Tutorial about Hazard Ratios - Students 4 Best Evidence

hazard ratio less than 1

hazard ratio less than 1 - win

A break down of the bull case for Ethereum and how it relates to Bitcoin

There is a general understanding among ETH investors that the enhancements from ETH 2.0, EIP-1559 and L2 solutions will result in a sustainable monetary policy with near 0% issuance and the potential for Ether to become a deflationary asset. What is even more interesting is that the net return of ETH as a SoV becomes superior to BTC the moment that issuance is lower than the staking yield. In other words, even if BTC had already ceased issuance, it offers no mechanism to provide yield to long term holders with a negligible risk exposure as ETH does. There is an execution risk that Ethereum will not deliver on what is currently planned, but if it does then what I have explained will become a reality.
You cannot separate BTC/ETH's payment rails from their respective monetary policies. As you are probably aware, issuance is just a subsidy, and without it the network will need to operate as a profitable business with a cash-flow that is entirely dependent on network fees. We are observing a situation that is causing a degradation of the utility of the Bitcoin network. What I mean by that is that the incentive for users to transact directly on the network is being diminished because of the tokenization into ETH and by the introduction of custodians (like Paypal) and traditional banking services who will soon be entering this space. If these trends continue, I suspect that the only activity that will end-up happening on-chain will be done by whales sporadically transacting to hodle and the occasional settlement from institutions. Bitcoin seems fast and frictionless, but that is because you are comparing it to something in the physical world. In digital terms Bitcoin emulates the friction of operation that is found with gold: it is difficult and expensive to move it, securing it yourself is not trivial, and it does not make for a great medium of exchange. I don't think this will be a good dynamic to generate enough transaction fees. That is of course my subjective interpretation of it, but regarding this particular situation it is nearly impossible to make objective assertions at this point. It is possible to assert that, in the digital world, the expectation of frictionless money would entail near instant transactions with negligible cost and without the relative risk/paranoia of dealing with nuclear waste and having a hacker watching your every move waiting for you to make a mistake to snatch it away. Digital money would also need to interact with other digital assets, preferably defined and operated within the same ecosystem. Ethereum is steaming ahead on all ends.
Ethereum is fostering a digital economy (this is a very important part of understanding the value of Ethereum, but I will not be exploring it in this post) with DeFi at its center. It is currently generating about three times as much trx fee revenue as Bitcoin. L2 solutions are going live as we speak, and it appears that they will be much more practical and provide better UX when compared to the Lightning Network. This will help to amplify L1 block space value and push revenue even higher. That will be followed by EIP-1559, which will burn transaction fees. Mining is currently excessively profitable and the hash rate cannot keep up. This means the financial incentive can be reduced and by burning trx fees we achieve the equivalent of an issuance reduction, while stabilizing mining revenue. Eventually the transition to PoS will dramatically cut the operational cost of the network. That means that Ethereum as a business will become more profitable and less reliant on the issuance subsidy. Finally, we will see the introduction of sharding which will scale L1 by up to 1,000 times, compounding the effect of L2 solutions and making it feasible for the network to operate as a platform for new use cases. A solution to the hackenuclear waste security situation is being explored via social recovery wallets. It is still in the early stages of research and design, but it is important to realize that the Ethereum community recognizes it as a problem and is working on a solution.
There is a lot more that can be said about the BTC vs ETH debate and I am working on a full write up that explores each individual element in more detail. Regardless, it is important to pay attention to this trend: the smartest people in this space are shifting their point of view and realizing Ethereum's potential. Raoul Pal is a seasoned investor, extremely bright and open minded. He started with Bitcoin, but it did not take him long to understand the value proposition of Ethereum. Lyn Alden is a brilliant investor and mental powerhouse who initially did not think investing in Ethereum could be justified, but she is also starting to shift her view and now understands that it has a justifiable risk/reward ratio to be included in a portfolio (although she is not personally invested in Ethereum). She has plenty of negative things to say about it, however it appears that she recognizes this is not a black and white situation. I have a feeling she will be revising her analysis on Ethereum again in the future with a more optimist view, but maybe that is just wishful thinking.
The crypto space has a few analogies that have been used to describe technical/economic mechanisms that are somewhat tricky to understand: mining, Ethereum's gas, and the analogy between ether and oil. Crypto "mining" is not like real world mining. It's purpose is not to extract resources, but it is rather a decentralized mechanism to process transactions. Newly minted BTC tokens are not "mined", they are minted by the protocol and awarded to operators. Furthermore, it is impossible to change the total mining output of the network... adding/removing miners does not affect the mining output. If you are new to crypto, you can read a more detailed explanation of mining here. ETH's "gas" is not like fuel (it cannot even be stored). It is just a computational metric that is more akin to the distance a car must travel, but not what actually makes it move. The fuel is electricity and it must be paid for with ether. When you transact you are also paying for the "car" which is the use of all active mining hardware/validators for a fraction of a second. And ether is just money.
If you put too much weight on these simplified analogies, you will not understand the economic actuality behind them. This is a source confusion in the crypto space, and it is used to support false narratives. From an economic perspective, ether is money. Once you understand this, you will know that the narrative that BTC and ETH are not competing because they are different things is analogous to saying fax machines do not compete with the internet.
The beautiful thing about ether is that it is actually not "just money". It is a mixture of a scarce monetized commodity, money, bond and tech stock.
​
EDIT 1: Adding an analogy to explain why ether is money:
Let’s say I have a car with a 14-gallon fuel tank and I want to take it on a road trip. The car is not aware of the price of gasoline, and it would not travel any farther if the price of gas would double the next day. That’s because the intrinsic utility of oil has nothing to do with its monetary value. The car needs gas because of its particular physical properties and how the ICE is designed to utilize it. If I want to drive from point A to point B and it takes a full tank to get there, it will take that full tank no matter what happens to the monetary properties of gas/oil. This is fundamentally different from how Ethereum uses ether.
Ethereum (the network) is not trying to be money, but it utilizes ether exclusively for its monetary properties and not because it can be magically burned by an imaginary engine of sorts. It costs money to participate in the network as a miner, and their engagement is financially incentivized with ether. Block space is a scarce resource, therefore participants who wish to transact use ether to bid for it. These interactions are utilizing ether as a monetary medium of exchange. In the long run, as the price of ether goes up, the ether denomination of gas prices goes down. That happens because no one is using ether as gas/oil, and it is actually being used as money. In the short run you may see the opposite occurring because of the dynamic between the portion of block space demand that is inelastic and the demand for ether.
EDIT 2: Revisiting key concepts to explain how they will become price catalysts.
  1. Wide adoption of L2 solutions: these will amplify the base layer block space value while encouraging further network adoption by a significant reduction of fees. A successful integration with DeFi protocols will dismiss the "Ethereum killers" theory and consolidate market confidence.
  2. EIP-1559: reduce excessive financial incentives to miners by burning transaction fees. This will also discourage miners from attempting to artificially raise fees via spam.
  3. Sharding: scale L1 bandwidth, compounding the effect of L2 solutions, further consolidating Ethereum's dominance in the DeFi space, making it feasible to introduce new use cases and eventually increase trx fee revenue.
  4. The switch from PoW to PoS: discontinuing PoW will eliminate the operating costs related to mining and will allow for a reduction of issuance. Money that was previously allocated to buying mining equipment will be redirected to the acquisition of Ether. Staking Ether will remove it from circulation for extended periods of time. Operating cost will be negligible, allowing validators to withhold most of the Ether revenue. This will be the greatest bull market catalyst in the history of cryptocurrencies and it will eclipse the effect of BTC halvenings.
Bitcoin maximalists will be nay-saying all the way through and past a market cap flip. Do not get caught up in their narrative. If you are not sure, then it is better to rebalance your portfolio proportionally to market caps. If none of these things happen and Ethereum turns out to be a failure, then you would only have reduced your gains by 20%. Otherwise, ETH will be making you mountains of money.
EDIT 3: Ethereum killers
Ethereum killers remind me a lot of Tesla killers, but a lot worse. People need to understand that cryptocurrency platforms targeting financial Dapps are fighting the equivalent force of a black-hole when it comes to Ethereum’s network effect and user retention in this space.
Bigger players, with bigger money, are entering this market and they will not settle for anything other than the top dog. This pattern reinforces Ethereum's position as the premium financial system, which ends up attracting even bigger players and resulting in the black-hole effect. To make matters even more complicated, financial apps are more valuable when they are surrounded by a rich and diverse variety of digital assets and other natively defined Dapps. There is not much you can do with your money in a ghost town.
It is VERY difficult to build this type of environment up because the platform and dapps must also have established full trust from their user base. This is not to say there is no space for other networks to grow, but just don’t get your hopes high that they will be taking Ethereum’s stronghold as a financial system. There are other use cases that do not require the amount of decentralization and security offered by Ethereum, and the networks that can focus on these are the ones who will be able to coexist with in the long-run. Gaming, ERP interoperability and supply chain are good examples of such use cases. Remember that alternatives with cheap transactions have existed for a while and they have barely touched ETH's dominance (EOS, NEO, VET, QTUM, IOTA, LSK, STRAT, ARK and dare I say... TRON).
EDIT 4: Refuting critiques about dynamic monetary policy
If an argument can be made that the financial incentives to operators (miners/stakers) are excessive or insufficient then an argument can be for the implementation and execution of a dynamic monetary policy.
I don't think an arbitrarily picked issuance schedule determined during the genesis of a new highly complex system is likely to be efficient through its lifecycle. Bitcoin's monetary policy provides the certainty of stability and protection from abuse, but it sacrifices the possibility of efficiency and jeopardizes longevity. It would be like if a captain of a ship would point it in the direction of its final destination, set the throttle, then fall back to his cabin for a nice bottle of chianti and hope that the ship would arrive safely. There would be no one at the helm to navigate the seas, no one to make sure it stayed on route, no one to avoid the storms or to take advantage of currents. In my opinion it is a pretty bad approach to something as critical as monetary policy.
With respect to Ethereum's dynamic monetary policy: I don't see any evidence to suggest developers have been enriching their pockets by keeping issuance at the levels they are. Developers are stakeholders and the Ethereum fund holds a lot of ether - debasing ether is against their self interest. There is a great misunderstanding that the one's who are adjusting issuance are the recipients of the new tokens. Is there any documented case of this happening?
EDIT 5: Addressing Bitcoin's immutable monetary policy
The idea that Bitcoin's monetary policy cannot be changed is a myth. It is a false narrative that takes for granted that the issuance subsidy will no longer be necessary at some point, but there is no way to objectively assert this. There is no divine power preventing the monetary policy from being changed. If the security model for Bitcoin was jeopardized because of insufficient cash flow to miners, then Bitcoin's monetary policy would be the first thing on the chop board to go in order to remedy the situation.
EDIT 6: Five years ago naysayers were screaming about how everything that is being done TODAY in the Ethereum network would never work. Now they are calling Ethereum a scam, or that is is a platform for degenerate gamblers, or that the fees are too high and therefore it is useless, or that it can't scale, or that something else better is just around the corner to take its place.... you know... basically all the things that traditional bankers have to say about Bitcoin, maxis are saying about Ethereum.
EDIT 7: The greater the impact a new technology can have on society, the more difficult it is to comprehend its potential. Ethereum has the potential to have a dramatic impact on human civilization. It could take decades for it to be fully realized, but it would change the world in ways that we cannot possibly imagine today. If it happens, the moon will be just a pit-stop.
EDIT 8: Thank you so much for all the awards! Ethereans understand this stuff, and I could feel the frustration in the air every time someone said that Ethereum is not money, or that ETH and BTC are completely different things, or all the other bs attacks that are in great part founded on a lack of understanding of how BTC and ETH actually work. I would love to hear what guys like Raoul Pal, Pomp, Michael Saylor and Fernando Ulrich (for my Brazilian friends) would have to say about some of the things that have been written here. If you know a way to get their attention, then please do it.
EDIT 9: Clarification about Lyn Alden's opinion of Ethereum
EDIT 10: I am still working on a much more ambitious write up. It is focused on economic aspects of money, monetary systems and global asset markets. I still have not incorporated any of the information written here, but I eventually will merge it together. One of the main new ideas that I am exploring is challenging the notion that money has no intrinsic value and that scarcity is the most important attribute of money. I think I make a compelling argument to demonstrate that facilitating economic activity is more important, and how Ethereum has a big edge over Bitcoin in this regard. Here is the link to the WIP doc.
TLDR: Ethereum is not stopping at the moon... it is not stopping on Mars... it is going straight out of the Milky Way galaxy in search for alien life... but you should own some BTC just in case the spaceship malfunctions during launch.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I've Found 929 Discs Over 4 Years - Here's Some Data!

