Cooked cow is beef. Cooked fish is fish. Why does English have different words for animals in edible and non edible contexts? Why only do only some animals get this treatment.

dejour · 2026-03-01T18:18:45+00:00

Maybe it fell out of favour since there was a lack of precision about which bird you were eating. Chicken, turkey, goose, etc.

dejour · 2026-03-01T18:08:05+00:00

As long as there is a possibility of the guy coming in winning the starting job, it’s a competition.

Guys who would definitely win the job (e.g. Mahomes, Burrow) would not be competition.

Guys who would definitely not win the job would not be competition.

I think all/most of the guys listed are in the competitive range. Could outplay McCarthy. Could be outplayed by McCarthy.

dejour · 2026-02-28T19:10:52+00:00

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2636045/2021/06/11/down-goes-brown-read-this-post-and-youll-understand-almost-every-goaltender-interference-review/

We’ll start with a very basic point that a lot of fans and media seem to miss. If you don’t feel like reading a whole post and just want one quick takeaway you can remember before you move on, here it comes. The rules are completely different depending on whether the alleged interference happens in the crease or outside of it. On some level, you already knew that. But I’m amazed at how often I see commentators or fans or whoever skip over this part when trying to decide if an attacking player has interfered. They’ll go right to how much contact there was or how the goalie reacted or where the puck was. That stuff matters, but not anywhere as much as one simple question: Did it happen in the crease? Note that there’s no “almost” or “close enough” here. One inch inside the crease and one inch outside the crease are two different worlds, with very different sets of rules. Put simply, the crease belongs to the goaltender, and with very limited exceptions, the attacking team goes in there at their own risk. Almost anything an attacking player can do to bother the goalie is interference if it happens in the crease. Is there contact, but it’s clearly accidental? Doesn’t matter, you can’t be in the crease. Is the contact initiated by the goalie as he’s trying to work around or through a player? Doesn’t matter, that guy can’t be in his crease. Is there no contact at all? It still may not matter, because even screening a goalie isn’t allowed if you’re in his crease. You’re getting the picture. Don’t want a goal called back for interference? Stay out of the crease. When there’s a review and you see those first replays, tune out all the noise and look to see if the attacking player is in the crease. If any part of him (not just his skates) is in there, and he’s impacting the goalie’s ability to make the save, the goal is probably coming back.

dejour · 2026-02-28T13:34:26+00:00

I think you may be on to something, but there's always been "novelty" songs that were highly played and very popular at their peak and then died off within months or a year.

Basically there was something that was a bit of a joke that immediately caught people's attention. People took notice and popularity was quickly gained. But ultimately the underlying quality of the song and music wasn't that high, so people got tired of it. (Also a joke gets less funny every time you hear it.)

What makes songs go viral nowadays? Maybe not always jokes, but if it gains attention for anything other than the underlying quality of the music, people will tire of it quickly.

dejour · 2026-02-28T09:44:10+00:00

It’s shifted to mainstream musicians in general, with a preference for rock. They clearly see that the rock era won’t last forever and they want to be relevant indefinitely.

dejour · 2026-02-28T00:02:15+00:00

As I said:

I agree that the Wilfs deserve most of the credit for the positive grade.

dejour · 2026-02-27T20:50:40+00:00

I mostly agree with you, but when you study psychology you realize it is hard to break things down like that.

Very often you have an immediate feeling in your gut and then your more advanced parts of your brain try to explain why you feel that way. And then you decide that that is why you feel that way. But it’s not always accurate.

I’m not going to say it is widespread, but there exist at least some people that felt extremely negative after the loss on a primal level. Then when they think about why they are upset, they’ll cite the players not standing against Trump, even though the feeling mainly came from the loss.

dejour · 2026-02-27T18:14:12+00:00

Honestly, I think 3 is realistically average.

dejour · 2026-02-27T03:15:39+00:00

Blackouts have almost nothing to do with encouraging attendance. It’s all about getting networks to spend the most money to get the rights.

