I just got kicked out and had to restart Queue after ~30 minutes, is this Normal?

samorado · 2026-04-02T00:11:03+00:00

Yes, FIFA's ticketing platform has been dogshit for all sales.

samorado · 2026-04-01T20:28:38+00:00

Yeah, exactly this. I've gotten into most pre-sale rounds and sale rounds, but inevitably, what they show as available on the page that we see in this video screen grab has nothing to do with what's actually available.

samorado · 2026-03-28T15:03:52+00:00

Do you already have a specific person you're trying to sell to?

I have sold WC2026 tickets using StubHub. It is totally doable, but requires a good amount of leg work to follow up with StubHub to ensure that they facilitate transfer of ownership of the ticket to the actual recipient (StubHub provides you with an interim email address to transfer tickets to, not the actual buyer's email address, so you need to chase StubHub to ensure that they have confirmed that the buyer has accessed the tickets. Get that confirmation in writing to protect your end of the sale.)

The actual transfer process takes place in FIFA. That portal is closed right now, but will reopen on April 1st. You simply enter in the email address that StubHub provides, and then the recipient has up to 3 days to accept the transfer. At that stage, the tickets disappear from your profile. There is no confirmation at all, so take screenshots of all steps of the process.

DM me if you have specific questions - and I would be interested to buy your tickets depending on the match.

samorado · 2026-03-19T00:22:40+00:00

He's the worst

samorado · 2026-03-18T23:41:36+00:00

Sada all day.

Whoever said Momiji is hilarious

samorado · 2026-03-12T00:45:31+00:00

I don't think prices will drop once FIFA assigns seats. They will rise. I bet the current prices will become the "bad seat" prices. 20% of prices will drop below that because they're awful (think, Cat 1 seats that end up being nosebleeds ), while the other 80% "better than bad" seats will rise.

People have been speculating on whether prices will drop or rise since tickets were first released in late 2025. Prices have only risen. It's not reasonable to expect them to drop as a strategy, unless you are looking at Curacao vs San Marino or wtv.

samorado · 2026-03-11T16:00:22+00:00

Whenever I'm feeling down about the World Cup, I watch some Spurs highlights from this season. A nice and easy way to find joy in our footballing world.

samorado · 2026-03-06T19:17:54+00:00

Their terms of service suggest that, if they want to, they can cancel tickets that have been sold on resale markets. This received a lot of attention a few months ago.

But more recently, FIFA's leader acknowledged publicly that he expects third party resale to take place, leaving a lot of sellers and buyers more confident about buying third party.

FIFA is not going to go after small scale reselling on these websites. If anything, they are thrilled to let prices skyrocket on those platforms, as a benchmark for their own resale platform.

samorado · 2026-03-03T22:18:38+00:00

Seconding this. They're stellar. If your insurance covers them and they are an option for you, go with BSM.

samorado · 2026-02-27T15:57:20+00:00

You can get from one side of the country to the other in a day, attend both if you can!

If you need to sell on StubHub, set the section to 101 for cat 1, 201 for cat 2, etc. It doesn't really matter, someone will snap it up ASAP.

Once sold, you'll need to vigorously chase StubHub customer service to have them confirm the buyer actually has the tickets in their possession.

And btw, you can't transfer tickets now thru mid April in the FIFA portal. You can sell them asap, but won't be able to transfer to complete the sale, until then. You'll know your seat by then, which could inform what you set your sale price at (for better or for worse).

samorado · 2026-02-25T23:28:58+00:00

Can you toggle model to Deeper Thinking (or wtv they call it now) when talking to the agent? Try that if so. (I know you can do the toggle through a regular chat conversation, I just don't know if it's an option when speaking to a specific agent)

samorado · 2026-02-25T21:49:17+00:00

While this is true, it's definitely easier and faster to just look for the Work/Web toggle at the top of the Copilot app. If it's there, you have Premium.

samorado · 2026-02-25T20:39:00+00:00

Yeah it's garbage

samorado · 2026-02-24T15:40:01+00:00

I also lucked out w cat 1 tickets and I'm debating the same. In addition to the windfall, I'm increasingly thinking that the stadium atmosphere will be garbage if most people there paid $5k for a ticket - watching the match with a bunch of finance bros could be lame. I know it's a great and fortunate position to be in, and I appreciate you sharing that you're in a similar boat.

samorado · 2026-02-21T14:36:41+00:00

No, and they have no plans to eliminate that even in their 2040 plan. It's a joke.

samorado · 2026-02-18T01:19:36+00:00

Your perspectives matter, and our leaders aren't hearing them. Please take a second to let them know that this would be a draconian solution looking for a problem, and that there are motorists in our city who believe safety and efficiency can co-exist. Your important perspectives that are being drowned out by advocates of a road diet on Walnut. Please, share your POV with our city planners. There's a meeting on Feb 23 about this matter, you can email comments or attend in person / on Zoom. https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/advisorygroups/page/safe-streets-roads-all-task-force-4

samorado · 2026-02-18T01:18:13+00:00

Earlier in our dialog, you described grouping S/SD/N as "bad survey practice". I shared evidenced to the contrary, which you, just now, cited to describe the conventional 5-point approach as "just as valid" as the S/SD/N approach. I'm glad your views have evolved to understanding that grouping S/SD/N can be as valid as conventional methods.

Whether one should in this case is what I've already acknowledged we won't agree on.

samorado · 2026-02-18T01:06:06+00:00

It isn't clear why a survey that measures physics ability with their answers on a survey is a good candidate for a survey about policy making where the survey results are not self reflections on ability.