Over the last 4 years I’ve collected data on the discs I’ve found, broken it down into chunks and trends I thought were interesting, and shared it with the community. Previous year’s posts can be found 2019 Post and 2020 Post.
This post deals with averages for the entire data set collected over the years. There are some comparisons from the previous years’ averages just for giggles here and there but if you’re looking for trends by comparing old posts you’ll need to remember that all of the data keeps getting rolled over into a larger and larger aggregate. I do plan on breaking finds down by year as well as location in future posts. Lots of neat data so may as well play with it, right?
I’ve explained my data collection a bit more near the end of this post. If you notice some math and number discrepancies, it’s likely due to rounding or an incomplete data set. Or maybe it’s just me.
As is tradition, I’d like you to ask yourself some questions about found discs. Take a guess, maybe ask your buddies what they think, and see how close you get to the actual data. Put a couple of bucks on it if that’s your thing. I’ll give you a little location context so you know what you’re working with.
 
Where were these discs found?
Basket - 2
Brush - 9
Fairway - 43
Marsh/Mud - 17
Woods - 91
On Ice - 7
Roof - 2
Water - 429
SCUBA - 323
 
Summarized into some cleaner percentages:
Water - 81%
Land - 19%
 
I’ll talk about some thoughts on the locations a bit later. I split Water and SCUBA in the table even though there’s some overlap. If a disc was listed as found in the water, it was recovered either using a retriever or wading. SCUBA is self explanatory. While there are no doubt some SCUBA discs that were found close enough to shore for wading, these were generally deeper and more inaccessible for somebody out just playing.
 
Here are your questions.
1. How many discs were marked with a name and number?
2. What’s my disc return rate?
3. What brand/manufacturer was lost most frequently?
4. What speed of disc was lost most frequently?
5. What color of disc was lost most frequently?
6. What type of plastic was lost most frequently?
7. What molds were most commonly lost?
 
I don’t recommend scrolling down much more prior to taking your guesses.
 
1. How many discs were marked with a name and number?
This, along with return rate, was actually one of the pieces of information I wanted to know about when I first started thinking about the discs we were finding. It’s certainly a populacontroversial topic on discgolf.
 
Discs marked with number: 47%
Unmarked discs: 51%
Marked, but no number: 2%
 
So basically half of the discs I find are uninked. That number has fluctuated a bit over the years by a % or two but has really been consistent. The marked but no number discs usually have a PDGA #, but sometimes it’s just a name. In retrospect, I wish I kept track of how many times a bad number was present on the disc but oh well, that ship has sailed.
 
