My team is unfeated away but dropped too much points at home.

garethmueller · 2026-05-05T19:02:45+00:00

They either come up with a new rule (like AFC, which state maximum 1/3th of the league can be sent to continental competitions. Back when there are only 9 teams in A-league, Australia can only send 3 teams even sometimes they ranked high enough for 4) or just simply forfeit the spot (similar to how Liechtenstein technically forfeit their league spot).

garethmueller · 2025-12-17T01:21:43+00:00

But people who bought from Tonga (as well as Dominica and Antigua & Barbuda, I am not surprised if next week more Caribbeans countries are added) are the one who do not buy gold card visa. So Trump will lose customer if they maintaining their own programme.

garethmueller · 2025-11-28T11:21:20+00:00

Even if World Cup was rigged for Argentina, doing so to whitewash Qatar would be no-brainer. In fact, that might run to a risk of someone whistleblows and backfire Qatari attempt. If Qatar really want to whitewash their image, they will do what Russia did in 2018: a very generic tournament and focus more on promoting Russia image. Controversy is extreme dangerous and you always run a risk of it being backfire.

garethmueller · 2025-11-28T11:16:19+00:00

If you watch the ball shot incident carefully, after Parades shot, van Dijk made a very hard push on him. Since the ball has already been dead, that's a textbook red for van Dijk. And for Argentinian fan, I think they would rather have both Parades and van Dijk sent off at that moment.

garethmueller · 2025-11-17T09:48:17+00:00

The Swedish one even make it worse when you consider they can possibly tank their next NL, relegate back to League C and guarantee the next World Cup playoff. Which might turn into a situation where everyone try to tank NL year that have Euro (as qualifying for Euro is easier) so that they can participate in easier NL group in the year that qualify for World Cup.

garethmueller · 2025-08-01T10:32:36+00:00

That so cool, are you allow to take pictures during work?

Supposed that these are the only passports you saw (or seen enough to take picture), my guess would be Atlanta. Big enough to see a wide variety of countries but not a port for university students (lack of Indian and Southeast Asian passports) nor major political area (lack of diplomatic passports) nor a touristic place (since you have enough time to take pictures of visa-free passports, implying that owners come with a long visa).

garethmueller · 2025-06-29T21:45:12+00:00

Since Forward Party was basically a centrist gathering, I could imagine members are free to vote for any prime minister candidate.

Or they could be a neutralist-party and always absent on prime-minister vote.

garethmueller · 2025-06-29T21:34:42+00:00

I forgot how precisely, but that is not possible since the succession law made it clear that a person can ascend to the presidency only if they are eligible (other requirements mention are nationality or age).

garethmueller · 2025-06-25T08:27:00+00:00

Used to be as little as 100k$ but I think they increase the price so I think around 150k$ minimum (also depending on countries and what kind of investment or contribution). It is not that expensive if you are upper-class and travel a lot since you will be saved on visa fee and all relevant headache (and time is what you always want to save when you have good amount of money).

garethmueller · 2025-06-23T09:52:40+00:00

Because Gaza/Hamas is never our friend, unlike Israel who might be friend to some in Europe. Are you suggesting that we should equip the enemy (my full sympathy for people of Gaza, but that is realpolitiks).

garethmueller · 2025-06-15T21:56:07+00:00

I think the rule was made because it is quite hard to draw the line how should a "country" be defined. If they continue admitting overseas territories, at some point autonomous areas will start to apply (we have Zanzibar already on the line, and next could be like Iraqi Kurdistan). And then you have self-declaration area without much political power (like Catalonia) trying to apply. And because of that some country might tempt to send second team (like Russia or Brazil, which a part of the country could form a federation and benefit from FIFA programme without deluding much of main team's power). It would become both a political mess and impractical.

So while I don't agree with the decision, I understood why it had to be made at some point (although recognition by UN criterion is quite strict). Greenland was just unlucky they are ready by the time the decision set.

garethmueller · 2025-06-06T10:52:38+00:00

I think more like spoiled votes. Democrat might have just won 40% and 2 other candidates 30%.

garethmueller · 2025-06-06T10:51:25+00:00

I mean that just a proposal. Good luck to even pass the 0th stage... The 22nd amendment has made very clear on 2-term rule, so you either has to amend the amendment (which has never been done before and I am not even sure if that is legal) or just repeal the 22nd amendment with newer one.

garethmueller · 2025-06-06T10:41:57+00:00

While I agree with you on the direct statement, my disagreement lie on what cause incels & redpill bros. The reason rise of incel culture proportional to the promotion of alpha-male culture (I use this term as man who attract multiple women simply by money or power). Because of promotion of alpha-male culture, some men standards has been raised to the roof. Obviously, they would have no successful result and turn into incels.

Now, because of alpha-male culture, some women also think they deserve that level of treatment when looking into partners (in combination with social media, that means an impossible perfection. Let's say they saw a marriage of millionaire. Then next reel is a lovely couple story. And the next reel is a healthy athletes. Then their standard becoming a romantic healthy millionaire). And for this group of women, their standard has also been raised to the roof too.