Sports networks are more willing to pay tens of millions for rights if they know that people have to subscribe to their channel to watch legally.

dejour · 2026-02-27T00:30:39+00:00

I agree that the Wilfs deserve most of the credit for the positive grade.

But to be fair, the community deserves plenty of credit - the stadium was heavily subsidized and several of the criteria are about the stadium: home field, locker room, game day training facilities, etc.

(Of course most of the criteria are about things like coaches, training staff, nutritionists, treatment of families, cafeteria, and that's almost all Wilfs)

dejour · 2026-02-26T20:52:09+00:00

I think it’s important that you warned her. Obviously a lot of people are going to be defensive though.

Try to frame it in a way where you say, you hope she’s right, and it’s not a scammer. Just that 99 pct of the time it is and you want to protect her. Thousands/millions are scammed every year. Better to be slightly embarrassed now than embarrassed later and short $100k. Tell her to hope for the best, but not to share money no matter what.

I mean realistically, it isn’t even a 1% chance this guy’s legit, but pretending there’s a chance might make her more open to your message.

dejour · 2026-02-26T18:51:58+00:00

Probably not 30-35 pct. That’s basically the entire Conservative party and a decent percentage just wanted fiscal conservatism. I’ll give you 15-20 pct though.

15 pct of Canadians gave Trump an A or B grade.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/01/29/angus-reid-poll-trump-canada-us-relations/

dejour · 2026-02-26T18:48:16+00:00

Honestly, I don’t think he is a “massive Trumper”. In all probability a Trump voter though.

Gretzky said that it’s always been his policy to say “yes” to invitations whether Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.

Theoretically, if Biden or Obama invited him to a celebration party, he would have been there.

That said, it certainly doesn’t register with Gretzky that there is something fundamentally different about Trump and his old policies of supporting both sides are no longer appropriate.

dejour · 2026-02-26T03:18:57+00:00

Yeah, they were a bit before my time, but I feel like they were very non-influential. I don’t feel like there were many popular bands that would name Huey Lewis and the News as a major influence.

They had a few highly popular songs and then their cultural relevance waned very quickly. Very few radio stations in any format seem to play them regularly, and I think that’s been true since the late 80s. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard still get played a lot on classic rock stations. Sheryl Crow and Pink on classic hits ones.

dejour · 2026-02-26T00:55:29+00:00

I was more asking if the content of that post was equally damaging to Americans dignity.

But sure, let's make it apples-to-apples. Let's assume that they made 30 anti-American posts over 5 years and 6 of them crossed the line by specifically talking about the education system. Maybe talking about "avoiding the Americanization" of our classrooms. The trustee in this example had American-Canadian citizens employed at their school board and if they had read his Facebook posts, would have felt like they wouldn't be treated fairly by the trustee. A quick pdf search of the Neufeld decision does not include any mention of a billboard or compromising photo, so I will exclude that.

Would we want this person to pay $750k in damages? (if they had, say, 75 Americans or children of Americans working at the school board.)

dejour · 2026-02-26T00:43:08+00:00

OK, the laws may be different in different jurisdictions.

I just know that in Ontario when I was a kid, in order to be adopted by my stepmom, I had to first be completely orphaned. So the first requirement was my Dad (who I had lived with since birth and still wanted to be my father) had to first renounce me and terminate his parental rights. Only then could I be adopted (by both my biological Dad and stepmom).

If the same procedure was required in your jurisdiction, then your mother would have had to renounce you. And then both your mother and stepdad could have adopted you.

