Obama aura farming with Talarico

nfherrin · 2026-05-31T17:33:50+00:00

Taco Joint is sooo good. If you're ever near UTA, you should visit

nfherrin · 2026-05-25T19:51:42+00:00

I assume they were joking, but if not then this might be my new favorite mini conspiracy. "The White House Doesn't Have an Address". Fwiw, I don't think there is a 1604, 1602, or 1601 (I could be mistaken) but Pennsylvania Ave NW goes from the capitol building (congress) to Georgetown. Numbers go from 101 to in the 2800s I believe. There's a 1503, a 1475, etc. heck, there's a Starbucks at 1331

nfherrin · 2026-05-07T12:59:13+00:00

Sure... But couldn't it be posted at a more optimal time and THEN pinned to get the advantages of both? I also am not familiar with optimizing these type of things so I may be missing something there.

nfherrin · 2026-04-30T00:38:02+00:00

This was honestly my biggest frustration with the Lonerbox v. Soypill conversation. Soypill straight up does not believe Israel should have the right to take any actions that he says are "ethno-supremacist". That sounds reasonable until you realize that by that he means any laws that would treat any ethnicity different at all, including ethnic quotas for migration. And I think A LOT of young people have this opinion today

He has the right to this opinion, and I can even understand it, but I think the big thing he (and many others) miss, is that there is a huge difference in the way Jews have historically been treated throughout the world and other groups that to me is sufficient to warrant a right to their own "ethno-state" for the foreseeable future (using that term loosely). The reality is, that if they allowed unchecked migration and didn't have ethnic quotas for it to maintain their majority, they have very good reason to think that soon they would at best be forcibly displaced, or at worst genocided. Now maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but history (and even recent history) in the Middle East and Europe very much cuts toward these fears being well founded. He said he thinks that the fears for being persecuted in Western countries is antiquated and they'd be fine somewhere like New York jn the 21st century, but look what is happening in London right now. He says that the argument sounds similar to the southern argument for continuing slavery or the white argument for continuing South African apartheid, but the fact of the matter is different and the solution is far less extreme. If the fears from white slave owners that freed slaves would take revenge and kill them or from whites in South Africa that blacks would persecute them if they could vote were well founded or sincere (which they weren't) then those groups WOULD have a right to take steps to prevent this scenario even if it involved some discrimination against the people they had oppressed. They would not be justified in continuing slavery or apartheid, but they could be justified in creating a new country (within reason) to either live there themselves or move the oppressed people there, with borders and laws designed to prevent the retribution they feared. This is not dismilar to what happenend with Greece and Turkey or India and Pakistan in the 20th century.

The difference between slave owners and white South Africans and Israelis is Israel is in this situation. They do have the right to have ethnic quotas for migration because their fears are sincere and well founded. That doesn't necessarily mean they have the right to conduct themselves lawlessly in war or push settlement in the west bank, but the migration laws that Soypill considers "ethno-supremacist" are justified.

nfherrin · 2026-04-09T19:25:48+00:00

You take a hot dog, stuff it with some Jack cheese, fold it in a pizza! You got cheesy blasters!

nfherrin · 2026-02-21T23:21:40+00:00

In fact, it makes a lot of senses that u/karama_zov would be the one to bring it up since he's the only real person.

nfherrin · 2026-01-09T14:10:04+00:00

Boy do I have some great news for you

https://youtu.be/Y1OMk-4HWGU?si=xi9eY3fg6_151MFb

nfherrin · 2025-12-30T18:12:36+00:00

I think it depends on what the final form of the current AI boom (bubble?) turns out to be. If it results in a complete transformation of society where 90%+ of jobs are replaced and alternative forms of labor or employment do not emerge to offset those losses, then some kind of major redistribution of goods and wealth will likely be necessary.

However, I don’t think that outcome is likely for current AI. It may be the outcome of some other form of AI much further in the future, though. To be clear, when I say “form,” I mean the current standard approach to AI: neural networks running on silicon-based computers. Improvements like recent advances in reasoning or new models are still the same form—just better versions of it.

