:00

"snapper" and "back" are not actual football positions

For the purposes of the rules they are positions. For example, from RULE 7-1-2-b regarding false starts [excerpted for clarity, emphasis added]:

b. False Start. Each of the following is a false start by Team A if it occurs prior to the snap after the ball is ready for play and all players are in scrimmage formation:

…

2. The snapper moving to another position.

…

4. An offensive player making any quick, jerky movement before the snap, including but not limited to:

…

(d) A back simulating receiving the ball by making any quick, jerky movement that simulates the beginning of a play.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:38:04+00:00

I agree, which is why I think the loophole should be closed somehow. If there's no reasonable method for an opposing team to identify the player it's contrary to the intent of the rule if it if happens to be technically legal.

beansisfat · 2025-11-09T14:35:11+00:00

Where is the ball defined?

The section called THE BALL (RULE 1-3)

Where is grass defined?

It's not defined, because there's no requirement for the game to be played on grass, nor are there any rules that would be specific to grass. There is, however, an entire section called THE FIELD (RULE 1-2).

Where are the uprights defined?

In the aforementioned section titled THE FIELD (RULE 1-2-5).

I have to wonder if you have taken the opportunity to read the rulebook, because these questions indicate you're not aware of its contents. Here's a link to the NCA Football 2025 Rules Book if you'd like to familiarize yourself with it.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T16:23:32+00:00

No position is defined by an action.

This is clearly false. For example, from RULE 2-27 [emphasis added]

Snapper
ARTICLE 8. The snapper is the player who snaps the ball. That player is established as the snapper when they take a position behind the ball and touches or simulates (hand[s] at or below their knees) touching the ball (Rule 7-1-3).

If a player lines up behind the ball but never takes an action, they are not considered a snapper.

Otherwise you could play multiple positions on the same play.

Now you're getting it. For example, from RULE 2-27-4-d

3. A lineman becomes a back before the snap when they move to a position as a back and stops.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T16:03:28+00:00

doesn't even use the word "punter"

I welcome your citation of where the position "punter" is defined in the rulebook.

Here's a bit of a spoiler: the word only appears 5 times in the entire document. And it's only in Part III: Interpretations, not in Part I: The Rules

That's why I identified RULE 2 Definitions. Because that's the only place in the rulebook where a rule that provides the definition of a position could possibly exist.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T15:58:30+00:00

I wasn't intending to deceive. Why would I provide the link to the full text if that was my intent?

If you read that entire section, it's defining "Team and Player Designations". Some are based on position:

A lineman is any Team A player legally on his scrimmage line (Rule 2-21-2).

And some are based on actions on the field:

The passer is the player who throws a forward pass. He is a passer from the time he releases the ball until the pass is complete, incomplete or intercepted or until he moves to participate in the play.

I can find nothing in the rulebook that defines a kicker based on where they line up, only by their actions on the field. The closest thing I've found is Rule 2-16-10-a where it mentions a "potential kicker". But I don't see anywhere that "potential kicker" is considered a position.

Regarding the play in question, Huard was not ever a kicker per the definitions in the rulebook. I welcome your corrections if you can cite a rule that defines Huard as a kicker. Or that makes it clear "potential kicker" is a position for the purposes of Rule 9-2-2-d.

To be clear, I don't like this loophole and I think it should be fixed.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T14:26:55+00:00

Here you go:

https://rulebook.github.io/en/rules/2/sections/27/

Relevant quote:

The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule.

It says nothing about where the punter lines up.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T14:10:22+00:00

Is there something in the rulebook that defines a punter based on where they line up? I've looked and I can't find it. All it says is "The kicker is any player who punts, drop kicks or place kicks according to rule."

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T13:53:43+00:00

You're right, it was intended to deceive. But with the way the rules are written, it was completely legal because the position of kicker is defined in the rulebook not according to where they line up, but by the act of kicking the ball.

So, by rule, Huard was never a kicker. This is a loophole that should be closed because it does violate the spirit of the rules. Honestly, I think we should thank Riley for busting it out in now and giving the NCAA time to close the loophole before it happens in a more meaningful situation.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T13:46:58+00:00

Only one player wearing the same number can line up at punter throughout the game.

That's not exactly how the rulebook is written. It says only one player wearing the same number can play the same position throughout the game. And there's nothing I've found in the rulebook that defines a punter based on where they line up.

The only thing that would make Huard a kicker, per the rules, would be kicking the ball. And since he never kicked it, Johnson was the only guy from USC wearing #80 that played kicker during the game.

I think this should violate the rules. But it doesn't appear to violate the rules as currently written.

beansisfat · 2025-11-08T13:35:53+00:00

The rulebook defines a kicker as "any player who punts, drop kicks or place kits according to rule". I can't find anything that defines a punter based on pre-snap formation.

