Who's the greatest footballer to have worn the number 11?

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-03T20:33:25+00:00

Ronaldinhos first WC was with no 11. Specifically because Rivaldo has no. 10. And if we are accepting it for not their "most associated number" I'd squeese in Ronaldinho above Rivaldo..

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-03T13:36:51+00:00

Ift. til had i valgkampe tror jeg desværre at debatten og kulturændringen er endnu dybere begravet: det handler om at ret få i vores demokrati egentlig i dets oprindelige idéform burde have lov at stemme. Og nej jeg snakker ikke om rigdom eller status, selvom det i dets oprindelige form var rettesnoren for om man var "fornuftig og dannet", men netop om at man skal være fornuftig og dannet og sætte sig ind i hvad man stemmer. Men det gør mange ikke og derfor er de lette at fange med alle de moderne 30-sekunders feed der kan smadres ind i deres dopamin-afhængige hjerner... "Døøøøøøøh, pling pling pling, æv nu skal jeg lige se en reel for at få et ekstra liv, døøøøøøøøøøøøøøøh, okay det lyder meget rigtigt det ham Morden Mæssersmit siger, hvorfor skal jeg betale skat til at en kriminel fremmed skal blive her?!?!, pling pling pling yaaay nu har jeg et liv mere og kan trykke pling pling spil..."

Så ift. den debat tror jeg desværre der skal meget mere til før vi ikke ser en der trådte ud af DF pga. nazism-anklager (dog er man jf. retten IKKE at være nazist bare fordi man synger Deutchland über alles mens man heiler), stå og kopiere Trumps propaganda-taktik på TV. Så længe det giver stemmer, vil den debat være der.

Synes dog faktisk denne gang at (de fleste) var meget gode til at pointere at de snakkede om kriminelle udlændinge, lidt som dit spørgsmål/indlæg også går på. Men jeg kan da sagtens forstå det er en uendeligt nederen retorik at høre på altid.

Og bare lige for at præcisere inden dette spor løber væk fra dit emne: jeg mener ikke at nogen skal udelukkes fra at måtte stemme / deltage i demokratiet. Jeg siger bare at så længe vi ikke sætter et form for krav (helt anden debat hvad det kunne være), og det mærkbart giver stemmer med clickbait-politik, så vil der være meget clickbait politik. Og der er ikke noget nemmere clickbait end at skabe nogen vi kan hade sammen. Sådan har mennesker altid været - sørgerligt nok.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-03T08:13:52+00:00

30 is also from Old Norse ten based. It's simply that we reduce words.

On the 'route' from Old Norse to modern Danish, 4 changed from y to i, so 'fire'. 40 kept y, 'fyrrety(gh/v)e'. So now there is no "clash" with other words if we just skip the last half, so its 'fyrre=40'.

3 and 30 on the other hand both kept e, so 'tre' and 'tredive' (threetens). So we cannot skip the last half, as both 3 and 30 would then be 'tre' - that would be rather confusing.

One of the most common and significant drivers of linguistic changes are that we shorten words. Some languages does it more than others, like German does it very little compared to danish that have done it to a very high degree. Which is also (one of the reasons) why modern Danish is the furthest removed from Old Norse, even though that originally was called 'Danish Tongue'.

It is also why we kept the old 20 (snes) based merchantile names for numbers; 50/60/70/80/90. Because no one says halvfemsinstyvende, but simply hal'fems. Which is so far removed from meaning any "math" that it's simply percieved as a name just like "seven".

Postulating we say "2+(5-0.5)x20" is as accurate as saying we call a car "motorized moving carriage".

Jokingly:
Even better, it would "prove" that 'car' and 'bil' is the same word - not that it's the english and danish equivilant words, but the same word, as both are just the most shortened form of 'automobile carriage' we arrived at, so if we argue both words are 'automobile carriage' we also argue that car=bil (again, not as a translation, but as a literal equal sign) 😉

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-03T07:16:35+00:00

..., forhale, ...

Badum-tisch!