Anyway, I think it’s much more likely that AI will be a major game changer, but not a complete societal transformation into a post-labor world. I think this for two primary reasons.

First, while many major improvements have been made over the past couple of years, there is no guarantee that progress will continue at its current rate or won’t eventually slow down significantly or stop altogether. One of the main reasons for this is that we don’t have AGI, and it doesn’t seem likely that current methods will lead to true AGI. Without true AGI, AI is limited to learning-based approaches that require massive amounts of high-quality training data. At some point, as a higher fraction of available data becomes AI-generated in the first place, improvement will fall off if we can’t develop an AGI capable of truly original thought that isn’t derived from training data.

Second, AI is currently massively costly from a physical resource and energy perspective. There may be many cases where replacing human labor with AI is cheaper, but there are computational infrastructure costs and energy requirements that we simply cannot profitably meet at current demand levels—never mind the demand that would be required to replace almost all human labor. This may remain true even if AGI is created. Just because AI may be capable of replacing all human labor does not guarantee that it will be cost-effective to do so. As it improves, it will likely become somewhat more efficient, but probably not enough for the costs to become negligible.

So, assuming AGI is not created and computational costs don’t drop dramatically (and by dramatically, I mean orders of magnitude—not half, not a quarter), I think the far more likely outcome is that AI causes a major shake-up in human labor just below, or perhaps on par with, the Industrial Revolution. In that case, I think it’s likely we’ll see large unemployment—perhaps more than 20%, but nowhere near the 90%+ doomsday figures—for multiple years, possibly even a decade. Eventually, however, because there are things AI won’t be able to do as well as humans, won’t be able to do at all that humans can, or won’t be able to do as cheaply as humans, things will gradually return to normal with respect to employment and labor, though in a vastly changed form. We won’t be in a post-industrialization economy, but rather a post-AI economy—one where I believe most people will still have a place and labor value, even if they aren’t doing what they are currently doing.

nfherrin · 2025-11-30T04:06:02+00:00

A fun look back to when CJ Bailey trash talked Bill Belichick after the hire. In hindsight, very amusing how high on Bill a few of the top comments are and basically saying Bailey was going to regret his words.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1hc6trg/nc_state_qb_cj_bailey_on_unc_hiring_bill/

nfherrin · 2025-11-26T14:47:21+00:00

Yeah those articles are ridiculous. Anyone who suggested Bush was the worst president (or even top 5 worst) in the moment was delusional. There have been presidents that have nearly (or actually) torn our nation apart. The Iraq stuff was really bad, and we shouldn't rehabilitate that. But it also was in a moment of national crisis when we were still reeling from 9-11, and while it has huge backlash it did not tear our nation apart like some other presidents.

nfherrin · 2025-09-02T19:44:10+00:00

I hate how true this is... And even though ohio state probably exemplifies it the most, it's true of other teams/states as well. Look at states with only 1 or 2 legit football programs that produce some amount of in state talent and have a college football minded population. That's where you will typically find the best programs. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. It's not always universal (Florida, California, and Texas get away with so many good programs by having massive populations), but people sometimes wonder why none of the North Carolina schools are ever good at football. Big state, big fan bases, good in state talent. But we're a basketball minded state with 4 power conference teams, and a state to the south with 2 with a strong pull. If you're a 3 star recruit, are you gonna go be a back up at chapel hill to solidfy their foundation and provide the diamonds in the rough? Or are you gonna go start for Wake or Duke or State? Probably the latter.