2. What is my disc return rate?
 
Total Return Rate (All Discs): 30%
Total Return Rate (Marked Discs Only): 65%
Total Return Rate (Unmarked Discs): 9%
 
We text the numbers on the discs we find. Ideally we get it done immediately when we find it as it makes meet-ups easier, but sometimes they’re too dirty and need a good scrubbing before we can read the number. If the text doesn’t work, they get a call. We also scan the local league page, which has a running lost disc thread, and see if we recognize anything. From there we either meet up at a course, arrange a drop-off location like under a trash can, or give it to a league person that can run the disc to its owner. We increased our efforts quite a bit to run “iffy” discs back this year. Last year we only bothered with numbered discs. This year we tried to run back pretty much everything. There’s a story behind it but figured I wouldn’t clutter up a data post too much.
There’s actually a lot to unpack with these numbers. For example, 65% of marked discs are returned. Seems kind of low, right? But many of those owners tell us to keep the disc. My numbers on this data isn’t great as I only kept track of it this last year, but I have records of being told to keep a found disc 49 times - that’s 12% of marked discs. If we consider those discs “returned”, our rate goes up to 77%. Those numbers are low - I’m guessing if I had kept better records of “keep its” it would bring us closer to 80% but that’s speculation.
Additionally, my buddy has a duffle bag of marked discs waiting to be returned sitting in his car. There’s 35 of them in there that have had positive contacts and are pending being returned. That’s another 9% if they ever get around to trying to get their stuff back (I know, it’s COVID, we’re trying to be understanding - most of these discs have been in there for months though). Anyway, moral of the story? 86% of marked discs are “accounted” for per their owners wishes and a good chunk of the 14% that’s left just had bad numbers. Others never get back to us and a few drop off the face of the earth after replying once or twice. A couple of times the owner had passed. It’s an unusual feeling when you find one of their discs.
That still leaves us with a lot of unmarked discs. This year we got a small chunk (9% of all unmarked discs, 4% of total discs found) of them returned. Part of it was coordination with the local league. Part of it was just conversation with other players on the course. My buddy is a talker and likes meeting people. One of the first things he asks is if they’ve played a given course before and if they’ve lost anything. Surprisingly, we’ve returned quite a few discs from these conversations.
What do we do with all the unreturned discs? After a few weeks I suppose we take ownership of them and do what we want. Usually we end up giving them away. We adore giving families and groups that are just starting piles of discs. One of the new things we picked up doing this year is making people whole when they’ve lost a disc. Sometimes we haven’t found the specific disc somebody lost but have an identical(ish) unmarked, unwanted, or unclaimed mold that we found that we can give them as a replacement. Sometimes we’ll sell a batch off if we’re getting ridiculous on storage. Helps pay for gear and gas and keeps the clutter down. It’s pretty rare we need to do that though - we’d rather give them to new players but that becomes a tricky proposition with the high speed stuff. A few we’ll keep and bag ourselves, but it’s pretty rare beyond maybe just trying a new mold out for a round or three.
 
3. What brand/manufacturer was lost most frequently?
 
Innova - 46%
Discraft - 23%
Dynamic - 6%
MVP - 6%
Westside - 4%
Latitude 64 - 4%
Axiom - 3%
Prodigy - 2%
DGA - 2%
Discmania - 1%
Streamline <1%
Gateway <1%
Legacy <1%
Vibram <1%
Unknown <1%
Millenium <1%
ESP <1%
Essential <1%
Lightning <1%
Plastic Addicts <1%
Wham-O <1%
Yikun <1%
 
Innova holds a commanding lead with Discraft being the only other significant contender. Merging companies like Trilogy and the MVP/Axiom/Streamline narrows things a bit, but not much. Last year I chunked the companies together based on who was manufacturing what, but with Discmania shopping around their sourcing I’m no longer certain who’s making what nowadays.
 
4. What speed of disc was lost most frequently?
 
2 - 3%
3 - 3%
4 - 4%
5 - 9%
6 - 5%
7 - 5%
8 - 3%
9 - 13%
10 - 7%
11 - 7%
12 - 15%
13 - 20%
14 - 5%
15 <1%
 
Data was taken from Infinitediscs’s flight information for each disc. I know there’s occasionally discrepancies between them and the manufacturers but I figured it would be best to pull information from one source.
 
Top 5 lost speeds:
Speed 13 - 20%
Speed 12 - 15%
Speed 9 - 13 %
Speed 5 - 9%
Speed 10 and Speed 11 - 7%
 
Loss % By Type:
High Speed Drivers (11-14) – 47%
Fairway/Control Drivers (7-10) – 28%
Mids (4-6) – 18%
Putters (1-3) – 6%
 
As is tradition, the high speed drivers dominate the lost disc category. I’m looking forward to breaking the land and water data apart as nearly all of the water holes I find discs on are under 300’ from tee to basket but hey, people are going to throw what they’re going to throw. It’s also a bit of a nuisance that putters and mids are the least frequently lost but the most useful disc to give to new players. If y’all could start trying to emulate Lizotte with some unmarked putters on water hazards I’d appreciate it. If he can clear nearly 500’ of water, surely you can manage 250’, right? Go for it... cough
 
5. What color of disc was lost most frequently?
 
Blue - 18%
Red - 14%
Yellow - 13%
Orange - 12%
Pink - 11%
White - 10%
Black - 9%
Green - 8%
Tye Dye - 4%
Purple - 3%
Gray - 2%
Violet - 2%
Brown, Clear, Copper, Gold, and Peach each represented less than 1% of found discs.
 
From year to year, the color averages seem to change the most with the exception of blue being on top. One thing I noticed, however, is that I lump all blue discs together regardless of shade while most of the other colors have a “lighter” and “darker” version so that is likely bloating its numbers a bit. I’m not certain why I recorded them that way. Lord knows I got creative with plenty of other shades. For the purpose of simplicity, all discs marked “burgundy, wine, chartreuse, seafoam, turquoise” or any other oddball description got shoved into an arbitrarily “close enough” color category. Apparently some days I must feel poetic while recording these things.
 
6. What type of plastic was lost most frequently?
 
Premium Grippy "Star, ESP, Neutron, etc" - 40%
Premium Translucent "Champ, Opto, Z, etc" - 34%
Base - 14%
Pro - 5%
Flexible - 4%
Glow - 2%
Light - 2%
 
I lumped all the different plastic brands into “close enough” varieties. Flexy, glow, and lightweight discs all got dumped together regardless of what plastic variety they were built into.
I’m guessing a lot of folks thought base plastic would be the most common, but turns out it’s fairly rare in comparison to the premium plastics. I wonder if a lot of it gets retired into peoples’ garages and basements when they decide they like the game and upgrade. Those starter kits have to end up somewhere….
 
7. What molds were most commonly lost?
As is tradition, I’ll be listing these according to the total number found instead of %. Unfortunately there wasn’t a clean “break” point so I’ll just arbitrarily pick...double digits I guess.
 
Destroyer - 63
Boss - 26
Katana - 25
Valkyrie - 23
Beast - 20
Wraith - 20
Shryke - 19
Nuke SS - 18
Buzzz - 17
Nuke - 17
Teebird - 16
Firebird - 15
Sidewinder - 15
Leopard - 13
Tern - 13
Vulcan - 13
Sheriff - 12
Avenger SS - 11
Thrasher - 10
Crank - 10
Colossus - 10
 
Ah, Destroyers - I knew you were the disc we were finding the most of, and every year you prove me right by preposterous ratios. Actually, I’m a bit surprised to see so many Innovas firmly entrenched in the top 10. The list has definitely shifted through the years. Heck, the first year Drones (of all discs) made the top 5. I don’t think I’ve found one since….
Anecdotally, the Kong/Zeus/McBeth Driver just barely missed the list - it’s definitely trying hard to catch up. I have a sneaking suspicion it may actually have made the double digit list but I think two “Prototypes” got marked as Hades due to what the owners indicated they thought they were, but I’m not so sure they weren’t Zeuses. Eh, who knows - we’ll see it on the list next year I’m betting.
For the morbidly curious - there were 118 “Unicorn” discs, of which only one example of that given mold was found. Definitely not bitter about having to look up the flight numbers for every single stinking one of them….
A grand total of 271 different molds were found. 4 discs I was unable to identify - two oddball Innovas that had no markings and I just couldn’t figure out and 2 generic ones that probably came out of a Costco “Frolf” set or something.
 
