Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Goodell's Alias

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goodell's Alias

  1. That estimate assumed no mitigation at all. No masks, no distancing, everyone just continued on like it was 2019. It's entirely reasonable to think 2 million deaths would be possible in such an environment.
  2. The bolded seems extremely unlikely. If there's one demographic that I feel confident will break hard rather than be "in-play", it's the demographic of Donald Trump himself.
  3. Do you have any evidence, even anecdotal, to support the position that she takes her district for granted? For that matter, is your opinion that she takes her district for granted moreso than other representatives? At some level, this is an odd criticism at all. House members, while they ostensibly represent their districts, cannot write or vote for legislation that applies only to their own districts. We criticize them when they add pork that benefits only their district. In a general sense, how would a House member not "take their district for granted"?
  4. I believe most prestamped ballots are not first-class (i.e. a regular stamp), but marked as bulk instead, and could take longer, especially given recent attempts to undermine such delivery.
  5. I'm assuming there will still be wall-to-wall coverage on every station.
  6. Without getting into a whole lot of other stuff, the only new science required for such a 180 would be a reversal of the bolded, not a change in mask science (with regard to effectiveness). If scientists discovered that transmission is mostly via droplets or aerosol, rather than via fomites, that would completely explain a reversal of the mask position.
  7. If she only got those states last year, that may explain the 2016 surprise of her losing!
  8. There are two separate arguments here, and the distinction is important. If someone states, "The WHO and some US medical professionals performed poorly in March," that's a valid statement. If someone states, "if masks are so great, why didn't they tell us that in March" or "I don't wear a mask because the WHO told me not to," that's purely an exercise in trying to excuse Trump's current behavior and the individual's current inclination not to wear a mask.
  9. No, I'm good I'll continue to post my view on things as I see them. Why are you using an alias? This isn't a subjective thing. He literally did not shut down travel. He stopped some Chinese citizens from coming here. Nothing else. You can keep repeating your claim, but it won't make it any more true.
  10. Can we please stop with this? Trump did not "shut down travel" at any point. The only restrictions were on Chinese citizens coming to the US. US citizens were still permitted to come from China, without any quarantine period. Europeans were never stopped from coming. Frankly, restrictions only on Chinese citizens was a racist policy.
  11. I don't think the message is wrong or unserious, but the wording could use work. The message is probably better expressed as "The black community has real needs, one of which is actual criminal justice reform, which neither of you (Trump/Biden) has done anything about yet you both like to yap about it."
  12. Maybe the difference is that the particular source in this case, Rudy Giuliani, is known to be untrustworthy?
  13. I'm not sure comparing 10/22/2016 to 10/22/2020 is the relevant data point. The 2016 election occurred on Nov 8, while the 2020 election will occur on Nov 3 (and significantly before, with early voting numbers setting all sorts of records). Wouldn't the relevant comparison be 10/27/2016 vs 10/22/2020?
  14. Tucker Carlson. The man whose own lawyers argued that nothing he says can be taken as fact?
  15. See two posts above. To the bolded, I don't think it's so much that "people do this intentionally" as it is that Outlook (and some others) are configured to store a cached copy locally (for performance reasons) by default.
  16. None of the below is a comment on the overall credibility of this story, nor have I kept up with the details. The below is purely some IT info regarding "e-mail on a server versus e-mail on a local hard drive". If a Mac user was using Microsoft Outlook to access e-mail, it's very possible that Outlook could be configured in such a way that e-mails are housed on the mail server while Outlook keeps a cached copy on the local drive. In this event, even if the credentials to the server were changed, the local cache could still be accessed using the appropriate local credentials (i.e. logon
  17. Haven't really followed the story very closely. Can you offer a Cliff's Notes version of the actual facts?
  18. Some people can consistently make money. Most people don't. Remember that "house always wins" means that the house wins in the aggregate, not versus each individual gambler. Personally, I don't gamble much these days. Every once in a while, there's a line that attracts me. Mayweather over McGregor, for instance, seemed like easy money even at -350. Turns out, it was.
  19. Close. If you consistently bet favorites on the money line, yeah, you have to win a whole lot more often than you lose (although you should be winning more often, seeing as you are betting on the favorites). If you are betting underdogs, you can lose more than half and still make money, since you lose $100 each time but win $130 or $160 or whatever each time you win. Note that bets don't have to be these exact increments. For instance, you could bet $50 at either -160 or +130. You're risking $50 either way (i.e. if you lose, you pay the book $50). In the former case (-160), if you wi
  20. I think your "convert to a percentage" math is a bit off, as you have to account for the vig. That is, if a book listed it as -110 for both sides, that should equate to 50% for each. That said, some books do 15% vig for "exotics" like the Super Bowl coin-flip, so your conversion would need to take that into account too. To get down into the weeds, and I don't have the time right now to figure out the exact math, you would need to look at both numbers and use both in your calculation to figure out the "percent chance of winning". To summarize, you can't just use -160 in a percentage calcula
  21. Could explain this like I’m 5 years old. Like, I never gamble so I don’t know what it means. The bolded portion means one would have to bet $190 on Biden to win $100, or if one bet $100 on Trump (and won the bet), one would collect $160. Edit: a true tossup race would be listed as -110 for both sides. That is, you have to bet $110 to win $100, which accounts for the "vig/juice" that the house takes.
  22. Dear POTUS, The debate currently scheduled for October 22 will be the second debate, not the third. It is not our fault you refused to attend one of the debates, nor it is our fault you can't count to three.
  23. No. In the former case, each Senator is casting an individual vote that forms their records. In the latter case, it is the Senate majority leader speaking for the entirety of the Senate. Perhaps some number of GOP Senators would have voted yes. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
×
×
  • Create New...