had a lengthy conversation with a coworker yesterday, and she's sort of the... not-insane kind of conservative. the sort that's lived like this her whole life and seen only the bad sides, heard and taken to heart only the bad-faith interpretations of everything. and in that environment, yes, i can see the appeal of libertarianism, of withdrawing, of "burn it all down" and she is intelligent and thoughtful enough that i feel it's worth having these conversations with her, that i might actually be able to have an impact.
and i think i made headway! i told her about people tens of thousands of years ago making toys for their kids that look like the ones we make today, about how cave paintings come alive in firelight, about a healed femur from thousands and thousands of years ago proving that humans have always cared and helped one another, and yes, of course some people are awful, but they do not define us. and i think i made her think about it when she said that she believes we should allocate money to communities to better help one another and i was like "how is that not a government?" and she paused and then said "it's just that it's gotten too big, it's the bureaucracy that's killing us" and like. i can see that. i think there are ways to solve that problem, but it's not a fundamentally flawed belief. (again, sane. intelligent, educated, willing to consider alternate points of view.)
and i think that a lot of this... madness of the modern world is rooted in fear and despair and isolation and the sense that we've become completely disconnected from ourselves and our history, and we need to remember that this is not true. or -- it's only true if we choose to make it true, if we let it be true.
this does not have to be our legacy. this rage, this despair, this does not have to destroy us.
42 notes
·
View notes
believe me I would love to make every possible permutation of a thing to fit the wants/needs of as many people as possible but I am only one guy (or possibly one carnivorous horse, who can say) and cc making isn't even my main thing so I gotta be realistic with what I can maintain. which is why I'm not doing both versions of the white coat and also why I'm semi-retiring the human anatomy skins once the feline version is out.
11 notes
·
View notes
Could u talk about how Carolina achieves goalie haven!!!!!! I am so intrigued sjdhsysosjshs (especially bc one of my fav players is an occasional Carolina goalie 🤭🤭🤭)
aaa Yes. sorry this took so long!!
One of the biggest questions among analysts in hockey is: how much of a goalie's quality is determined by the team they play behind? If you move a goalie to a different team and their numbers change drastically, is it the goalie not adjusting well to the move or is it the team? How separable is a goalie from his skaters?
So, we're going to talk about mathematics. Not in any technical terms, because it is two in the morning as I write this, but just sort of general stats stuff. In hockey (and in other sports but we're talking about hockey,) there is a metric called expected goals, or xG for short.
The general gist of xG, for the uninitiated: it is a made up number that you cannot watch the game and materialize, unlike shots or goals or times your favourite player was shown close up on camera -- you need a computer to generate it. There's also multiple different xG models, since every stat bro seems to have his own. However, they all function in a pretty similar way: determine the odds a shot goes in the net based off its location (on ice), its location (relative to the net), and its location (relative to other skaters, who may be inclined to block the shot in order to prevent this expected goal from becoming an actual one.)
Expected goals are, for lack of a better term, a smoother way of determining the way a game really went than its result. You ever watch a game where your team was in the offensive zone the whole time, just totally dominating play, but a couple of bad bounces and dumb mistakes means you lost? The expected goals might tell a different story.
Back to Carolina. Someone in their front office, many eons ago (I got seriously into hockey only last season, so I can't give you a date) realized this: over the course of one game, anything can happen, but over the course of a dozen? 82? the numbers tend to line up. So the most guaranteed way to win, at least through the regular season, is to find a way to jack up your xG and drop down your opponent's. And the way they do this is with Corsi.
If you're still uninitiated, Corsi is essentially the total amount of shot attempts: shots on goal plus blocked shots plus misses. Corsi ratios actually tend to line up very similarly with xG ratios: if you have twice the shot attempts of your opponent, odds are you'll have twice the goals. Quantity over quality!
The on-ice way they do this is with a very, very high-structure game: your defenders are there to dump the puck in and then make sure it doesn't get dumped out, and your forwards are there to chase the puck and pepper the opposing goalie with softies until he slips up. In the defensive zone, they hound the opponent's forwards, forcing them to either lob a soft one on net or give up the puck. Carolina is currently third in shots for per game (34.91), and dead first in shots against (25.74).
So: say you're a goalie on a team that routinely gives up 45 shots a game (hello John Gibson!) versus a goalie on a team that only gives up 25. That's a much, much lower workload -- on average one shot you'll have to stop every two and a half minutes or so (although shots as a rule tend to come in chunks, so the standard deviation is very high here.) And because you'll have this lower workload, odds on you'll be better rested for every shot, thereby being fresher and more likely to stop it.
Also, because of how tight Carolina is in the defensive zone, very few of these shots against are of significant quality -- they rarely give up breakaways, which are typically the major generator of high-danger chances.
All in all: a Carolina goalie is going to have a good time, not necessarily because they are a good goalie, but because they are in Carolina -- facing few chances and especially few high-danger ones allows the goalie an easier time stopping pucks, which boosts their stats.
26 notes
·
View notes
i know we talk about the damage of algorithms and constantly scrolling and short-length media on The Youth (but also everyone)
but i also think one thing that is under discussed is the availability of online shopping on younger and younger ages, especially with cheaper wares, ESPECIALLY in conjunction with the algorithms and constant scrolling and short length media
like we talk about how loot box/gacha-gambling is dangerous but at this point i think impulse shopping online is feeding into the same base instinct. especially when people will buy like $3 hoodies and treat it like a gamble—like maybe it’s totally shit or maybe it’s actually pretty well made and is just cheap because of explored labor.
growing up, online shopping wasn’t really accessible at all besides for really niche ware. you had to order through catalogs and even when online shopping was accessible, kids weren’t allowed to buy their own shit. the most onlike shopping a lot of us were allowed was like a gift card for itunes.
if you wanted something, you had hope it was in a store you hoped you were allowed to go to. or had to wait for a gift-receiving holiday or had to ask… and even if it was ordered online, shipping meant it might take WEEKS to arrive.
kids being exposed to instant gratification shopping, through places like shein and temu and ali express where you’re buying junk AT BEST and like slave-labor goods at worst (often both), often with shopping profiles of their own, not through their parents… is going to ramp up over-consumerism and micro trends even more
and with how bad financial literacy is and general nihilism is (why save when the world is burning and you’ll never own a house anyways)
i’m just… concerned. not even saying i’m immune to the behaviour im criticized and worried about, btw; though, i will say, i don’t shop with the companies listed.
5 notes
·
View notes
Doyle was the best thing about ATS once he was no more I tapped out of watching it just couldn't hold my interest with the other characters and for me the stories weren't as strong as Buffy. That was definitely more my vibe. Shame about his exit tragic were the circumstances as his friendship with Angel and slow burn romance with Cordy was cute and they had good chemistry.
Considering he was only in a handful of eps in the first season I suppose it's a testament to how great the character/actor was that his impact feels so much bigger, and as somebody who finds Wesley to be the absolute worst even in his short stint on Buffy, let's just say he wasn't an acceptable replacement for me lol. I do love ATS still though, despite how much more questionable some of the material is than Buffy *cough Cordelia cough*, the highs make up for the lows I think (Darla and Drusilla!), and I actually think it has a stronger final season/series finale than Buffy, but it's a tougher sell than Buffy for sure. I sometimes wonder how it would've been if Glen had managed to beat his addictions and they'd brought back Doyle like the plan originally was, but I guess that's an unanswerable.
4 notes
·
View notes