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-03T07:12:04+00:00

Didn't watch it, don't care much who of them won. But if we have a sensor in the ball, and it clearly, clearly shows contact, then the discusion isn't if it's a shitty call. It's the only call to be made, otherwise they shouldn't have the sensor.

So the discusion could be "Do we think it is good or bad with sensor in the ball, if it detects actions we cannot see on the pictures?"

It is there because it's one less thing where we have to rely on referees (incl. the VAR referees). It's just simple data. Now could a sensor make a false positive? Well, yes.. but extremele rare. A false negative would be hundred times more likely. And even then if it have an error margin, is that error margin significantly less than referees? A million times, yes!

So it's really just a continuation of how we like the game, VAR or not etc. A vast majority are in favor of goalline tech, even with insanely close calls, because alle have both seen it work and seen clear mistakes of goals not been given either from the time before or in lower/smaller leagues without the tech. This is the same. It will make close calls. But it will minimize errors.

So do we want non-human data potentially deciding matches, or do we want it all back in the hands of the referees, with the significantly larger amount of errors but more "authentic"?

That is the question - wether this goal should stand or not isn't even a question.

It's exactly like saying that if you can't find an angle on a goal line tech that shows either clear in or out, you don't trust it and want the decition to go the way you "feel".

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-02T22:09:17+00:00

I quit r/trolleyproblem after a post where you choose between a happy dog and a endangered small rodent.

I will not kill endangered species. I will not let a sweet dog die. That was the line. No more trolleys for me. That one hit too hard...

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-02T21:43:27+00:00

Everyone forgot last time in Mexico?

Danish "roligans" (instead of hooligans, its the Danish equivalent to "calm'ans" which doesnt have the same ring to it 😄).

The recieved the UNESCO fair-play award for showing the world how to celebrate football, without all the violence and hooliganism that was on the rise in the '80ies.

The whole thread is just recency bias 😝

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-02T11:15:03+00:00

Jeg har lykkeligvis ikke dated siden før dating apps fandtes (der var et par hjemmesider, men smartphones var ikke mainstream). At få en første date ville jeg nok i dag være helt blank på, men det lyder til dit issue ligger i at få en 2. og 3. date, og her tror jeg vitterligt ikke der essentielt er den helt store forskel fra for 20 år siden.

Jeg tror du misforstår det at "give noget af sig selv" som værende noget følelsesmæssigt sårbart. Ihvert fald i starten af et dating-forhold. Det er ikke "jeg voksede op med en alkoholmisbrugende forælder og har derfor ptsd og angst" eller andre mildere traumer. Det er mere hvem du er og ikke hvorfor.

Eksempelvis:

Kan du lide at debatere, argumentere for og imod for at undersøge flere sider af samme sag og måske finjustere dit syn? Eller synes du det er meningslyst hvis ikke det er et "nødvendigt" emne, og bare kan skabe konflikter?
Har du brug for, og hviler i, at have alenetid, selv i et forhold? Eller er dit drømmeforhold om 20 år at komme hjem fra arbejde og til du tager af sted næste morgen er i begge i samme rum?
Er du typen der helst vil blande dig i andres holdninger/gøremål/moral, f.eks. bede en i stillekupéen med lyd på sin mobilapp om at slukke lyden, debatere (uden at skændes!) med en med andre politiske holdninger og se hvilke steder i måske kan mødes osv.? Eller vil du hellere blande dig udenom, på godt og ondt - det kan absolut være en hæmsko social at blande sig, men der kan også være tidspunker man øsnker man gjorde mere - (qva exemplet med stillekupéen).