And some stats for funsies….
Total discs I’ve found courses on: 23 out of 43 played - or 53% of courses played I’ve found a disc on.
Disc finding rate: 606 discs found over 503 rounds played = 1.2 discs a round
Note: I’ve removed the SCUBA discs from this but there were instances we went out just to wade instead of playing a course so this number is inflated a bit. We do find a lot of discs while playing - 2 or 3 isn’t all that weird. More if we have to go into the water to get one we lose ourselves. Also, this is not accounting for rounds played prior to U-Disc, but I wasn’t finding them at nearly the rate I do now. It’s accurate enough for a hipfire statistic. Most discs found in one day: 73 - SCUBA diving, two tanks of air
 
Average Discs Found on 1 Tank of Air - 25
 
u/mechanickzilla made a comment in a recent thread about lugging out a bunch of gear to a pond and searching for hours for 30 discs. It amused me because it sounded right. Turns out to be a pretty darn close estimate! A tank of air lasts roughly an hour. If I average out all SCUBA time it works out to be 25 discs per tank/hour in the water. I did refine my technique from early days and upped my efficiency quite a bit this year - turns out if I bring a salvage bag and don’t rise to toss discs to shore every time my hands were full I get a LOT more search time out of a tank and my average rises to 32 discs per tank, or about a disc every 2 minutes. There is some prep and cleanup time involved so I suppose strictly speaking the rate is lower if I want to account for the entire process instead of just time in the water.
 
Where discs are being found - 34% on one course, 48% on another, so 82% of discs were found on only two courses.
 
Most discs returned to one person - I’ve honestly lost count. I know he’s up to 12 or 15 and that’s a conservative estimate.
 
Most frequently found disc - A blue teebird we’ve returned 4 times. Haven’t seen the previous champion blue Rogue for quite some time. I’ll have to ask the owner what happened to it.
 
Find anything else interesting?
A half dozen vape pens, a jar of marijuana, 8 golf clubs, hundreds of golf balls, 4 golden retrievers (the disc retriever, not the dog), 3 sunglasses, a couple of cell phones, 3 unopened beers, a couple of rakes, untold millions of towels, a bluetooth speaker, 3 sets of car keys, 1 pair of kid-sized glasses, 5 bicycles, and a rifle case.
 
About Location
Location turned out to be a bit trickier to classify than I thought and I’ve changed and reclassified things several times now. For a while it was just woods and water, but that really didn’t do a good job of describing finding something on shore or in a basket. Here’s what I ended up with:
Brush - anything not mowed without trees. Includes briars, bushes, and long grass. You’ll notice there are not a lot of these - that’s because I HATE walking through these areas and avoid them. A lot of the ones we found in this condition were there because we were looking for one of our own or we were cleaning up the course and happened to stumble across one while brushwhacking or something. Seriously, long grass is the WORST to look through. I feel for those of you that fight with it and really, really appreciate the courses that cut search paths through it.
Marsh - the swampy, mucky crap that disc golf courses love to get built on because what else are you going to do with the land? Not quite enough to be able to submerge your disc, but plenty soggy enough that you’ll ruin a pair of shoes trying to walk through it. A lot of shore finds were reclassified to this.
Fairway - anything mowed. I’m always surprised at how many discs we find on the fairway. I suspect some of them are blown down from being stuck in trees. Others are no doubt forgotten. A few are probably bad throws that rolled to someplace ridiculous. A lot of times we get these back to groups actively on the course, but a surprising amount of times we don’t.
I think the rest are pretty self-explanatory.
 
Why? Just...why?
Nearly 1000 entries is a lot to monkey with (believe me, I entered every damned one of them - many of them two or three times as I revised and improved my organization). The data collection started more or less by accident. My buddy and I were playing nearly daily and we were stumbling across a steady stream of discs. We speculated about what disc we were finding the most of (there were three or four reasonable contenders) but really didn’t have firm answers, just hazy recollections and some finger counting.
In an attempt to answer our whimsically discussed question, I dug through my storage bin and counted. That left me with some numbers, but not the whole picture. I realized that there were quite a few discs that we’d returned, given away, or sold over the year prior. Fortunately, I had been in the habit of texting numbers to try and return discs and we both tended to take pictures if we found something on the course to show our friends. I had also started a disc golf journal I was keeping on Google Calendar and, for whatever reason, had been noting when we found a disc on the course. Between that documentation and memory (there were less than a hundred or so discs at the time, so it was easy to remember where I had found a given disc) I was able to put together a fairly decent, but somewhat incomplete, starting point for data. Sometimes data was missing, like color or plastic, but it was something to work with.
I did what I could to keep the data “true” and no doubt neglected to account for some discs simply because I didn’t have documentation for them. I guarantee, for example, some discs were found on the course that were left by the group ahead of us and returned nearly immediately that did not get recorded. I also didn’t record discs lost and found from my own party. When in doubt, I left it out. It means some of my numbers are a bit different from one category to another as well. For example, I may have had documentation on the mold found, but not its color. As I collected the data and put them into an actual spreadsheet (Let me assure you, tracking data in Google Calendar is...not recommended) I realized there was certain data I wanted and began making a concentrated effort to keep track of it. There’s still mistakes and omissions, no doubt, but it should be pretty darn solid.
Is the data good for anything? Hard to say. It’s a significant data pool, but the questions that can be asked of it are not always clear. The reason we find so many Innova discs, for example, is probably not because they are more prone to being lost than other brands, but rather that they are more popular and more thrown, and thus more likely to be lost and found.
Color becomes more tricky - am I finding a lot of blue discs because they are more popular or are they easier to see and thus be found? Discs found with SCUBA are usually felt rather than seen, is there a difference between colors found on land and water?
Finding trends may also be possible. It’s possible to isolate discs found by park per year they were found (heck, down to the date if need be) so perhaps we can find changes from year to year in a given location. It’s something I plan to dig into and post about from time to time.
One area I could use some advice on is classifying discs by stability. The spreadsheet currently includes Speed, Turn, and Fade numbers along with quantity. For each mold of disc. I had planned on identifying discs on stable/neutral/understable but those definitions are not particularly clear. If anybody has thoughts on how this could be organized I’d love to hear them. Right now I’m looking at maybe displacement from 0 or something but I have a hard time calling a -2/2 disc like a Valk “Neutral”. I suppose I could break them down strictly by the listed fade/turn numbers. Shouldn’t be more than a dozen combinations.
Anyway, I suppose there is no “why” other than curiosity and a desire to contribute to the community. I think it’s interesting so I’m posting it. Not going to lie, I like seeing if it’s enough to earn a “Quality Post” tag as well. As bad as a kid with a sticker chart, I swear.
Feel free to ask questions - I do plan on breaking down data by year, location, and stability (once I figure out how to organize it) so there will likely be a few extra posts this year.
submitted by 1-Down to discgolf [link] [comments]

Some common gender myths and their rebuttals

It seems like the same discussions come up around Reddit a lot, so I figured I'd gather up some common topics, and their rebuttals.
Many of these arguments can be expanded with more points and sources but I'm trying to keep this as compact and to the point as possible.

Myth 1: "Sexism against men is never institutional or systematic"

Many forms of sexism and discrimination against men are explicitly institutionalized or systemic in society.
Examples include police violence, court biases, incarceration, child custody discrimination, military service, educational biases, health research and spending, insurance, housing discrimination, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy rights, and many others.
The widespread ignorance and denialism around these issues can itself be interpreted as a form of systemic discrimination against men as well.
Note that some of these are institutional because they boil down to statutory legal rights which exist in the realm of government policy and administration. And the government is obviously an institution.