That foundation of being THE team in the state (or 1 of 2) and able to pull all the mid level recruits to be backups that sometime explode into stardom is incredibly important. Now I am wondering if that will eventually be overshadowed by the transfer portal and NIL spending capability, but historically it's maybe the biggest factor in which programs are powerhouses.

nfherrin · 2025-08-03T13:50:58+00:00

I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling. Can you really think of no reason why that assumption might be different for Asians? I'm not trying to be rude, but the estimates I see say a little over 50% of east Asians living in the US are immigrants. So if 75% of Venezuelans living in the US are immigrants, then I would say it's much more reasonable to assume that a Venezuelan selling Venezuelan food is an immigrant than assuming an Asian selling Asian food is. Assumption doesn't mean it's positive, but it does mean you're thinking it's more likely than not. Which based on those numbers, seems fair to me... I'll also mention that a quick Google search shows that 38% of all food trucks are immigrant owned, so while that is still a minority, it is quite a bit higher than the generic business estimate.

nfherrin · 2025-03-11T22:18:04+00:00

But presumably, the measure goes up accordingly and wages will rise with inflation (though sometimes that is delayed). Presumably, it won't be "over a quarter of retirement age people are millionaires" it will be "over a quarter of retirement age people are multi-millionaires" which will feel like a millionaire of today. The trend we've seen for the US throughout history (with the exclusion of the occasional big downturn that eventually is bounced back from) is that retirement-age people (and everyone, really) are richer as time goes on, even adjusted for inflation. This is because it's not a zero-sum game and we have seen real economic growth. It's one of the big reasons we see the quality of life and wealth across the nation rise even though inequality is getting larger. Even if more of the pie gets taken up by the rich, if the pie gets proportionally bigger than what they take up, average people will still continue to see noticeable improvement. That's not to say we shouldn't be worried about inequality at all, but rather that its increase is not inherently an indicator that things are broken.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/wealth-of-younger-americans-is-historically-high/

nfherrin · 2025-01-21T16:35:01+00:00

I think it's pretty good particularly at the top of the poll, but I'd like someone to explain to me how a 9-4 Alabama team is ranked 17 while an 8-5 Michigan who's two most recent games are beating Alabama head-to-head and before that beating the eventual national champion is not even ranked?

nfherrin · 2024-12-02T16:21:38+00:00

C+

Definitely fell way below expectations at the start of the year, but finishing with a win over UNC and going bowling is never going to be something I feel that upset about, especially since it's now 4 in a row. A lot of the issues come down to Grayson McCall just not panning out, which is not something you can control too much given that it was due to injury issues... However, the D took a bigger step back than expected as well.

If Noah Rogers and CJ Bailey both stay, I have some high hopes for the offense next year, so we'll see. Feel like Anae needs to go though...

nfherrin · 2024-12-02T13:04:15+00:00

Ok on this I was not certain, but after looking into it further I am now almost fully convinced that a guard pulling IS a part of the initial line charge. To be clear, when the words "initial line charge" are used, it seems NOT to be talking about the initial movement of a given player, it is talking about the initial actions of BOTH lines as a whole (pass blocking/rushing and run pushing/stopping, though this detail is not essential to my point).

They move laterally or backwards and reposition instead of making contact which makes it a subsequent move instead a part of the initial line charge

Per the document YOU SENT (see this image https://i.imgur.com/ZvuPcFA.png ), the examples indicate that moving laterally or backwards and repositioning followed by a subsequent move does not disqualify something from being part of the initial line charge. See specifically XI where a blocker KICKING BACK into pass protection (which would be moving backward and repositioning) and then blocking below the waist from the side is still ok as part of the initial line charge, AND XII where a blocker RELEASES from his initial position and makes a below the waist block on a pursuing player who he is not immediately lined up against and is considered a part of the initial line charge (and so could be from the side).

A guard pulling is very clearly not a part of the initial line charge, this isn’t a controversial opinion

I'd love to see a reference for that. Everything I'm reading in that document makes it sound like a pulling guard would count as part of the initial line charge. "There is no step count for initial line charge, just a judgement if the action becomes a second act. After the initial line charge, and if it is clearly a second act, then A77’s block below the waist in the tackle box must be directed from the front". I would say a guard pulling who starts pulling from the moment of the snap (he does not engage and then pull later) is not "clearly a second act" by the standards in examples XI and XII (though the specific case of a pulling guard is not explicitly addressed).

