Prohibiting the use of the hand check also took the teeth out of defense and made it a more offensive game. I think that’s a big part of why Michael and Larry and Magic were so much more exciting to watch even though the team scoring was much lower than today.
While I don’t disagree about the grandstanding and theatrics ruining the NBA, I take issue with those who complain that better players are just getting away with fouls and cheating. Basketball, despite the rules around fouls and illegal contact, is a very physical and tough game. Being tough enough to work through some of the contact (both legal and illegal) is very important to being a high level player. I think it’s reductive and petty to effectively say that they’re just better because they hit more and harder. Even Michael Jordan had to work hard at toughening up to get past Detroit in the late 80s and early 90s.
There is a lot of spiciness in soccer where you see a player on your team get a red card and then your team works extra hard down a man for 60 minutes for a draw and then find out the other team has a player who specializes in giving out red cards.
I could not get into it either. But I tend to agree with the various favoritism comments. But with a twist and it applies to all US Pro Sports.
I believe in the US, due to TV revenue, the Professional Orgs want playoffs to occur between Nationwide popular teams to maximize TV revenue. So they they want to avoid having 2 teams in the finals that will not generate nationwide ratings.
I have not watched any pro sports for decades. But going back, in basketball the 2 teams that generated huge ratings and buzz a long time ago were LA and Boston. I do not know what the "magic" teams combinations are now, but I am would not be surprised if the refs subtilely try to get the "popular" team to win.
I love whining about paywalls as much as the next guy, but I copied the URL into the "saved snapshots" search at archive.is and got this pretty quickly: https://archive.is/VgwLx
Is it me, or does it seem like "invasive pear tree" has become a big story this spring, seemingly out of nowhere. Maybe I just don't follow news around this, but this spring there have been both local and national stories about municipalities dealing with these trees. I'm not saying it's not a story, just that I wasn't aware of it before and am wondering if it reached some kind of critical mass as a problem just this year.
It's you. :) More magnanimously, you caught the story for the first time this year. I seem to come across a story about it every year around this time ever since first learning of it a couple of years ago through the Tennessee Naturalists community I follow on Facebook. As the tree spreads, so too does the knowledge of its unflattering qualities. Awareness efforts are likely to continue until community leaders take action.
As one who has watched loved ones zombie-scroll through Reels on Facebook, this is not a victory of any kind for the world at large. It's just another step in the ongoing march toward widespread dysfunction.
- You can only build single-family units (no apartments, no duplexes, etc.)
- Each lot must be at least a half acre
- You must have at least one (or two) parking spots per lot.
- You must have multiple stairwells and an elevator for any multi-floor shared units.
And on. And on. And on. Zoning and building restrictions are an absolute gauntlet in many places. For an extreme example, check this out: https://reason.com/video/2018/12/27/san-francisco-mission-ho... (He did eventually succeed, but the cost and effort was tremendous.)
We have one on central Arizona that never needs to shut down due to heat and definitely does not rely on sea water for cooling. So no, they don’t need to shut down when it gets too hot if they are designed for the heat.
> In the US, the sole desert-based nuclear facility, the Palo Verde plant in Arizona, relies on municipal wastewater rather than rivers or seas, though the facility has struggled with rising costs as more industries compete for limited supplies.
Because French were cheapening out on cooling towers and water returning back to river would be too hot. It is not problem of fission in general. It is just construction defect of those types of plants.
It’s highly ironic that fossil fuels might be creating a problem that cripples nuclear fission going forward. That being said, I’m hoping we manage to scale up direct energy transfer and bypass the need for turbines.
This feels a bit like arguing over the arrangement of the furniture as the house burns. The web is a hot mess of garbage SEO, ads, incendiary clickbait, and political echochambers. THIS is the thing that warrants fixing first?
On this site, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Shockingly to me, someone else in this thread writes how this is a conservative site... Well that guy must have a wildly different perspective from me!
As SV_BubbleTime said, that is nonsense no matter how often the claim is repeated.
I'll give two more examples. Voter ID is uncontroversial everywhere in Europe and Canada. Formerly government-run postal services have long since been privatized almost everywhere in Europe, while no one advocates doing so with the USPS (despite the TDS-driven hysteria over the so-called sabotaging of same in 2020).
Economically, maybe, but not really. I think Europe is a lot better about hiding their corporate interests than the USA, but I think it's still largely capitalism-for-real behind the socialism-for-show. I can't think of how that statement is true, unless you look at things USA Left wants that they are unable to get, then saying they're conservative because they didn't get them. Like socialized healthcare.
What part are Democrats conservative over Europeans liberals? Healthcare, no I don't think so. Immigration? No. Guns? No. Free speech? No. Low taxes and small government? No. Abortion? lol no. Democrats in the USA were so up in arms over a 15 week limit in Missippi that they took it to the Supreme Court and lost Roe v Wade, but most of Europe is happily swimming along with 12 week bans.
So, maybe I just don't see it, but I hear this line all the time from progressives that are frustrated at Democrats for not doing all the hard left things they want. What am I missing? USA Democrats aren't conservative because they have a conservative party that opposes them.
What are USA Democrats so conservative at in their actual actions and desires?