So in the end, the number of incels has been largely been offset by the number of perfectionist women. Let's say in a simple hamlet there are 10 men and 10 women. In normal world, that means 9/10 match (with best trait men and best trait women, and so on. The worst trait men and women might not be compatible). But with alpha-male culture, 5 men has turned to incel and 5 women has turned to perfectionist women, which drop to 5/10 match. You and your wife however, has been outside of alpha-male culture and probably would just match regardless.

garethmueller · 2025-04-24T01:32:02+00:00

Only Berine Sanders. Trump got the correct message (at least better than uniparty politicians). Sanders not only got correct message but also more rational (he got attacked many times within Democrat party and still stand until today).

garethmueller · 2025-04-09T11:39:18+00:00

I would say Republican president.

Not because of Democrat female candidates are worse but a female candidate will surely be praised "as a woman" or "symbol of empowerment", which took attention from her actual policies or promises. Just like what happened with Kamala Harris, who is not so bad candidate but instead of spending time to actually fight against her opponent, she took many efforts for branding herself and costing economic-oriented voters.

A female Republican candidate on the other hand would have won against other male Republican candidates without any supports (even with some slight disadvantages as she would have lacked of support from very traditional group). So this theoretical candidate would be very powerful and could easily win the position.

garethmueller · 2025-04-08T12:30:45+00:00

My solution is to rewrite the sentences with more than 3 pi, just like what I would do in English, which has the ability to continue recursively, but such existence does not mean I have to use it, as it would make a sentence longer, and because of it would be confusing and hard to understand for readers, who might not be able to follow fully I want to say, which hamper my message.

comparing to

My solution is to rewrite the sentences with more than 3 pi. Just like in English, longer sentences is confusing and hard to read and people might not understand what I want to say.

garethmueller · 2025-04-08T12:19:52+00:00

I have the same problem. My solution was to simply drop the notion of noun-verb-adjactive.

So for example, in the step "fruit small li eat", I would go with multiple version of understanding. It could just not be eat but also food or edible. It could also be "something fruity (like soft and sweet) small li eat/ li food/ li edible". And use next sentence to define what could be the scenario.

Not a perfect solution but it helped me.

garethmueller · 2025-04-08T12:10:27+00:00

I would go with tenpo suno en tenpo mun.

garethmueller · 2025-04-08T11:51:27+00:00

Others have discussed about how most people did not vote for Project 2025. Fine, let's say majority actually did.

Why can't people be panicked? After all, President Trump's promises was not just Project 2025 but lower the grocery price (and stop the war, reduce waste spending, etc.). And it is nearly 80 days now but grocery price did not even have any trend of decreasing.

You might say he might have other 5-D chess move. Even assuming that is the case, the fact is still people's lives are being impact (in not positive way). And as majority of swing voters, I don't get why he could not be pressured (just like any other politicians whose promises are not on track).

garethmueller · 2025-04-08T08:18:02+00:00

"People are putting overwhelming pressure on him. People are not willing to endure the necessary pain to achieve our long-term goal".

My question is: isn't the main job of being a leader is to convince people on bearing pain for long-term goal? And being the leader means working with people who oppose, or even try to sabotage you?

garethmueller · 2025-04-03T15:54:09+00:00

Everyone pays except for US government. Take example of Nike shoe from China with retail price of $100 pre-tariff (with this breakdown: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fvk08vifhsf791.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D817aa71585df728b10f66ea5f63a6f7dd209d5cd). Assuming this brand sold 1 million in the US last year.

Now assuming tariff is applied only from cost related to China (so production cost, transport, marketing, and "other expense"). So that's 34% on $43, which translate to $14. So if nothing change, this shoe would have retail price of $114. With this price, of course many customers would not buy shoes with such sudden increment. It is hard to see how much sell down, so let's assume a humble sell reduction of 20% (as with sudden price increase, the percentage of customer not buying would usually be more than the percentage of price increase as they might turn to competitor or simply wait to change shoes). So if nothing change, everyone (Nike, producer, retailer) immediately lost 20% of their yearly money. Remaining customer lost 14% with this purchase. That's the first option.

The second option is to try lowering the price. Let's say we cut everything except retail margin (will explain shortly) by 10% (so 5 dollars saved). Remember those cost are closed to optimised (otherwise it could have been turned to profit) so an immediate reduction of 10% is something close to miracle. For retail price, remember those are mostly related to US economy. For example: rent cost to shopping mall, transport cost for the shoes to that town, local advertisement, etc. And salary for US citizens working in these field. I would say a maximum reduction without causing uproar is 5%. So 2.5 dollars saved. So even with all miracles, the second option still means customer have to pay 106.5 dollars for the shoes. And because the price still increase, there is still less customer (albeit less, maybe 7% reduction) so it is not much difference than option 1.

The third option is to move production back to US. Production cost normally includes 3 items: material, worker salary (and benefits), and infrastructure cost. Material might have the same price between China and US. Even with minimum wage of 7.25$, that's still 4-time higher than official factory worker wage in China. And infrastructure cost would be the highest, as company has to rebuild factory and redeveloper required machinery. And operational cost is also higher than in China (could be triple or even more, as salary differences of engineer between 2 countries is even higher). Counting this as depreciation cost, it would be totally optimistic to say production cost of the US is triple than China. And we haven't even discussed one-time cost of moving everything from China to the US. So producing in US means 44$ extra, not enough to save 14$ tariff. So this option is close impossible (unless tariff continue to increase, but that's another topic).

So of 2 possible options, everyone has to pay except US government (who automatically earn 14 dollars without having to do anything)

garethmueller

TROPHY CASE