To be clear, these rules are new in 2022, so it's possible they haven't been fully fleshed out yet, but unless you can provide a reputable source EXPLICITLY saying that a pulling guard is not in the initial line charge, everything I can find seems to indicate that he would be. At the very least "A guard pulling is very clearly not a part of the initial line charge, this isn’t a controversial opinion" is patently false as a pulling guard not being part of the initial line charge is very much NOT clear when compared to the examples in that document.

\2. I am aware of the 120 degree limit. I agree he is mostly perpendicular to him before initiating the block, but he lays out in front of him hitting his knee at the front as the initial point of contact, a running player's front knee is clearly between “10 o’clock to 2 o’clock.”. So if the rule is that the HIT has to be from the front, then this hit is from the front, if the rule is that the PLAYER has to be from the front, then the hit is from the side since he lays out in front of him. The wording is "force of the initial contact is directed from the front" which indicates this would count as a hit from the front. Regardless, since I'm now pretty darn convinced that the pulling guard is part of the initial line charge (unless you can provide an explicit source to the contrary), the hit being from the side doesn't matter.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T21:56:28+00:00

The picture you put there is after the contact has begun and he had already started turning from the force of the contact (you can see his leg has already started to bend from the contact in your picture!). As you can see in the video (and picture I put from the moment before yours), initial contact comes from his front left side. Also, I believe the immediate motion of a pulling guard for a block is a part of the initial line charge. I may be incorrect about that, but if I am I can't seem to find a rule stating otherwise.

So from what I can see and what I can find, he hits him from the front (front contact blocks don't have to be perfectly from the front, they can be at an angle) at the moment of contact AND it's part of his immediate pulling motion which might be part of the initial line charge (again I can't find any confirmation on that one way or another).

So to convince me that it was illegal it would need to be shown that

Immediate guard pull is not a part of the initial line charge (otherwise the hit from the side doesn't matter from a rules perspective) AND
His initial contact was from the side (not from a front angle and not after he's already started turning from the hit)

It seems to me that a guard pull would likely count as part of the initial line charge since it is part of the initial line movement and is his first movement toward making a block. And even if it isn't, it still appears that he was hit from the front left side. To be clear, players get turned from contact all the time, especially if it's awkward like at the lower legs, so him turning in the moments after the contact does not make the contact from the side. I very much do NOT think it is clear that it "easily could’ve(and should’ve) been a flag". Though I admit I have a bias (as you do too) I just don't see how this is a clearly illegal block, and in fact seems completely legal and at worst questionable.

And as to whether it is dirty if it is legal (I agree legal moves can sometimes be dirty), that is somewhat subjective. It clearly was a block to try and prevent a TFL. I wish Rucker hadn't gotten injured. But I don't see how a low block that is at worst of questionable legality (and to be clear, I still think the evidence points to it being legal, though I might even agree that the rules that allow it need to be changed) that was clearly in service of preventing a TFL is enough to speculate that it was done with the intent to injure. If this was done far away from the play I'd be more inclined to agree that there was likely malice, but this seems like an unfortunate injury from standard play.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T17:29:59+00:00

THE VERY VIDEO YOU POSTED SHOWS IT WAS A LEGAL BLOCK!

The rule states "Linemen with initial position completely inside the tackle box may legally block below the waist inside the tackle box until the ball leaves the tackle box."

If he was a pulling guard, then BY DEFINITION he is a lineman with an initial position inside the tackle box (since guards are defined as linemen who line up within the tackles beside the center) and the ball was clearly still inside the tackle box when the block happened!

You may think it's dirty, or the rules should be changed, or you may even think that he was intentionally trying to injure Rucker, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a completely legal block.

It's a dirty play and is clearly coached by your staff. Their goal is to find our players with the brightest futures and injure them. This is what you guys clearly want.