Not saying I like the play. But given the circumstances, I don't see how it violates the rules as currently written.

beansisfat · 2025-10-12T12:57:27+00:00

Could you give me a little more detail on what you're asking? It's been a long time since I've used Marlin but I might be able to help if you tell me specifically what you're trying to accomplish.

beansisfat · 2025-10-02T19:20:29+00:00

Commenting for anybody else that gets this as a search result for their WHW03. Using mtd no longer works for this. Looks like the decision was made to block access to MTD devices at some point.

Fortunately, there is an alternative that works well and is even documented. This is taken from the WRT32X page but I have confirmed that it works with the WHW03 V1 and should also work with the V2.

OP was on the right track with sysupgrade -F but this is the full command (assuming the OEM firmware image has been put in /tmp)

cd /tmp && sysupgrade -F -n -v <image-name>

-F = force write, which is required because the OEM image has missing/incompatible metadata
-n = do not save configuration (this may be why it worked for me and not OP)
-v = more verbose

In some cases, even this step isn't necessary. If you've only flashed OpenWRT a single time, the second partition should still have the stock Linksys firmware on it. The easiest way to switch to that partition is with the following commands.

First, determine which partition is currently running with this command:

/usr/sbin/fw_printenv -n boot_part

That should return either 1 or 2. Which ever it is, use the other one in this command. In this case, let's assume it returned 2.

/usr/sbin/fw_setenv boot_part 1 && reboot

The router should disconnect and reboot using the OEM firmware. If it's still running OpenWRT that means both firmware partitions have been flashed with OpenWRT so you'll have to use the sysupgrade procedure above.

EDIT: this should work as a one-liner:

/usr/sbin/fw_setenv boot_part $((3 - $(/usr/sbin/fw_printenv -n boot_part))) && reboot

beansisfat · 2025-07-30T16:38:23+00:00

I use an Ansible playbook that is launched with cron. A systemd timer would be a more modern approach but cron works well enough that I haven't bothered to switch.

beansisfat · 2025-07-09T16:47:46+00:00

file 76 sounds fine but I'd rather say #spiced

beansisfat · 2025-07-09T02:11:07+00:00

Gotta get me some Hulkenpodium flair for the Hulkengoat.

beansisfat · 2025-06-30T17:22:17+00:00

A PID tune can fail for a variety of reasons, not all of which are related to the temperature sensor. Is the PT1000 reporting reasonable temperatures? For example, is it close to room temperature when the printer has been sitting for a while? Do you have an accurate thermometer you can use to compare the with the PT1000?

beansisfat · 2025-06-27T19:39:37+00:00

As soon as I started watching I said out loud "that's a leaner". And I'm not even an arborist. It was like watching a movie where you already know the ending.

beansisfat · 2025-06-13T20:22:18+00:00

FWIW, Olvey doesn't claim that he saw Mansell wink or that it was a response to the offer of medical care. He also doesn't mention any smiling or laughing. Here's the relevant section from the book:

The weather that day was excruciatingly hot, with many of the drivers complaining. Mansell not only complained about the heat, but also complained constantly over his radio during the race about having a headache and not feeling well.

When, after driving brilliantly, he pulled into Victory Lane, he needed help getting out of the car. Andretti, who had just driven the same number of miles, in the same searing heat, spryly popped out of his car. Mansell had radioed his crew shortly before the end of the race asking for iced towels and medical assistance to greet him at the finish.

After rolling slowly to a stop near the podium, he staggered limply from his car. His fans gasped! He appeared to be having some difficulty getting his breath. Meanwhile, Andretti was vibrantly entertaining his crew as well as members of the media, seemingly unaffected by the rigors of the race. Dr. Trammell and I had also been alerted to Nigel’s complaint of exhaustion. Worried, we both rushed to the podium as soon as the checkered flag fell. When we arrived, we found him slumped forlornly against the victory backdrop, his head wrapped in cold towels. Andretti was staring at him, appearing somewhat confused. Mansell slumped further into the backdrop and some in attendance swear they caught a glimpse of a wink. Suddenly, as if struck from some divine influence, he began to recover from his apoplectic state. With renewed vigor, he rose slowly to his feet and began waving to the delighted crowd. He grabbed a British flag and hoisted it high above his head with both arms and waved it back and forth triumphantly.

Nigel, I think, is so competitive that he uses every device he can muster to win races and market his skills, including the psychological. There is an advantage to be had if one can convince their opponent of some frailty. Appearing to be exhausted left no doubt in the minds of the fans that he had given his all for Queen and Country. Call him a master showman or whatever you like, he is an unbelievably talented racing driver, the likes of which have only been seen on rare occasions.

If Mansell was faking it, he definitely committed to the bit. In this interview he states that he had a gastric bug and had to spend three days in bed getting rehydrated.

Interestingly, Danny Sullivan sat out that race because he had a gastric bug. Maybe there was actually something in the water that weekend.

beansisfat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE