In the mass media days, "elites" were able to pretend that all people more or less wanted to consume similar media. That theory has more or less been debunked by the advent of the internet, and of course the proprietor class wants to go back. Advertising was much easier in the mass media days.
And right now AI snake oil salesmen are pushing every narrative that anyone with money will buy. Going back in time to the mass media paradigm is certainly attractive.
The narrative that "the world wants to be dominated" is a popular one in mainstream media today.
Is there actually any substance to the narrative? Not in this article. Like most written in this vein, there isn't even an attempt at quantifying support for the story.
The Lakers have a statistically impossible +/- in free throws shot. There is favoritism and the league isn't even remotely trying to disguise it...is that really different than any other arena though?
I don’t see any probability analysis in that at all. If there is something about a team composition and strategy that leads to a large free throw differential you’d expect that to persist across consecutive seasons. Going back further you see other teams with similar strategies and free throw differentials.
Your link doesn't have any probability analysis either. Just supposition that the raw data isn't valid because it looks similar to a 2 year run the Hornets had.
Is it wildly inconceivable that the refs propped up the Hornets for a couple of years? No. Does the only quantitative evidence presented in this thread suggest the refs are propping up a below average Lakers team? Yeah.
Do you think the refs are nearly as biased against the Warriors as they are for the lakers? Or is it more likely that the warriors shoot from outside a lot and play fairly aggressive defense?
I heard Comm, a pro, once say that he wished he had his 14 year old fingers back...think he was 17 at a time. To me, a 40 year old playing with KBM, I feel like I just can't bend my brain around all of the 3d possibilities. I just don't have any intuition for rolling my car while it accelerates towards the front...and then you add in the complexity of the camera and, yeah, I suck.
Part of the problem is rolling vs. yawing. Most players have something along the lines of LB mapped to powerslide + air roll. So when flying, they have to think (actively or otherwise) about when to roll vs. when to release LB so that the left stick X axis will yaw instead. This is, in my experience, very difficult to actually do.
There's a control config I tried and greatly enjoyed that addresses this. I want to get back into it but I haven't yet felt like dealing with the adjustment period again. This works best if you have a controller with mappable paddles.
Left stick X: Ground steer and air steer (yaw)
Left stick Y: Pitch
Right stick X: Air roll
Right stick Y: Ground throttle
And then jump/boost/powerslide go on triggers/bumpers/paddles as desired.
Being able to simultaneously yaw and roll feels quite nice once you get used to it and allows for some surprisingly intuitive recoveries, wall jumps, etc. "Tornado spinning" is now as simple as pushing the sticks in opposite directions. Other interesting results can be had from the various other combinations of stick directions.
This does require you to no longer use the button pad for anything, so if you use ballcam toggle while playing, or need to peek at the scoreboard a lot, or need a thumb free for real-time quickchats, or whatever, then I hope you have a lot of extra paddles
I've only just started trying to do aerials, really, and I find myself getting vertigo from it haha. I'm also 40. It's so disorienting. None of the camera settings feel "right".
It takes some playing around with and is highly subjective. Best method I found was to just try camera configs used by pros or recommended by others and see what feels good. My current:
The rest aren't relevant for me because swivel speed is about looking with the right stick and transition speed is about switching to/from ball cam, and I leave ball cam on.
Of these, I believe the most important (by which I mean tangibly relevant to control quality/feel) are distance, stiffness, and, to some degree, height+angle. Shake and FOV are also important, but those are the only good values for those settings.
I used to play with max distance because it felt better for visibility, but I found some people saying 270/280 works much better for them for precise ball control and accurate strikes, and that does seem to be the case. Stiffness is the other setting that will make the most difference in feel: Lower values let the camera's distance from your car rubber-band further in relation to your speed. It might seem as if maxing this out would be ideal, because why wouldn't you want the camera to follow your movement as closely as possible, and why would you want the camera to lag behind you when you go faster and disorient you when you're trying to aerial? But I'm not so sure. I've tried stiffness at 1 (max) and I don't remember why, but apparently it didn't work for me, because I lowered it to 0.75, which I guess I found acceptable enough not to have changed it. I've just come across some people saying a stiffness of around 0.35 is counterintuitively great as it turns out that moving the car without instantly moving the camera helps a lot with car control for some reason, so I'm about to test run that value myself and see about it.
I also used to run with stiffness maxed out and I think it contributed to the motion sickness feeling. There's definitely a tradeoff in all of these values.
Got any "overwhelming" evidence that isn't a podcast? I'm sure social media ain't great for anyone. It's mostly an incomprehensibly large amount of malignant noise...but pretending that justifies some kind of heavy handed government censorship is...well, I guess I'm on social media so when in Rome...overwhelmingly stupid
The "Coddling of the American Mind" guy? Pass. I was in college during the period he wrote about, and my impression is that he agglomerates mountains of misrepresented evidence to work the older generations into another panic about kids these days.
Do you have any support that he misrepresents mountains of evidence? Did you dig into the mountain and find a bunch of places where he misrepresented data? Or did you just go with your gut?
When I hear statements like this, I usually take it to mean "I don't like the conclusions he is drawing with the evidence"
In addition to what 'EMIRELADERO linked - like I said, I lived through the exact period in the American university system that Haidt reported on, and his descriptions don't match my first-hand experiences nor do they match the experiences of my peers. As a result, I do not consider him a trustworthy source. I'm not going with my gut, I'm going with my eyes and ears.
I'm no market data specialist, but that seems like order of magnitude just top-of-book for US equities? The equity options market, at least, is orders of magnitude larger.
It also created and continues to create a lot of cheap labor, which the United States is in short supply of and likely will be for the foreseeable future.
> which shows how rules that supposedly protect poor people from abuse, in practice only help those with access to the skills of the professional and managerial classes.
Maybe the world's problems and solutions are inherently too complex for someone without those skills to have any hope of navigating. Maybe the only real solution is to use Patrick as an example for everyone and ask/demand that professionals spend some amount of time advocating for people less fortunate/educated/knowledgeable than themselves?
And right now AI snake oil salesmen are pushing every narrative that anyone with money will buy. Going back in time to the mass media paradigm is certainly attractive.