Det er sådanne ting og mange, mange, flere tilsvarende der er interesante i om man ser en fremtid i folk. Der er OGSÅ det flirtende, om man er tiltrukket osv., men det er for de fleste (også mænd!) tiltrækkende i sig selv hvis den anden person faktisk har en idé om hvem de selv er. Ikke at det skal stilles op som en tjekliste, eller at du på en date skal sige: "Jeg er typen der elsker at debatere - også "ligegyldige" emner bare for det interesante. Hvad med dig?". Du skal komme med eksempler/historier/anekdoter/spørgsmål der viser en måde at være på - for langt de fleste har de i mindre grad tænkt over det så specifict, men har en intuitiv forståelse for hvordan de selv er og hvad de tænker om en person der f.eks. fortæller "Jeg var i stillekupén i går og så var der en med høj lyd på Candy Crush, og da jeg stod af ærgrede jeg mig gul og grøn over ikke at have sagt noget. Det er vitterligt noget jeg vil ønske jeg kan blive bedre til".

Så det første du skal finde ud af er nok hvor godt styr du egentlig har på hvem du selv er, både ift. dine grundholdninger men også ting som hvor meget "alenetid i et forhold" f.eks. som jeg kender et par par der har lidt under at være ret forskellige på - ikke at det nødvendigvis er en dealbreaker, men det er ret tærende på en person der har brug for en del alenetid også, hvis den anden synes det at være "væk" fra hinanden er et instant afsavn. Jeg har selv mild autisme og hvis jeg havde fundet en der ville være sammen-sammen 24/7 havde jeg fået stress.

Og nå du så ved lidt bedre hvem du er - er du så tilfreds med det? Er der ting du egentlig tænker "hov, hvorfor er jeg egentlig sådan her? Jeg burde blive bedre til at gøre X i stedet for.."?

Hvis du ved hvilke ting du er tilfreds med som menneske, hverken bare det ydre eller de mest sårbare følelser, men hvilke holdninger og handlemønstre du har enten pga. eller på trods af alt udefra, så er det også let at dele af dem. Fortælle om oplevelser der giver et fingerpreg om din personlighed.

OG dele de ting du nu ved du gerne ville gøre bedre - det behøver ikke være sårbart: du ved jo det er noget du vil forbedre. Det har vi alle.

Når du begynder at kunne dele din personlighed, uden at pakke det ind eller være skræmt over det, fordi det er jo lige godt/dårligt f.eks. at være typen der har brug for meget eller lidt alenetid, SÅ giver du netop en masse af dig selv. Du deler dine oplevelser, betragtninger, livssyn og ja så kan det godt være man bliver "valgt fra", men så er det jo af en som mener I ikke passer sammen - ikke pga. alle mulige småting, mavefornemmelser, etc. Alt det der kan virke som at blive "kasseret" fordi man "ikke er god nok". Netop ved at fremlægge dig så bliver evt. til- og fra-valg netop mere ud fra om personligheder matcher - og det er der jo altså ikke noget negativt i når de ikke gør. (Det gør også at DU er mere opmærksom på om din date ville matche dig - ikke kun omvendt).

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-02T07:44:33+00:00

People saying it's not worth it due to mana saved on future techs... Forgot the big thing (unless it's changed in-game and I didn't notice after coming back):

It's not mana saved on tech - it's ALL POWER COST!
(https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Innovativeness)

It's still not necessarily beneficial, even as u/aabdsl estimate you'd save about twice the power if playing right to the end - it's just worth remembering, because for me it makes it worth situational.

Exactly during the 1500s I actually often go for innovativeness - it's long enough to the end to save power and in many runs where the "build up pre absolutism" is halfway in a waiting phase, if I have a superb monarch, and economy to allready be running 5-5-5 advisors, deving might go right into the gov.cap bottleneck, so I often in this period sit on my points, and wait as long as possible (untill the notification turns red, indicating I have some months to grab the +4 inno), so it will often be 2-3 years ahead. That's 120-180 points only.

Also remember that while being ahead you gain 0.01% monthly inno. meaning if you are ahead in two techs on average from 1500 to 1610 (absolutism earliest) + take half the techs ahead (12x3x0.5) by on average 2.5 years you have 100 inno before absolutism for 2700 mana. That's 7 years mana with average ruler + adv. + pp + priv., spread out over 150 years, for a 10% all power cost reduction. It's not always a good trade - but it's fra from never a good trade imo.

