Pilot Precise V2 got me through grad school and when I started journaling recently, a set of those was the first thing I went and picked up. Great pens.
I remember at one point a couple years ago, I saw a thread on the Bogleheads forum where people could basically call their shot on market crashes; they would post and timestamp when they exited the market and when they re-entered, so that people could go and calculate if the timing was correct or if they lost money by missing out on market growth.
I might not have the dates correct, but I remember the general strokes of one guy who decided in like 2017 or something that the market had topped out, the crash was coming any moment now, and he sold everything and called his shot. He missed out on three years of incredible gains, and then the market absolutely _crashed_ in early 2020. He got it right, by a very small amount; he had gotten more selling his positions than he would have gotten selling in march 2020. He buys back in at what ended up being the absolute nadir of the market in like april 2020 or something. The rare success story of timing the market, you love to see it.
And then a few days later, he decides that actually, no, the market still has more to drop, and he sells again. Oh well.
> He buys back in at what ended up being the absolute nadir of the market in like april 2020 or something. The rare success story of timing the market, you love to see it.
The stock market usually goes down faster than it goes up, which makes it slightly easier (well, less difficult anyway) to time the bottoms than to time the tops.
> The stock market usually goes down faster than it goes up, which makes it slightly easier (well, less difficult anyway) to time the bottoms than to time the tops.
As the saying goes: "Elevator down; escalator up."
Yes, the problem with market timing is it requires two decisions that for the marginal investor are inconsistent. That's why people who sell at a high fail to reenter at a low, and also why people who stay invested at the high remain fully invested long after prices revert to a much lower level.
This suggests the answer is... fundamental analysis, which neither camp is doing.....
Ah, see, my experience is exactly the opposite of yours; I don't listen to the ChilledCow streams, but I do listen to the Chillhop playlists (and in fact purchase the seasonal essentials collections on vinyl) and one of the reasons I like them is because there's a lot of curation that goes into the playlist and they tend to feature artists that I end up liking - Blue Wednesday, Purple Cat, Joey Pecararo are all reliable artists in the genre for me.
What's the difference between baking and cooking in your understanding? You can make bread in a rice cooker, which nobody has ever called a "rice baker".
edit: and a rice cooker is definitely not a small oven.
And the german definition of cooking in the narrow sense is defined like this, but in a broader sense apparently usable for everything with preparing meals.
And I never used a rice cooker, so no idea how to classify that ..
If cooking involves boiling, what are you doing when you put a steak in a hot cast-iron pan?
To the rice cooker point, I'd argue that an oven uses a heating element of some form (electric coils, gas flame, wood fire) to heat the air in a closed environment, and the air transfers heat into an item. In contrast, a rice cooker uses a heating element to directly heat a metal pot, and the metal pot transfers heat into an item. Usually that's going to be a combination of rice and water, but you can e.g. pour pancake batter into the pot and get a large souffle pancake, or put bread dough into the pot and get a loaf of bread. The trick is that the metal pot is much more efficient at transferring heat than the air is, so the rice cooker doesn't need to be at the same temperature as an oven to get the same amount of heat into whatever you're cooking.
Well, technically there is usually bubbling going on, when making a steak, but would you "cook a steak" in english?
In german you would not, one would roast it. (but we have 2 words, roasting "rösten" on the bbq and "braten" would be in a pan. But a "Braten" would be in an oven.)
Kind of not that consistent (like it usually is with natural language).
In general I think those terms were invented, before there were things as a rice cooker.
With the caveat that I haven't done any sessions run by SpeedSF, the description for their AutoX events at Sonoma usually says something like "Show up and drive, we have dedicated course workers, you can expect to have 20-30 runs in a day".
For something run by a group like TrackMasters or GGLC or PCA, then you're definitely correct, you'll have somewhere between five and ten runs depending on how smoothly it goes, you'll work the course for a while, and you should view it as a fun day of hanging out with people who like cars and you'll get to drive a bit.
You're also definitely correct that autocross is a lot of fun and anybody who is interested in driving their car for the joy of it should try it out.
You're imagining the Guilty Gear series, which gives you a variety of defensive options in the system - you can jump, double jump, or super jump to avoid something with different take-off timings, jump arcs, and speeds; you can block, instant block, or faultless defend to change the amount of chip damage, block stun, and pushback in an effort to throw off your opponent's timing; you can dead angle while blocking to try and recover initiative; you can backdash or throw out a move that's invulnerable on startup in an attempt to get your opponent to whiff.
Eh, we're currently fighting to get some claims covered. Before a certain date, all the claims are denied; after a certain date, all the claims are approved. The claims are all for the same thing, related to the same procedure (physical therapy after a joint replacement).
Could the claims have been rejected due to a simple human error? Sure, it's plausible. Was there another human error that caused the claims to be rejected after we appealed? Maybe, but probably not. Could a third human error cause the claims to be rejected again after our second appeal? Seems pretty unlikely.
Yeah, in your case it seems reasonable that the denials are malicious.
I guess I'm not seeing why the poster I was replying to declared that getting access to the claims file was useless. Wouldn't getting access to that file make it easier to prove that claims were wrongfully denied?
Interfering with the ball is sufficient to be called for off-side - you need to be in active play, but you can do that when your team doesn't have possession.
What you are describing would make attacking the keeper pointless for example when they dropped the ball from hand for a kickoff, cause that would be offside which is not true.
Ball is rolling towards the goal - if the attacking player touches it, it will be offsides: A player in an offside position has entered active play by "interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate".
Goalkeeper makes a save, since the ball is rolling towards the goal. If the attacking player touches it, it will be offsides: A player in an offside position has entered active play by "challenging an opponent for the ball" or "gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has [...] been deliberately saved by any opponent".
The goalkeeper deliberately plays the ball. Immediately afterwards, the attacking player receives the ball played by the goalkeeper - this is not offsides, since "a player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
Sure, but that doesn't apply here. If you watch the video, the defender passes back to the goalkeeper. Backpasses by the defending team that are intercepted by the attacking player (even if they are in an offside position) are not considered offside, regardless of whether the attacker touches the ball first or the goalkeeper. From your link, this is the pertinent line:
"A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
...
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
- been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
As long as a nominal defender (not counting the goalie) is in between you and the goal, I don't think you're off-side. So presumably it means you have to a) maintain possession of the ball or 2) clear the ball before all other defenders are able to make it past whoever currently has possession. A) sounds a lot easier than 2), though.
