bhupy · HackerTrans

I don't think you fully understand who you are arguing against.

I also think Olise's yellow card was unjustified. I think it should be overturned also. Even without overturning it, at least he still gets to play, so that's good for all of us as spectators.

The process sucks since it's arbitrary. In a better world there would be a universal appeals process.

bhupy

6 days agodiscuss

It's not just a random player, it's a player whose red card was contested even by the commentators as it was playing out. You should just watch the replay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuaS3jUAark.

"Does he endanger the safety of his opponent? You could argue it does, but I think it's slightly unfair because it's more of a stepping action that lacks force and intensity to create that red card."

"Is it the right call? I don't think it's the right call...I don't like that being the level that we're calling for a red card. I think that's a yellow card, I don't see that as a red"

After the match, there was continued debate as to whether it should have been a red. Messi didn't get a red card for a nearly identical incident.

FIFA has a rule to handle this sort of situation, and it's Article 27. In my opinion, that is a poor system as any process that's initiated by FIFA is bound to be arbitrary. It would be better to have a universal appeals process, and such a process might very well have resulted in an overturning of the red card nevertheless. Either way, the outcome was correct, even if the path to getting there was flawed.

And just taking a step back and taking stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium were given a disadvantage, it is simply that they were being asked to play against the full squad. It was pathetic to complain about that, especially given that Belgium comfortably thrashed the USA's full squad.

As spectators of any sport, that's all we can hope for: take the best of 2 teams and pit them against each other. See where the chips fall. I don't actually enjoy watching an easy fixture, I want it to be a nail biter.

Belgium should have either said nothing, or just said "cool we don't care, we'll beat them either way, game on". Instead, they (and most Europeans) came across as sissies.

Looking ahead, for me personally, I'm hoping football comes home.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

Yeesh, this conversation has run its course.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

> I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red.

You're entitled to believe it was a red, but it is objectively controversial. It's not just about what you believe, but what about others might believe. If there are enough people that disagree with you, then it is by definition controversial.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7415223/2026/07/01/folarin-...

> You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.

> That’s all part of the game.

Correct, and players can get re-instated (as happend with Cristiano Ronaldo in the very same tournament) by FIFA per Article 27. That is also part of the game.

The Belgians now need to man up and play the game with a full squad rather than whine about not getting an easy fixture. Seriously just take a step back and take stock of what we are arguing here; it's not as though Belgium are being given a disadvantage, it is simply that they are being asked to play against the full squad. It is rather pathetic to complain about that.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

No, those are not at all contradictory, it is entirely consistent.

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. There is no appeals process that USA (or any team) can initiate

2. There is a mechanism that FIFA can initiate to suspend a match ban at their discretion

That is why it's a bad system; as long as it's initiated by FIFA, it will always be arbitrary and capricious.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

Correct.

Hence: “which in practice will be arbitrary.”

It’s on FIFA to correct for that governance failure by making it less arbitrary via a more universal appeals process.

In any case, the rules were followed to the correct decision. It’s just that these rules as written are arbitrarily applied.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

You're right, it's a failure of governance that FIFA doesn't have a proper appeals process for everyone to use. It is unfortunate that the only rules-based mechanism to suspend the match ban had to come from FIFA, which in practice will be arbitrary.

It was the right outcome, but the wrong process.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

> With respect, only an American would think that the competition ceases to be interesting just because the US loses

With respect to you, I'm a lifelong football fan.

And read more carefully, the argument I am making is not that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US loses. The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).

Let the chips fall where they may, should the USA lose after this, at least they got to make their best attempt at it. That's all I want as a spectator.

bhupy

7 days agodiscuss

> The goal is ultimately entertainment

This is something I see so many people forgetting.

The net result of this decision is simply that the USA gets to play with their full squad and you have an actually interesting competition. The reason we as a world spend hundreds of millions of dollars to let athletes play a game for a living is pretty much exclusively for interesting competition. It serves no other socially useful purpose.

Embarrassing for the Belgians and the Europeans to respond any other way than: "we look forward to beating your best team, game on".

bhupy

5 months agodiscuss

This comment is a hilarious example of: https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279?lang...

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

Because we tax income, rather than wealth? This is true for most of the OECD. None of this has changed, and it's true for any ultra-wealthy person who wishes to actually consume against their wealth.

By definition, the ultra-wealthy defer their consumption for the sake of investment. If they never ever choose to liquidate their wealth, then it's little more than a life high score.

One can certainly consume right now by taking on a collateralized loan against their wealth, but even if one were to do that, the loan would need to eventually be repaid. For this to happen, some gain would have to be realized somewhere. That money isn't free. No matter what, that wealth is eventually taxed.

A relevant response to an earlier ProPublica piece: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/propublicas-bombshel...

As for the Roth IRA, the whole point was to extend the power of deferred consumption to the ordinary person (response to this specific ProPublica piece: https://twitter.com/cundillcapital/status/140809068240169370...)

And just a side note: generally assume that I'm being serious. I try to be as earnest as possible on this forum. Going in with this assumption for anyone on here is best for its general health.

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

> What does that have to do with anything? I literally have no idea what you're trying to imply.

It means that government budget can be eventually consistent, unlike our personal budgets. Wealth is a leading indicator of income, and we all know that the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy will eventually pay taxes once they liquidate their wealth. When that happens, they will pay more in taxes than you or I, especially once you factor in inflation (which is one of the reasons why the long-term cap gains tax rate is so low to begin with, everywhere around the world).

Realistically, the government is already spending the money it expects to receive in eventual income tax collections from the ultra-wealthy. The best-faith attack on wealth is mostly around concentration of power, rather than tax revenue or even "fairness" relative to the middle class (the US has by far the most progressive taxation in the developed world[1][2][3]).

[1] https://opportunitywa.org/u-s-federal-income-tax-structure-m...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fed...

[3] https://faculty.washington.edu/vmenaldo/Inequality%20Researc...

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

> What would be the cost to manufacture them at the rate of 500 million a year? That's the global market potential.

Completely agreed. The fact that there's one bad product on the market doesn't mean that one can conclude that our system rewards bad products, per the GGP comment.

> p.s. Do motorcycle airbags actually work to significantly prevent injury and death? If the answer is that they aren't particularly efficacious anyway, even when ideally implemented, I can understand why they scarcely exist in the market.

Probably not! I think time will tell.

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

Yeah that's fair.

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

It appears their bet was that by having the upfront cost be discounted and making the money back in "service" payments, they increase access to those that might otherwise not be comfortable footing the high upfront cost. The product isn't a motorcycle jacket, it's a financial instrument with life-and-death usury rates. In some sense, it's probably impossible to market a product like this well.

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

I don't necessarily disagree with your perspective here, it makes sense. That being said, with payment plans, there's typically some notion of an interest rate. If you miss a payment, you "just" owe the compounding interest (eventually).

Typically, rates are regulated, and even when it's not regulated, usury is highly frowned upon.

Taking your analogy to its conclusion, the "interest rate" for nonpayment here could potentially be outright death when the thing in question stops working. It's hard to put a dollar value on a human life, but that's a hell of an interest rate!

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

Agreed, it doesn't seem like this would even need to be a "service", at least in the sense that the core functionality of "inflating" can entirely be serviced offline/locally on the jacket.

There's so much wrong with the implementation here, and it looks like a bright flashing opportunity for someone to provide a simpler/saner/cheaper alternative and make a quick buck.

bhupy

5 years agodiscuss

> nay, rewarded

Really? I see a low hanging fruit opportunity to get rich: manufacture and sell the same motorcycle vest and sell it at an upfront cost equal to some approximate amortization of monthly payments over some average LTV.

As a motorcycle rider, I currently have like 10+ different options for motorcycle jackets.

bhupy

6 years agodiscuss

Just because I don’t bring up politics with my barber, doesn’t mean that either of us don’t care about political issues. The proposal here is to compartmentalize.

If I don’t know someone’s political stance, my default isn’t to assume that they think “things are fine”, my default is to assume that they have some set of beliefs that are irrelevant to that particular interaction with them.

bhupy

6 years agodiscuss

But we're not talking about "social media" in broad terms, we're talking specifically about Facebook's pivot towards smaller community and group building, per:

> The strategy that Facebook has been pivoting towards is in favor of smaller community building, rather than the "mass market square" approach, which is why:

It's great that people have the ability to form groups with like-minded people, that's how the Internet worked before Facebook, and it sounds like there's some reversion to that.

The fact that it can also be used by "fringe groups", is just another way of saying "I don't want normal people to have nice things because people I don't like also have those nice things", but the world has always worked that way (see: Nazis and the radio). Bad people have existed for forever, and it's up to the laws we make that protect life & liberty to ensure that their impact on the world is limited, not limiting our our communication tools and hope that by 2nd order effect we prevent the people we don't like from having a voice (which is itself pretty dystopian).

comments