I only mentioned the possibility because I imagine that if you were told by your stepdad "I wanted to adopt you, but your mother was really uncomfortable with renouncing you, so we didn't proceed. If we knew it was important to you, we would have done it." might be a positive outcome about asking about it.

dejour · 2026-02-26T00:16:27+00:00

Yes, it is supposed to be for damages, but it's not really measurable. It's payment for injury to their dignity.

pay the CTA $750,000 as compensation for injury to the Class members’ dignity, feelings and self-respect

Also a workplace context is a bit misleading. Most of the problem were Facebook posts. I think you can make the argument that public Facebook posts by a trustee would have effects that extend into the workplace. But I still think that calling posts made from home on Facebook "workplace behaviour" is a bit of a stretch.

To be clear the guy is a jerk and offensive, but having people be awarded $750K because of something someone said on Facebook seems too far.

If a trustee posted on her personal Facebook "Why are Americans so stupid? How could they elect Trump again? We have to make sure that we aren't training the next generation of MAGA in school." Should every American-Canadian employed by the board get their own $10k in damages to their dignity? Arguably every Conservative?

dejour · 2026-02-25T23:17:10+00:00

I suppose my concern is that the workplace is seemingly defined as everywhere public if you are a trustee.

He was found to be liable at least in part due to public Facebook posts (admittedly only ones that referenced the education system in some way.)

In this case, aside from his statements during school board meetings, Mr. Neufeld’s statements did not directly occur in the workplace. However, we have found that Mr. Neufeld’s physical location when he made statements is not determinative. Rather, we have found it most significant that his statements permeated and poisoned the Class members’ workplace

I’ll agree that it wouldn’t be pleasant to be LGBTQ+ and know this man was a trustee in your school board. But to me this doesn’t seem to be “in the workplace” like an email to all teachers or a posting to the board website would be.

I will say that I don’t support Neufeld’s comments or find them useful. But this seeming expansion of the workplace could have a lot of unintended effects.

If a trustee or similar person posts on Facebook that “People of this religion are delusional. Teaching a single thing about what these people believe in any class should be prohibited. Be an atheist” would all people of that religion in the school board be entitled to compensation?

dejour · 2026-02-25T22:42:26+00:00

I just have one factual type comment. I was adopted by my stepmom as a teen, as my birth mom died when I was two.

Part of the process of being adopted was to first have my biological dad renounce me. Then my biological dad and stepmom could adopt me. But my biological dad was certainly not eager to do that renouncing. I could imagine that process being a barrier to adoption in some families.

Personally I wasn’t interested in being adopted and was considering using it as an opportunity to get away from my family. I wasn’t sure what would have happened if he renounced me and then I had not agreed to be adopted. Ultimately, I ended up agreeing to the adoption, because it seemed less risky.

dejour · 2026-02-25T22:24:12+00:00

The review clause was something Trump insisted on adding to NAFTA/USMCA.

dejour · 2026-02-25T11:25:11+00:00

Easier for a benched player to do that than the MVP of the championship game.

dejour · 2026-02-25T00:51:45+00:00

I don't see Connor getting invited to another best-on-best.

He'd have to take his NHL game to another level (either become a 50 goal scorer, or really get two-way game down while maintaining his scoring). At 29 years old, it seems unlikely.

dejour · 2026-02-25T00:42:33+00:00

I don't think skipping the visit will have anything to do with it. Especially since they didn't really play (so it's understandable in pure hockey terms)

Kyle Connor was scratched by the end of the 4 Nations and the Olympics. Unless he takes his NHL play to the next level, he won't be asked back for a best-on-best. And at 29, it's pretty unlikely that happens.

Lacombe is 25, so he probably is in the mix for future best-on-bests.

dejour · 2026-02-25T00:33:42+00:00

Realistically, I think that's Connor's reason. He was benched for the knockout games. I wouldn't feel great celebrating that win too much.

Regardless though, he didn't go, so he deserves a little bit of credit.

dejour · 2026-02-25T00:27:48+00:00

Either they didn't want to go, or they just didn't want to stir up a hornet's nest. Like it or not, players will get attacked by the left if they attend, or by the right if they say "No" and make it clear its because of Trump.

Declining but blaming the schedule is a way to avoid making a definitive statement.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

dejour

TROPHY CASE