Dan_Nguyen

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. eddieplan9 didn't claim that the US is a flawless, perfect nation. They're saying that despite the issues with the US (and I do agree that there are a lot), drawing conclusions between the US and China is a false equivalency and that things in China re: social freedom is much worse than here. Pointing out flaws with the US doesn't take away from his point.

I can't speak for other people, but I can see this being a bad feature for me.

It'd be great for chicken where I usually get the same thing (~5lbs chicken thighs). For beef though it'd be an absolute nightmare. I vary between flank, eye of round, ribeye, rib roast (which granted is basically a really big ribeye) and chuck in different amounts depending on what I feel like cooking.

I also know myself well enough to know I'm going to have a forgetful moment in the kitchen, order "beef" when I'm focusing on something else, and accidentally end up with 5 lbs of flank when I wanted 1 lb of ribeye.

>What does that even mean?

My guess is it's just another way of saying people like consuming media from companies that are relevant to their interests.

I personally find Snap's advertising to be nice. It's nice to have it separate from what my friends upload like what others have said. I've also found that what Snap puts out is way more enjoyable to look at than Facebook's advertisements.

Take sports for example. I'm a huge NFL, NBA, and MLB fan. Facebook's sports-oriented ads are usually limited to the game score which I don't need to look at because the game is already on my TV. Snap, on the other hand, puts up a nice collection of Snapchat videos from other people. I can get a pre-game locker room video from the players and I can get a fan's view of the game-winning touchdown in the same collection. Both are things you wouldn't see on a typical game broadcast. I'm fully aware that both are advertisements, but one is significantly more relevant and more enjoyable for me to consume than the other.

>So what is being 'stolen' is something that largely comes down to a 50% probability in most situations?

Yes, but that 50% probability makes a huge difference. .300 is considered a fantastic batting average to have. .400 makes you a legend. The former means that a great batter can hit the ball in pay and not get out before they reach first 30% of their at bats.

So even improving your batting average by .05, i.e. have 5% more of your at bats result in hits, makes a huge difference to both your team and your career.

And as far as that 50% probability goes, it tells the batter a huge amount. A typical fastball comes in in the high 90s mph, an offspeed in the 80s. So even just knowing whether it's an offspeed or fastball ensures you won't swing too late or too early.

>Is there a history of 'stealing signs' in baseball? ...Since it could be communicated almost as effectively offline as by a smartwatch.

Yes. First it's worth noting that stealing signs without technological aid is legal. The issue here is that the Red Sox were using an Apple Watch to aid them.

By far the most common and traditional method of stealing signs is using a runner on second. If a batter reaches second base, he has a clear line of sight to the batter and catcher. The catcher is the one making the signs to the pitcher, and by observing the catcher, the runner on second can relay those signs to the batter thereby improving the batter's chances of getting on base.

The obvious issue here is that if you cannot use electronics to assist you, then your chances of stealing signs is limited. The runner on second is about your only chance of being able to do so.

>Also, how accurate can the team read the other team's signs from the dugout?

Not very. If you watch a typical at bat, pay attention to the catcher. He holds his hand between his legs, right in front of his crotch. His signs makes him look like he's scratching his crotch. Because of how close his hand is to his body, the fact that his legs are always extended on either side of his hands, and that the dugouts are on either side off the field, the dugout's view of the catcher's hands are obscured so they can't see his signs. Goes back to my above statement of the time proven method of stealing signs with a runner on second.

>Is it a high probability the information between sent to the players is accurate?

Depends on their pre-game preparations and adjustments. What often happens is catchers mask their signals. A simple example of this would be the catcher and pitchers plan beforehand to send four signals, and the second signal is their real one. Obviously it's more complex than this in real life, but the point is there are safeguards against stealing signals. If you have figured out their code then you have a very good chance of predicting pitches. If not, then the signs you steal probably won't be any better than guessing.

On a tangential note, that might not be the case anymore next year. The Thunder got Paul George, the Rockets traded for Chris Paul, Gordon Hayward is now on the Celtics, and Jimmy Butler is in Minnesota. Meanwhile, there's rumors that Kyrie Irving wants to be traded.

Doug Demuro of "Bumper to Bumper Warranty" fame has used Turo-rented cars in some of his videos.

If you follow the PAC12, SlingTV has the PAC12 networks as an add-on package

No kidding. I miss the old days of ESPN. Doesn't help either that ESPN isn't showing good games anymore and that it has big competition now.

For football, this past season they were only showing the MNF games. In the Bay Area, NBC Sports Bay Area has broadcast rights to all the Giants and Warriors games. IIRC, NBC broadcast holds the rights to the Sharks. In San Diego, Fox Sports San Diego has the rights to the Padres. I can't remember the last time I tuned into ESPN to watch a game I wanted to see beyond "Oh that's on, I guess I'll watch."

Even ignoring the broadcasting rights, sports talk on other channels have become vastly superior to ESPN. My two favorite segments on sports this year (ARod + Pete Rose discuss batting, Isiah Thomas discusses dribbling) came out of Fox Sports and TNT. I'd pay good money to hear more detailed analysis from former players, rather than talk endlessly about how Tom Brady looks like he's from NSync with his haircut.

In my opinion ESPN just got too complacent with their status and is digging themselves into the grave. I swear I can go on for hours over all the things ESPN is doing wrong in the sports media today.

ESPN is suffering from a two pronged death.

Like you, there's plenty of people who aren't interested in sports and aren't interested in paying extra for a sports-bundled cable package.

Then there's people like me who like sports and don't like the programming on ESPN. Two decades ago, ESPN reporting used to be legitimately great. They'd talk about strategy, roster moves, interviews with players/coaches, etc. These days it's TMZ with a sports focus. Even something as mundane as Tom Brady's new haircut became a talking point on ESPN. The most recent example I have of ESPN's decline was the recent NFL draft. It was nothing but baseless conjecture on who's getting whom. It's a lot of random guesswork and hot takes portrayed as journalism. The talking heads would just shout about the most outrageous conjecture with no rationale.

ESPN has gotten complacent and they're paying for it now. In my opinion they were relying on cable subscriptions when that's going away, and they haven't invested in quality programming to keep the sports fans in the longest time.

I think a part of it has also been Nintendo's terrible naming scheme the past few years.

I don't follow gaming news closely, so when I heard of the Wii U I thought it was a hardware revision not unlike the Xbox One S to the Xbox One. It took me over a year after launch to learn that the Wii U is an entirely new console.

The same thing happened with the 3DS. When I finally looked into getting one this past holiday season, I was confused by the 3DS vs 3DS XL vs New 3DS vs New 3DS XL. I was hesitant to buy since I wasn't sure if the New 3DS was a hardware revision or an entirely new console like the Wii U.

On top of that, the marketing wasn't there for me. I learn of my gaming news when it hits the front page of Reddit. When the Switch was announced, there was massive hype behind it. I didn't see the same for the Wii U.

Isn't that their legal obligation though? Certainly they could have offered more considering everyone was seated already, they had the crew for a future flight to transport on time, and everyone was initially unwilling.

I think it's the timing that made things so difficult for them. If they asked me at the gate I'd be willing to take $400 plus flight comps. If it's when I'm already seated on the plane though (and reports said the man taken off was seated and buckled in already), my price goes way up.

One would think that since the crew dropped the ball by pulling people this late they would offer more money to make those guys volunteer happily.

Maybe not, but the remaining country can still severely harm California. Additionally I wouldn't assume that California-based military will support CalExit.

I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California.

What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.

1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit.

For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs.

I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line.

2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states.

This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard.

I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.