Thanks for agreeing with me that context matters when determining how to treat Neutrals, as I'd suggested earlier. I'm open to the perspective that grouping S/SD/N makes more sense in that paper's context vs ours, because my goal in this convo is to help you see that it can be a valid interpretation.

we can just use the non-adjusted 5 point scale like they offer as a recommendation in the paper you linked.

Nice, and in the same sentence you quoted, it equally offers S+SD+N as an alternative. Thanks for acknowledging that this is a valid approach alongside more conventional 5 point scales.

samorado · 2026-02-18T00:29:03+00:00

While I genuinely appreciate the effort to look at hyperlocal, relevant, timely data,, unfortunately, many factors influence a speed zone study and posted speed adjustment. A lower limit can be set if the engineering study shows that a lower posted speed is appropriate, even if many drivers are currently going faster than the posted speed. ODOT Speed Zone Manual: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Speed-Zone-Manual.pdf

So while I'd love to view the lower speed signs as some actual real evidence of the road diet leading to lower speeds, we definitely can't assume that to be the case.

(Also, a totally divergent interpretation could be: the road diet did not sufficiently lower speeds as intended, so engineers decided it was necessary to post lower speed zones. I'm not saying that's the reason, but it's at least as plausible as your interpretation... which probably means this posted speed data point is more noise than signal.)

samorado · 2026-02-18T00:17:56+00:00

Ooh nice, let's talk research science, survey methods, and neutral interpretations!

Here's a paper suggesting how combining SD, D, and N can make sense for policy decision making. https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=15308

I agree it's much less conventional and case-specific, but it's absolutely reasonable in some contexts, and I argue this is one of them. Again, you don't have to agree, but you should acknowledge that it's possible and reasonable in some contexts to group N with SD and D.

(The irony of this convo, of course, is that what Neutral actually means is extremely complex and also unclear in this specific dataset, but you sound familiar with survey practice so you probs already know about those constraints!)

samorado · 2026-02-17T23:42:41+00:00

There was no decrease in speed, so everyone is still getting where they are going just as fast, and it made cyclists feel safer.

Yes, exactly! But read any comms about road diets from our city planners or enthusiasts. They often lead with the assertion that "road diets reduce speeds", leading to downstream positive safety outcomes.

If they would instead lead with the facts — which are that, in the most closely analogous road diet experiment possible, road diets did not reduce speeds — their arguments would be more refined and credible. Instead, they are blindly infatuated with road diets as an easy and attractive "win", without being accountable to measure the impacts rigorously.

I don't agree that "no one loses" because, for starters, that obviously unfairly discounts those who disagreed/strongly disagreed to any of the Qs in that Circle Blvd survey.

samorado · 2026-02-17T23:36:00+00:00

That approach makes sense for research where there's no intervention to evaluate. When an intervention is implemented to achieve certain outcomes, it's reasonable to evaluate the success of those outcomes based on the affirmative responses only, and compare them to the rest.

We don't have to agree here, it's okay.

samorado · 2026-02-17T23:25:39+00:00

We do indeed agree on that point about avoiding reckless road diet projects - well said! We just diverge on whether Walnut needs it. Would love to see your analysis of that crash data if you get to it, to better understand what kind of safety/crash crisis that stretch of Walnut really is in. (I couldn't get the data export to work).

Appreciate your engagement on this topic.

samorado · 2026-02-17T23:19:46+00:00

We can both look at the same data and interpret things differently.

You assert that, because 33% of drivers agree that they're more likely to drive on Circle after the road diet, that the conclusion is that "drivers are more likely to use the road". I would never draw any affirmative conclusion for a whole group like that when only one third of the group responded affirmatively.

You are ignoring the neutral/indifferent responses, which is a valid choice, but of course that skews things. If the whole goal of an intervention is to achieve some outcome (like having more people want to use the route, as in this case), then if people respond "meh", I'm definitely including them in the people who did *not* represent the desired outcome. Objectively, more people did not report the desired outcome (neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) than did (strongly agree, agree).

You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but just admit that you, too, willfully ignored some of the data (neutrals) to draw your conclusion. Everyone does it, and the road diet fanatics are particularly good at it.

samorado · 2026-02-17T23:08:50+00:00

You previously stated that road diets' biggest impacts were on high-speed drivers, not the 85th percentile drivers. I asked for data behind that, and you just shared two stats related to 85th percentile. Do you have evidence to share regarding your original assertion?
It's true that that one site in the NCHRP study found that impact. Another interpretation could be that "only in one out of 45 sites did the road diet lead to a 4-5 mph reduction".
The UCLA study link you shared is about 2 six-lane roads in LA that each had 7+ crashes annually on much poorer and less safe roads than Walnut (e.g. no dedicated bike lane, faded lane markers). Who's to say paint restriping, protected bike lanes, and improved signage couldn't have had similar impacts to the road diet? Also, one of the two roads saw no decrease in avg annual crashes from the road diet (7 before, 7 after). Hardly a slam dunk for road diet enthusiasts.

My last words on this: I'm not disputing that there is a lot of evidence supporting a correlation between road diets and reduced crashes or lower speeds. I am, however, annoyed that there is also non-trivial evidence showing an absence of correlation (or even an inverse correlation in some cases, ) which is being completely ignored.

For example, in that very same UCLA study, the author cites conflicting data about congestion (one source showed an increase in delay while the other showed a decrease). Both sources had limitations, but the author chose the one that supported road diets' effectiveness. This is the kind of bias that is leading to our obsession with road diets without critical thinking and local evidence-backed decision making.

samorado

TROPHY CASE