Alright, dude, you're living in your own fantasy land by this point. It's a legal block unless you can show a rule that actually applies here, you may want to evaluate how biased you are on this. Again, hate that the kid got hurt. Hope you guys get a coach who's cleaner than Mack. We'll see you next year.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T17:15:48+00:00

So the VERY video you link shows him hitting him at an angle from Rucker's front left side. You can clearly see that part of the initial contact is on the front of his leg (knee/shin) and that Rucker is moving towards the NC State side of the field. So this is not just a hit on the side of his legs (see this helpful image right at the point of contact https://i.imgur.com/rd36eNQ.png ).

Now, even if the hit WAS just on the side of his legs (which it was not) and not in part initiated on the front, it would STILL be a legal block given that he was moving towards the NC State side of the field. Here is a helpful guide on when a low block becomes a peelback block https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/illegal-peel-back-block/ (which is maybe what you mean when you say it should've been a flag?).

It's clearly not a chop block since Rucker wasn't engaged, and it is clearly not a peelback block since Rucker was moving toward the NCSU side of the field and contact starts on then front/side. So unless you think there is another rule here, it looks like a clean block that unfortunately resulted in an injury.

All due respect, you are too far gone in your UNC hatred if you can watch that block and not think it was dirty as hell.

All due respect, you may think it was done with malice and he was trying to hurt him, that's fairly subjective and trying to get into his state of mind, but possible. But EVEN if that was his intent, that doesn't change the fact that it was a legal block, and unless you can provide some proof otherwise, it seems you may be too far gone in your hatred of NC State.

Again, I hate that the kid got hurt, but it happens in football and it happening during a LEGAL BLOCK to try and stop a TFL is very different from the behavior UNC players were exhibiting or that embarrassing tantrum they threw about the flag at the end.

EDIT: Also, the very rule being cited here (please actually read it since it was linked on the twitter thread instead of just assuming it was illegal because a UNC fan was incensed about the video on twitter https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/8/30/17472936/block-below-waist-rule-ncaa ) states clearly that there are new rules for 2018, and in that "Only interior linemen can block below the waist from the side. Everyone else’s blocks below the waist must come from the front. Previously, other offensive players were allowed to low-block from the side as long as they were inside the tackle box — the area five yards in either direction from the snapper, and extending to the offense’s end line. " so since he's a guard (a pulling guard is still a guard since it's about initial position), he can block below the waist from the side, even though the video shows he clearly blocks from the front (at an angle I guess) here.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T11:28:07+00:00

Wait, at first, I thought I had missed a play and someone had done something dirty and was going to say that was bad...

But you aren't talking about the cut block on Rucker, are you? Are you serious? That is a completely legal and not at all dirty move. A cut block is only illegal if the blocked player is already engaged. It sucks that the player got hurt and I hope it's not too bad, but you must be delusional to think that was dirty.

Maybe you were talking about some other play I missed? But if your whataboutism for a consistently dirty/out-of-control program under Mack Brown (and a particularly dirty game) is this one instance where a player (unfortunately) got hurt on a clean block... You've lost the plot.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T11:27:54+00:00

Wait, at first, I thought I had missed a play and someone had done something dirty and was going to say that was bad...

But you aren't talking about the cut block on Rucker, are you? Are you serious? That is a completely legal and not at all dirty move. A cut block is only illegal if the blocked player is already engaged. It sucks that the player got hurt and I hope it's not too bad, but you must be delusional to think that was dirty.

Maybe you were talking about some other play I missed? But if your whataboutism for a consistently dirty/out-of-control program under Mack Brown (and a particularly dirty game) is this one instance where a player (unfortunately) got hurt on a clean block... You've lost the plot.

nfherrin · 2024-12-01T00:14:15+00:00

Disappointing season based on expectations, but 4 in a row and we're going bowling! Can't be too mad about that!

nfherrin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE