leicsmac

On a relative scale of hardship, that's exactly right, but I was thinking more about an absolute scale. So yeah, I think it's a good thing, can see why it would be seen as you have, though.

I agree with the above. I don't agree with the implication here that it's a negative in full or even in much part, as signs like this indicating the world is (at least in a small way) becoming an easier place to live for our species is a good thing, not a bad one.

You'd think someone has done their homework, but honestly I cannot see how such intrusive advertising, at any level, actually makes more than it costs given the clear and obvious negative response it elicits across the board.

Got 100% critical reviews so far on Rotten Tomatoes. So glad they've seemingly gotten it right.

Blurry photos of UFO's that look like flying plates.

Picking between Rangers and a team managed by Rodgers for the Scottish title is like having to pick between viral haemorrhagic fever and genital neuropathy as a preferred choice of disease. Really wish there was a third option. A pox on both their houses.

Well, that was nasty.

Because this was discussed elsewhere recently: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/04/peer-reviewed-literature-what-does-it-take-to-publish-a-scientific-paper/ "There are several important take home messages here. First, the idea that you cannot publish anything that is contrary to the mainstream view or that there are several “big wigs” who are pulling the strings and deciding what to publish and what not to publish is absurd. For any of these notions to work, all of the reviewers, editors, etc. that look at your paper would need to be corrupt and/or biased, but given the number of people involved and the fact that they are from multiple institutions, it is highly unlikely that all of them would be corrupt and/or biased. Further, if you get a biased editor who rejects your paper for absurd reasons, you can appeal to the editor and try to reason with them, or you can just submit to another journal. In other words, if you wanted to suppress any papers that were contrary to the mainstream view, you would need every editor in the world to agree not to publish any controversial papers. This is clearly absurd. Evidence that opposes the mainstream view can be published if you have good data. The reason that there are so few papers opposing evolution, climate change, vaccines etc. is not that there is some global conspiracy, but rather that there is no evidence to support those positions."

Could be the case, but there's still two matches to play. A lot of people like to write off this team because they "only play one way" or "don't play cricket as it should be" or somesuch, but they've shown they can bounce back. Guess we'll find out over the next couple of weeks.

Think it's more nostalgia filter and also there were no other options years ago other than renting a movie from the local Blockbuster so people thought the best of what they had. Now there's plenty of other, often better options, than broadcast TV.

The Talos Principle 2. Takes all of the elements of the original and improves them, and the philosophy elements are utterly top notch - I could make a book out of the apt quotes about humans and humanity that it gives.

Ah, but apparently it's "all a scam" and/or "nothing to worry about" and the data we get can't be trusted. Apparently.

There's clearly some fine tuning that needs to be done given that's the third time out of three we've conceded a 100+ first innings lead this series. That being said, this is all a better showing so far than the last India tour. And the one before that, too.

Good for him.

All of this being said, who knows what the world will look like in 30 years, much less 50?

I think that will result in major civil unrest tbh, unless it is somehow framed miraculously. And there will be green infrastructure projects that will be needed too, or the payment won't just be in money, but lives.

Ooooof, that was close.

I'm sure this has happened already at some point balance of probability, really. All the same, totally worth it.

The confidence in this team is a sight to behold. McCullum and Stokes have set them free. That reverse Dilscoop by Pope just now was simply filthy.

Please, let's not have a mid-order collapse after that great start...

Duckett has started like a locomotive here.

"....Claridge.... IT IS!" Cue three generations of my family going utterly insane. One of those moments that stay with you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68253819 Some polar bears face starvation as the Arctic sea ice melts because they are unable to adapt their diets to living on land, scientists have found. The iconic Arctic species normally feed on ringed seals that they catch on ice floes offshore. But as the ice disappears in a warming world, many bears are spending greater amounts of time on shore, eating bird's eggs, berries and grass. However the animals rapidly lose weight on land, increasing the risk of death. That's not great.

Whereas over here it's the other way round - the best players from the past (like Pele, Maradona, Banks et al) rather than the present are given the added value, despite the game having evolved massively even in the last decade or two. Until that is, they become such rareified exceptions (like C.Ronaldo and Messi) that including them is unavoidable. Edit: or perhaps it's just every generation considers the great players from their own formative years to be the best ever.