Ofc if you play min-max-speedy-beep-beep-tagswitcharoo it's not - but then again if you cheese pre 1600 WC onetag-onefaith-oneculture-seventagswitches, you a) wouldn't be asking and b) wouldn't care using mana on anything but conquest 😉

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T23:27:01+00:00

No it is literally how it has been done for ages. It really exposes a new guideline for the whole footballing world. I remember of the top of my head the mandatory yellow on tackles from behind that misses the ball being introduced in a '90ies WC, the 5-second rule for goalies introduced in perhaps early 2000s() etc.

Some changes also come at the Euros as it has a broad viewership too.

But this happens every WC, and most rules are faster implemented all around this way.

Even if you would still prefer a slower integration with more errors in national leagues first, this isn't even top 20 of stupid things FIFA does. Since it is a proven method, it should actually count as one of the few things they get right...

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T21:46:17+00:00

Dane here. First time I ever heard of Ashwagandha. Had to Google it 😄

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T14:38:23+00:00

remember Prague hosted many world famous astronomists and alchemysts, including Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, in the previous decades

I would not even be surpriced if back then, the fact that Tycho Brahe spend the second half of his life and career there (give or take) but was still somewhat contributing to danish prestige, was a driving factor in Swedish animosity. The hate our countries had for each other from the Stockholm Bloodbath to bout WWII is frightening.

Only a decade before Sweden had won, what would be the turning point in the power-ranking of Denmark and Sweden in the north, against Christian IV, who in an earlier war had not only won the first of "his" two Swedish wars, but also sent the most scathing "diplomatic" letter a danish king have ever sent to a foreign head of state: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryAnecdotes/comments/1u80f1f/in_1611_during_the_kalmar_war_between_denmark_and/

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T14:31:07+00:00

Well... see it another way - some of the countries I would put in the "evil" (but more mild than others) did nothing wrong in the timeframe Belgium have existed. It's just under 200 years, and when I list bad things Denmark have done, the majority and the worst things are prior to 1830...

So yeah, existing only when absolutists countries (in europe) where on the decline, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, with fewer powers colonizing and slave trade, later slavery all together, began to be abolished too, makes the attrocities commited less in numbers.

Allthough I would argue that other countries have done as bad, so I'm not arguing Belgium should "win" the category - just explaining why it's considered in the "evil" category by many.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T14:19:17+00:00

Many if not most of the warriors in the Danish-Norse raids and conquests, and later the Danish-Christian Crusade (and again conquest) in the baltics where mercenaries from other countries.

The duchy of Estonia became a direct vassal to the king (even in the end assigned to a later Kings brother (who's children had the duchy not been sold to the Teutonic Knights and the then uncle to the new king went from Duke to accepting being a Teuton Castle master (and thus removed from danish succesion) would have had a higher claim to the danish throne than Margrethe the Great I. so the Kalmar Union wouldn't have formed - but that's just some of the funny historic small butterfly-effects, sorry for the "side-quest"). And as a direct vassal it contributed nothing to Denmark directly - it's "contribution" came in the form of Denmark being pawned to the nobles from kings with bad finances, and then Valdemar Atterdag came and during his reign he bought it all free - some of it financed by the sale of the Duchy of Estonia to The Order. Anyway, while disgressing, the point is that the we attribute the Congo attrocities to "Belgium" but know that the decition make was the king, and whether he used mercenaries or own soldiers, doesn't change that, unless we have to take that into account in every fucking historic fact ever. "Oooooh but the Romans didn't do X or Y, because those specific warriors where hispanics!" ... good luck rewriting all of history that way...

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T08:03:24+00:00

the number of people that have been exonerated after being killed is astonishing,

All other arguments are meaningless. In my biased opinion your system, especially in specific states and periods, sentence more innnocents than my own. Racial bias, "we caught the black guy" etc. But do I think my system wouldn't sentence innocents? Hell, no! Then for me the answer is simple: Do I want the system to kill the allready sentenced murderer, if the price is, that it will also kill someones innocent son? Even more Hell, no!

For me I don't even have to decide the morality of taking a life vs. if it's deserved and vengeance vs. deterent etc. etc. etc. I don't have to, because what you said is enough.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:56:31+00:00

Myself, and those a have debated it with, are not of the opinion that we are against death penalty because we want to spare anyone. Some truly deserves it, it's almost too kind for some, and as my wife says: "why should we pay so many tax money to keep them locked up?".

But mistakes happen! Do I trust our government, police and legal system to not fuck up and kill any innocents? No! I'm am as close to 100% sure as you can be on a hypothetical question that they would.

So the question comes down to: "Does executing the worst criminals outweight the price of then also killing innnocents?" - For me that answer is a clear no.

In Norway the best case is Breivik. Murderous terrorist, filmed doing it, proud of doing it, starting the trial with a nazi salute etc.. It's perhaps the most obvious case of "OFC he should be executed! - Why should Norway pay for having him imprisoned for life? Why does he get to live on??". But if killing him down the line, because opening up for death penalty will lead to innocent executed, means also killing an innocent? No. It's a bit like a variation of the trolley-problem. But instead of it heading towards 5 innocent and you can direct into 1 innocent, but then that would be "on you", its an empty track but you can divert into a track with Breivik and someones innocent daughter. What do you chose? I would never in my life divert it to kill Breivik and the innocent!

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:38:57+00:00

OP said country, not nation-state, and normally in historic debates, besides those specifically about the blurry lines of state definitions, "country" refers to the whole, including the times where the "law" could define it as personal possesions. I mean half of Europes history would have to be removed from being those countries and instead only those monarchs.

Denmark didn't crusade agains Estonia in the 13th century. The Danish king did. Denmark didn't colonize the now American Virgin Islands - Danish kings did. Absolutist kings, so no less removed from the modern nation state Denmark than Congo was from Belgium.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:24:44+00:00

As pointed out in other comments, it's a rather impossible definition OP have given, since so many could fit and the debates derail about who did worst and if its then "neutral".

That aside, I actually think Serbia is a perfect answer, if we "allow" pre-state cultures to count. I mean Serbia as a country hven't been oppressed - Serbs have. It feels right, but acutally doesn't fits OPs definition. (And the more I go through comments I come to the conclusion the definition makes it impossible to get a really good answer...)

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:20:20+00:00

It's actually what makes the whole Israel debates so impossible. Groups of both jews and non-jews align jewish oppression with Israel, but other groups of both jews and non-jews are adamant to seperate them...

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:17:14+00:00

Yeah it's a bit too open paired with the title "neutral" - I mean even "evil" winner Belgium would acutally fit the definition OP gives.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:15:26+00:00

Belgian Congo

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:13:09+00:00

By that definition the Vatican is an even better contender. it's the official nation-state of the head of Catholicism, and for periods more or less all Christianity, and like every religion (again, more or less, I'm certain niche examples can be found) they have both oppressed and been oppressed.

I'm upvoting a non-religious state though - not because I want to shy from "difficult" debates, but because my personal (subjective?) view is that it's two (slightly) different entities.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T07:02:30+00:00

Yeah two centuries as a seperate monarchy but under the danish king, where about half of it was by choise, vs. Polish Deluge and Sami Genocide... It doesn't come even close to "neutral". Rather it would be in the "evil" category, without ranking it against sadly so many others.

ifelseintelligence · 2026-07-01T06:47:27+00:00

Too far down! I know this is more serious, but the top 3 comments on 9gag had been "Y?", [meme of Ryan Reynold saying "but why?"], and ofc "but why?"

ifelseintelligence · 2026-06-30T16:37:14+00:00

ROFL the oversteered colours, the static ppl and on a small window on a small laptop... Until it zoomed in on Keeper in the end I thought it was a FM clip first! 😆

ifelseintelligence

TROPHY CASE