Myth 2: "Most politicians and CEOs are men, and this has led to a society that privileges men and disenfranchises women"

The fact that many positions of formal power are occupied by men does not translate into measurable privileges for the average man.
The assumption this is based on is the idea that men have an in-group bias and prefer other men over women.
Which is an idea that has been debunked over and over again in the academic literature. The gender bias among men is almost zero, and sometimes manifests as an out-group bias sightly in favor of women, not other men.
In-group bisses do exist among women though. In fact some research has found evidence for very strong gender biases among women. Including when it comes to educators, bosses, and hiring managers. Women in formal positions of power do actually seem to prefer other women over men, in much the same way that men are accused of behaving. So maybe this is just projection: people who themselves have gender biases assume that everyone else does as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103101915112
https://link.springer.com/chapte10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_9

Myth 3: "Women were uniquely oppressed in history compared to men"

Much like today, sexism in history was often two sides of the same coin. If it was unfair that women had to stay home and take care of their children then it was also unfair that men had to work long hours outside the comfort of their homes. Many people try to equate sexism to the history of racism, as if men were unilaterally oppressing women for their own benefit. And that's simply not an accurate view of history (nor is it a very healthy belief to have).
Gender norms were often unfair to women. But for most of history, women could own property, get divorced (where they usually took most of their husband's money), run businesses, and even be heads of state. Many large empires were ran by women, for example.
The reality of the situation though is that pregnancy (and breastfeeding) often dictated the need for women to have men supporting them. Birth control and baby formula didn't exist. So your options were basically abstinence, or marriage. Which was the same choice that men also had.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Privileged_Sex.html?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal%20article
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"What about voting rights?"
Voting rights were historically tied to military service and the draft. It was never something that men got "for free" just for being men.
In England, most men couldn't vote until 1918, and that was only because they instituted a draft for all men during WWI.
Women aged 30 and older were also given the right to vote in 1918, and this came without the same obligation to serve in the military that men had. Women over 21 were given voting rights just 10 years later in 1928, which was the same age that men could vote. And that temporary age difference had a practical purposes: so many men died in WW1 that there was a need to even out the gender ratio.
So men have been allowed to vote for a whopping 10 years longer than women, at most. And that was only because of the mass, involuntary slaughter that they experienced around the world during WW1.
Other obligations that men had were paying taxes, attending caucuses, and signing up for bucket bridges to fight fires.
It took a few decades in some parts of the world for people to decide that it was fair for women to be able to vote without giving anything back to the state, but I think it's important to understand the context here. It wasn't misogyny or oppression but political theory. Specifically the question of whether or not it was fair to give women voting rights without equivalent responsibilities that were required from men (something known as a moral hazard, and that can be contextualized as "female privilege also sometimes harming women").
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/collections-the-vote-and-afterepresentation-of-the-people-act-1918/
http://www.familyofmen.com/when-did-men-and-women-have-the-right-to-vote-in-canada/
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/
https://www.reddit.com/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/l1byes/suffrage_was_primarily_a_class_issue_not_a_gende

Myth 4: "Domestic violence and sexual assault are primarily women's issues"

Domestic violence and sexual assault affects everyone, and at nearly identical rates between men and women.
In the US, roughly 37.3% of women have been victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. Including 1.4 million women who experience sexual assault annually.
For men that same figure is 30.9%. Including 1.7 million men who experience sexually assault annually (defined as "made to penetrate"). The vast majority of these men are also victimized by women, not by "other men" (which is another myth).
This pattern is similar across the world, including in poor and underdeveloped nations (see here for a collection of studies), and is consistent with a wide range of research demonstrating "gender parity" between men and women for this topic.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Faculty/bibs/stemple/Stemple-SexualVictimizationPerpetratedFinal.pdf
https://1in6.org
It's also not true that there's a significant difference in severity between male and female victims. Around 66% of intimate partner homicides do have women as victims (which is hardly a staggering majority), but when you include intimate partner related suicide deaths (including assisted suicides), a greater number of men are killed because of domestic violence than women. These statistic also ignore the fact that lesbian relationships are more violent than heterosexual and gay male relationships. Which inflates these numbers and doesn't necessarily back up the idea that women are being uniquely victimized by men.
We should obviously work to fight against abuse in any form, but our current, gendered approach to this doesn't seem to be helping very much. It is also commonly used as an excuse for misandry. Many people who discuss abuse against women do not actually care about female victims. All they care about is advancing a culture of hatred and sexism against men.
https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.5042/jacpr.2010.0141/full/html
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506/full
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/f4rvop/some_sources_on_the_severity_of_domestic_violence/
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/koinom/some_sources_on_the_sexual_abuse_of_men_and_boys/
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/f5tes5/gender_parity_for_sexual_assault_academic_studies/
"But women are afraid to walk down dark alleyways at night!"
As they should. And as do men. Most violent crime targets men. And fear is subjective. This is hardly evidence of some kind of unique oppression against women (at least one that doesn't also affect men), and it ignores the fact that men are usually afraid of finding themselves in those same situations as well.
Men are stronger and more capable of defending themselves so I wouldn't blame someone for having gendered views or assumptions here. But let's try not to minimize male victimization or blame it on things like "male oppression".

Myth 5: "False allegations are extremely rare"

Multiple studies have found alarmingly high rates of false allegations in society.
As many as 1 in 7 men have been falsely accused at some point in their life, and they often have to live with those allegations even after proving their innocence.
In addition, around 1 in 20 women have also been falsely accused at some point during their life.
False allegations are particularly common when it comes to child custody and divorce, where well over half of all allegations have been estimated to be false. There is also a common racial element that targets minority men. Especially in history during the era of lynchings in the US.
http://www.saveservices.org/dv/falsely-accused/survey/
http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/psurvey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/
https://quillette.com/2019/04/16/divorce-and-the-silver-bullet/
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14977/14977-h/14977-h.htm
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/e6w4yc/i_call_bullshit_on_the_false_rape_accusation/

Myth 6: "Men commit suicide more often than women, but women still attempt suicide more often than men"

This idea has its origins with faulty hospital reporting which lumps suicide attempts in with self-harm (which is something that's more common among women). Women are also more likely to report their suicide attempts than men. And even if this statistic were accurate, it ignores the obvious fact that a suicide survivor can attempt again, thus artificially inflating this statistic.
The fact is, most suicid deaths are men, and most evidence points to there being more unique attempts by men. Any evidence that men are "better" at it than women has been interpreted as evidence for greater motivation of success, due to the very same factors that lead them to attempt suicide to begin with. Not as evidence that women are somehow attempting suicide at rates similar to men in the background.
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/cvpyve/comment/ey5xeda

Myth 7: "Men make more money because of their gender, and this is evidence of male privilege"

Existing gender norms encourage men to earn money in order to meet the financial demands that are placed on them by women.
This causes them to work harder and sacrifice more for their careers than women. Which they do in part because their income is tied to how successful they are with women, and whether or not they qualify as "marriage material".
The wage gap is therefore an example of a gender norm that harms men just as much as it does women.
92% of workplace deaths are men. Men work on average an extra 4 to 10 hours a week (depending on your source) than women. They start working at a younger age (often skirting child labor laws). They retire later (which is also during their peak earning years). And they die sooner than women. Men have worse health outcomes than women and that's largely because of the pressures that society puts on them to be successful and earn money to spend on women.
This is the other side of the wage gap that is equally as important, and that is equally as harmfully to men as it is to women. And it's really just the tip of the iceberg.
In many ways the wage gap is just a reflection of the financial exploitation of men in society. Which is facilitated by things like hypergamy and unfair marriage and divorce practices.
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/kzvfcg/about_the_wage_gap/
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/dxaimc/the_wage_gap_is_created_by_women_and_reflects/

Myth 8: "Men don't go to the doctor because of toxic masculinity"

The main reason that men sometimes don't seek help is a lack of time to see a doctor.
Men work longer hours than women at jobs that are less flexible, and more stressful, than jobs that women usually work at. Men overall engage in an extra hour of paid and unpaid labor per day compared to women, and an extra 45 minutes commuting to jobs that are further away. Meaning men on average have quite a bit less free time to go see a doctor than women do.
This is also something that changes during retirement: retired men are just as likely to go to the doctor as retired women.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/8/e003320
A general lack of help and support, especially financial support, for men who need medical help also contributes to this. There is a myth that men are better taken care of than women which has resulted in gendered policies that help women, but exclude men. Even though it's men who often need that help more.

Myth 9: "Men don't speak up about sexism as much as women, so it's obviously not as big of an issue"

This is because people are less likely to care or listen to them. In part because many men who do speak up are silenced and accused of being misogynistic. A situation known as testimonial injustice or epistemic oppression.
Men are told to keep quiet and many end up internalizing the idea that only women can be discriminated against, since this is what society tells us to believe. Instead, men often adopt different terminology when they discuss gender issues. Like referring to differences in treatment between men and women as "double standards" instead of sexism or discrimination.

Myth 10: "Most men's issues are caused by men themselves"

Most men's issues are caused by gender norms and those gender norms are enforced by women just as much as they are by men.
Men's issues are often just one side of the coin, and usually reflect disadvantages that women face as well.
One of the biggest gender norms in society is hypergamy, or the tendency for women to try to marry up, and for men to marry down. And this gender norm is mostly enforced by women, not by men.
Two other gender norm that are enforced by women is the providership gender norm, and the childcare gender norm. Which also causes women to perform more unpaid work and earn less money than men in the labor market.
A fourth gender norm that is enforced by women more than men is the "boys don't cry bias". Which is mainly instilled in young boys by their mothers and by female school teachers. In fact, fathers and male school teachers actually fight against this gender norm.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535711000321
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gende275322/
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/chapter-1-public-views-on-marria
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/akillewald/files/money_work_and_marital_stability.pdf
https://www.fatherhood.org/fatherhood/maternal-gatekeeping-why-it-matters-for-children
https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/11/mothers-push-gender-stereotypes-more-than-fathers-study-reveals/
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/gjtj10/most_people_regardless_of_gender_prefer_to_stay/

Myth 11: "Toxic masculinity is harming men and their mental health"

The concept of toxic masculinity has never been empirically tested, and some research questions the validity of it in the context of psychology and mental health.
Even if you do think it is valid though, it is still commonly used in a way that is sexist and hateful torwards men.
In recent years it has become associated with female supremacy, feminist hostility towards men, and misandry in general. And as a result, the vast majority of men find the term to be sexist and offensive.
Men who identify with traditional masculine values have greater self-esteem, better mental health, better relationships with women, and are usually better educated than men who are opposed to masculinity or who accept feminist views about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
The key to better mental health for men might therefore be an embracement of masculinity, not a shunning of it. Instead of trying to redefine masculinity, we should work to understand it better, and offer men better services based on an honest acknowledgement that men's and women's mental health might require different approaches.
Men are not "defective women", and treating men's mental health in that context does not seem to be working very well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html
https://zenodo.org/record/3871217#.X-p1ji2l2J_
https://link.springer.com/chapte10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_5

Myth 12: "Most men's activists just hate women or are opposed to feminism. They don't really care about men."

This rhetoric is normally used to silence the voices of men (and women) who support men's rights and prevent them from expressing themselves. Which makes it another example of testimonial injustice or epistemic oppression.
The fact is that many people do care about men's issues, and that's why they become MRAs. Feminism does get discussed in the men's movement, but there are a couple reasons for that:
  1. Many feminists, "radical" or otherwise, have advocated against men and have even pushed for public policy in ways that are harmful to men or discriminates against men. Feminists themselves tend to not fight against this, meaning it's often up to MRAs to address it.
  2. Many MRAs are themselves current or ex-feminists who were ostracized for daring to take the feminist rhetoric about "also caring about men" a little too seriously.
Warren Farrell is a great example of this. He used to be on the board of directors for NOW, the world's largest feminist organization.
And then he said that we need to work on child custody equality and reproductive rights for men. Topics that he assumed should fall under the umbrella of feminism since they are issues pertaining to gender equality. Instead of agreeing with him though, he ended up being excommunicated from the feminist movement. And now he's often regarded as the "father of the modern men's movement" for carrying on his advocacy outside of feminism.
The problem that many MRAs have with feminism is that it usually stops half way when advocating for gender equality.
So sometimes what MRAs are doing is just taking it the rest of the way towards actual gender equality. Our frustration with feminists comes from the fact that they refuse to see this as valid (or do it themselves to begin with).
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/ihmb2p/by_denying_that_the_feminist_establishment_is/
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/9v6tqj/a_list_about_feminism_misandry_for_anyone_who/

Myth 13: "Men don't receive custody of their children because they're bad fathers and don't bother requesting custody"

Academic research simply does not back this up. The only study that ever found something like this was discovered to be purposefully fraudulent, although that hasn't stopped people from trying to repeat this. The fact is that men are widely discriminated against on numerous different fronts when it comes to child custody and other areas involving family court law.
Note also how hateful this rhetoric is. This is the kind of stuff that you find repeated by feminists, and it simply doesn't treat this topic in a fair and honest manner. Fathers love their children and many fight tooth and nail just to get a few hours a week to spend with them. The system is broken and it represents a grave social injustice that is deeply unfair to fathers and their children.
https://www.sharedparenting.org/2019-shared-parenting-report
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/ilzceq/cmv_equal_child_custody_for_mothers_and_fathers/

Myth 14: "Most child abusers are men"

A majority of child abuse is actually committed by women, and especially by mothers. This is even more true when you include emotional abuse and neglect instead of just physical abuse.
By some metrics, the biological father is the safest person for a child to be with. This is because when men do abuse children, it often happens while under the custody of the mother. Who is sometimes complicit in the abuse or even encourages it.
Close to half of child abductors and traffickers are also women, not men. And many of their victims are boys. Boys face sexual abuse and are also used for forced labor and organ harvesting. They are less likely to survive or escape, are less likely to be reported on or identified, and they suffer from higher rates of abuse than girls who are trafficked.
And yet very little attention is given to this. Missing boys, and especially missing minority boys, are often ignored by society and the media. To the point that people often assume that most of the victims are girls. Something which is known as the missing white woman syndrome (although in Canada there is a lot of attention given to missing indigenous women, even though 71% of missing indigenous people are men and boys).
Note that I'm not saying these things to attack women, imply that they shouldn't receive custody, or to downplay the plight of girls. Which is a lot more than you can say about people who try to paint men as the villains in this picture. We should however be fair about what the facts are, and give male victimization, including victimization by women, the attention that it deserves.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16165212
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/childmaltreatment-facts-at-a-glance.pdf
http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213416302599
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/charity-stories/child-trafficking-myths-vs-facts
Fair is fair and equal is equal. Gender equality will never be fixed if we refuse to look at both sides of the coin. We need to be honest about what the problems are, and stop ignoring them when they involve men, fathers, and boys.
submitted by Oncefa2 to MensRights [link] [comments]

First Contact - Third Wave - Chapter 385

[first] [prev] [next]
"So the kid, right, he starts the second grade. Now, his dad and mom are still worried he's going to slack off on his grades like he slacked off all summer on his chores, so his dad promises him anything he wants if he gets straight A's," Casey said, looking down one of the barrels of his partially disassembled minigun.
Vuxten and the others nodded, Vuxten glancing at Addox to see if the scout drones had returned. When Addox shook his head head Vuxten knew they were still out.
"So the kid, right, he really busts his ass. Buckles down doing homework, extra credit, all of it, right? So he gets straight A's and his dad's all: son, you can have whatever you want. A trip to Zaginaw Beach, a tour of Titan, even a trip to Mouse Planet," Casey said. He locked the barrel back in place and begun unscrewing the next one from the housing.
"The kid looks at his dad and goes: Father, I just want a single pink golf ball," Casey said. He lifted the barrel up and looked down the inside. "The father is all "A single pink golf ball? I offer you anything your heart desires, my son. Surely you want more, despite being only a second grader. Surely there is something in this grand universe that you wish." The son replies, just a pink golf ball father."
Casey tilted the barrel, checking for gouges in the barrel's rifling.
"The father thinks to himself: well, bright children are often strange, and buys a single pink golf ball. When he presents it to his son the kid runs off with it, and the father doesn't see it again," Casey said. He suddenly looked up. "Drones coming back. Get ready."
Vuxten nodded. There was always a chance that Precursor machines could follow the drones back.
The drones settled in their cradles on Sergeant Addox's shoulders and Vuxten knew the Terran sergeant would have his armor systems and his greenie compile the data into a usable form.
"Hey, Sergeant Casey, can I ask a question?" one of the Telkan with third squad asked.
"Go ahead, kid," Casey said.
"Aren't you worried about the fact you're just in a loading frame? Why not fab up power armor?" the Telkan asked.
Casey stared for a moment, then shook his head. "I don't do power armor any more. Back a couple centuries ago I was part of Ninth Armored Guard, an Old Blood unit, a historical Vodkatrog armor division," Casey said. Before the Telkan could speak he held up his hand. "I was a damn good power armor troop. Powered Orbital Drop Assault."
"That's a fast life expectancy for someone without SUDS. Ninth Guard is one of the Old Blood units that expect you to die during assaults, you don't get dropped to a non-Blood unit for dying," Glory said from where she was sitting on a pile of uncrushed ore. "How in the burning chrome Hell did you get out of that alive?"
"I was better than the enemy. Too good," Casey locked the barrel in on the minigun and looked back up. "I suffered a bad case of Operator Identification Syndrome. Part of me still yearns for it."
"Oh, I'm sorry," Glory said softly, turning slightly and looking away as if the big combat mech was embarrassed.
"I wasn't patterned on your big dropship ass," Casey laughed.
Glory laughed and it felt like something that Vuxten didn't understand had been cleared from the room.
Vuxten could feel some sort of weird longing from the big Terran.
"Patterned? What's that?" Wextuk asked.
"It's when you develop an emotional attachment to the VI or eVI assist systems in your power armor, robot combat power armor, tank, whatever," he said. "It's pretty rough and if you get a bad enough case you end up needing hospitalization and therapy."
"How did you get it?" Wextuk asked. Vuxten thought about telling the Telkan Private Second Class to shut up, but figured that they might as well talk about something while the maps were being compiled.
"I was a power armor jock. Good one. Deep insertion, heavy assault, had an 80mm railgun on my right shoulder that could hit orbital targets. Rapid fire rapid reload missile rack, point defense, battlescreen systems, the whole nine yards. Toughest suit ever produced by the Confederacy or anyone else in the Universe," Casey said.
"The NovaStar-VII," Glory guessed. "You were a NovaStar pilot. By the Digital Omnimessiah, I thought all of you were dead."
"What happened?" Wextuk asked.
"One drop went bad, hell, the whole war went bad, and I spent literally two years in my armor. Never getting out of it," Casey said. "Once I was able to get out of it, I spent five years where the only time I got out of my armor was to do field repairs on it or to briefly talk to survivors I'd rounded up."
"You can stay in armor that long?" Wextuk asked.
"Yes," Casey said. He reached forward and tapped Wextuk's armored chest. "Your armor is designed for you to live in, without removing it, for up to five years."
Wextuk shivered.
"It's not advised," Glory said softly.
Casey reached down and wrapped his hand around the firing grip for his minigun and Vuxten saw the weapon's smartwire go live.
"When did the drop go bad?" Addox asked, not looking up. Vuxten knew he was going over the maps and the data.
"I barely got to the ground," Casey said softly. "It was a horror show aboard the CSFNV Sulaco less than an hour after we docked with Thule Station. One minute everything was green, the next I was fighting for my life. I was actually in the shower when it all went sideways."
Vuxten noticed everyone glanced at each other as small arcs of purple electricity wound around the barrels of Casey's minigun.
"I barely made it to Jemila and get her wrapped around me before almost everyone was dead," Casey said. "Had to fight my way to the drop pods and launch it manually. For almost two years Jemila was my only company aside from terrified civilians and the enemy. I couldn't leave her embrace, couldn't take the chance. After a while, I didn't feel safe unless I was in her embrace, unless I could hear her voice and feel her touch me, feel myself become one with her."
"Chromium Saint Peter," Glory swore softly.
He suddenly looked up and gave a sudden grin that made Vuxten wonder just exactly how many teeth humans had in their mouths.
"After that, I went Administrative for about ten years, then Maintenance for about twenty years, then went into Ordnance before rotating to an Old Blood unit," his grin seemed to get more friendly and the electrical arcs vanished. "And that, boys and girls, is how Uncle Casey ended up in Ordnance."
"Map's done," Addox said, looking up. "My little brother's about to have a fit."
"It's Mantid make, Precursor Omniqueen era," Casey guessed.
"Yup," Addox said. He shook his head. "It's really obvious once you hit the maintenance spaces."
"I assume it gets worse?" Vuxten said. "Live Mantids?"
Addox shook his head. "No. Pressure suits, hazardous environment suits, greenie toolkits, the whole nine yards. Looks like one of the larger ones, the ruling caste, is supposed to be overseeing this thing but from the scan data it looks like it was retrofitted for full automation. Got the old style horseshoe command center with the upraised central pit in the middle."
"Got us a route?" Vuxten asked.
"Several. Easy to forget how big the ruling caste was," Addox pointed at Casey. "Bigger than him in his loading frame."
"Can you get us a route that won't have us fighting everything between here and there?" Vuxten asked.
Addox nodded. "Yeah. Not for Glory, though. She's gonna have to stay here," he said.
"Great, finally get a date and you all ditch me," Glory laughed. "It's because my butt's big, isn't it?"
"You know it," Addox said.
"I don't like leaving her behind. We should pull her braincase and take her with us," Casey suddenly said, turning from where he was staring at the dead conveyor belts.
"No, I'm good, Casey," Glory said.
Vuxten heard his armor chirp as Glory opened a private channel to Casey, his officer hardware alerting him to the communication's existence but not the contents.
"I'll come back for you if I have to," Casey said.
"I know you will," Glory said.
"Got the route," Addox said. He looked at Vuxten. "Give the order, sir."
Vuxten stood up. "All right, move out by squads. Let's see what this thing's brain looks like."
The blue line appeared on his visor, showing the way.
"Let's get going," Vuxten said.
He led his men into the dark maintenance spaces of the beast.
-------------------
General No'Drak looked over the data and Ge'ermo'o watched, slowly being able to make more and more sense of the Confederate labels.
"Can you get a deep level scan of where the three mountain ranges join?" No'Drak asked, puffing on a cigarette.
The pink canine-human-feline chimera shook her head. "Too many atomic explosions to get a good ELF reading or seismic reading. Unless you want to have the Dinochrome Brigade and Third Armor to stop firing and give us a few hours to do deep level crust geo-mapping."
No'Drak clacked his mandibles in irritation.
"So we have no idea what that machine, who has managed to reach speeds of nearly a hundred miles an hour under the ground, is heading toward?" he asked.
"I'm afraid not, sir," the Military Intelligence Analyst said. "I can give you a WAG if you wish?"
WAG? Ge'ermo'o wondered. He checked his implant and nodded. Wild Ass Guess.
"By all means, Sergeant, wag your tail," No'Drak said, putting out his cigarette and pulling the pack out in the same motion.
"Refit base. Probably extensive. Continental plate drift on this planet is slow but steady, which means we're looking at a machine that has probably been largely asleep for millions of years," she said. "Combine it with the fact that the Precursor mining machines all have armor that grows stronger when exposed to heat and pressure and we're looking at deep mining machines. Probably transition zone between the mantles capable so it can access the really exotic materials."
"This planet produce any exotics?" No'Drak asked.
She checked her display and shook her head. "Our dataslicers have cut through the Lanaktallan records. They've only been here thirty thousand years, but before that the native species had to deal with a lack of fissile material and rare metals like lithium and neodymium."
"That machine and any companions might be why," No'Drak mused. "Mining it down in the transition layer before it can be brought up closer to the surface of the crust through geological means."
The Terran chimera nodded. "That's what my Section Leader believes."
"Which means, there might be a bunch of..."
"STATUS CHANGE!" someone called out.
Ge'ermo'o watched as No'Drak spun in place, looking at the tank.
"Third Armor's Third Brigade, Fourteenth Regiment just issued authorization for Mjölnir rounds!" someone called out.
"Time for Trucker to authorize release?" No'Drak asked.
The slim male human with bright pink hair and black warsteel cybereyes checked his console. "Sixty-two seconds, his combat gestalt usage jumped to eighty-three percent of combat bandwidth during that time, up twenty-three percent from current theater combat bandwidth usage."
No'Drak nodded. "Allow it. Patch us in via satellite."
Ge'ermo'o looked up the Mjölnir phrase on his datalink and all six of his eyes opened up wide.
"You are authorizing such rounds?" he asked No'Drak. "I do not seek to interfere but..."
No'Drak nodded. "They're about to engage a Precursor machine the size of a city that's using its onboard manufacturing capabilities to pump out thousands of combat machines as we speak. The longer it has to dig in and acquire resources the more difficult it will be to stop it."
General No'Drak turned and looked at the holotank as the massive machine was shown from orbit. It was surrounded by dust and smoke, its crash having shattered a fifth of the megalopilis it had landed on. Huge cracks, hundreds of meters wide, could be seen in its hull, and craters that were measured in the kilometers glowed sullenly with molten metal from where Space Force had engaged the massive Precursor ship and caused it to crash land instead of continue its orbital bombardment.
"That thing can win the war all by itself," he said.
"STATUS CHANGE!" the shout came again.
Ge'ermo'o felt himself tense.
"3-14 is firing," the same person called out.
Ge'ermo'o felt his tendrils curl protectively under his jowls, felt his crests inflate protectively.
The Precursor's battlescreens were thick, thick enough to resist nCv shots. Thick enough to tear apart the tiny tanks that had just emerged from the flaming hell of a burning chemical refinery.
The whole holotank went white.
----------------
01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 activated the additional battlescreen projectors, feeling the electronic equivelent of anxiety as the power level dropped. It was running on backup reactors, its primary reactors dead and in the damaged sections that were little more than wreckage.
The feral lemurs and their damnable kinetic rounds that bypassed the initial battlescreens had hammered it until it had almost begun to break up. Till parts of its superstructure had begun to break up. It had been forced to dive for the planet, narrowly avoiding the massive tanks the size of a Precursor ancillary vehicle, and had slammed belly down into the city.
It was the first time it had ever been in a gravity well and despite the fact the OEM coding had protocols for it, 01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 did not enjoy the experience.
The tanks, small pathetic things of strange matter elemental alloy armor wrapped around a massive cannon, with their own battlescreens nearly as powerful as 01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011's own screens, all leveled their barrels.
The Precursor could detect the rapidly shifting complex battlecode between the tanks, linking them together and linking the tanks to a larger network, but it had learned that to expose itself to the feral's battlecode meant exposing itself to madness as feral attack VI's would swarm it.
The Precursor tensed. It didn't know how it knew, but it knew, that the ferals were about to fire at it.
----------------
The main guns all fired, seconds apart, in one rippling long wave. The Lanaktallan tanks fired first, their shots hitting the battlescreen in rapid succession, all within a single second.
The rounds, fabbed up and assembled by 15th Combat Sustainment, V Corps, III COSCOM, went off as designed.
An atomic detonation to drive a warsteel explosively forged penetrator into the battlescreen.
01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 watched the power suddenly drain past its ability to manage, watched the battlescreen projectors overheat and fail in one cataclysmic failure as they tried to resist not only over a hundred 125kt directed atomic explosions, but the warsteel penetrator slightly ahead of the shockwave.
The Precursor's battlescreens failed, nearly 15% of A'armo'os shots streaking forward to hit the forward prow of the Precursor. Those drove craters five hundred meters deep into its armor, blowing out armor in a hundred meter radius as the EFP's did their work.
Before 01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 could adapt, could manage the brutal hits it was taking across its prow, which was already damaged from the crash...
...the real rounds streaked over the prow, sailing across the hull.
For an instant 01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 thought the rounds had missed. Some of them fired a full two seconds behind the leads.
The rounds were spaced precisely, the math triple and quadruple checked by the green mantid engineers in addition to the fire control computers.
01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 had enough time to detect that the shells contained components usually found in crude omnidirectional nuclear weapons. It computed that, based on weight and the standard 0.004 kt/kg explosive weight ratio where all species that developed superluminal flight gave up atomic and nuclear weapons, it could survive even the massive amount of explosions it would suffer. The fact they were omnidirectional meant that the majority of the explosive force would be wasted even if the rounds performed an airburst to hammer compressed atmospheric gasses against the Precursor's hull.
The ghosts of billions of Mantids, uncounted Mar-gite, and races gone from the universes all howled with laughter.
Ge'ermo'o could have even told it that what it was about to receive, it would not be grateful for.
The shells, each weighing 'only' two-hundred and some change kilograms, oriented point down, the warbois shrieked with glee, and then detonated the round.
Those races, who had met the humans toe to toe, or even Ge'ermo'o, could have told 01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011 that ascribing the achievements of other races to the maddened lemurs of TerraSol was a mistake.
The rounds were directed enough, were too powerful, to be counted under atomic protocols by the Confederate military, which had an upper limit of 2.25 megatons for directed atomic weapons.
The Confederacy counted them these rounds as 'nuclear'.
The backblast appeared, from orbit, like a blast sustained over a full second that came out to just over 50 megatons.
But that was the blast that drove the hammer home, like explosives used to drive a drill into the granite of a quarry.
Those 50 megaton blasts drove the real payload into the Precursor's body like nails of hellfire from a nailgun. The nails five hundred meter wide tubes of ravening energy that were the equivalent of 250kt blasts. The tubes ripped past the armor, the energy release of the 'backblast' and the 'tube' lasting for nearly a full second.
Each 'payload' detonated deep inside the Precursor. Mathematically precision to place each 'payload' within the edge of the adjacent payloads in order to compress the in between matter to the point that even the dullest elements would undergo fusion.
Even battlesteel.
Each of the payloads detonated, the Tsar warheads, with a net explosive weight to system weight ratio that would make any race who had not witnessed it stare in disbelief.
One hundred and thirty megatons detonating in an enclosed area.
The still 'ongoing' blast tube driven by the 'backblast' prevented the blast inside the Precursor from exiting through the channel ripped through the armor by the 'nail'. Instead, as explosions followed the path of least resistance, it was squeezed and pushed into the body of the Precursor.
From orbit, through the few sats still in operation, the entire top of the Precursor vanished in bright white light.
01001111 01010111 00100000 01001101 01011001 00100000 01000010 01000001 01001100 01001100 01010011felt nothing as its surface armor exploded outward and boiling matter ripped apart by the most basic of universal reactions consumed everything inside the armor.
The ground rippled like water for nearly two hundred miles.
The detonation was strong enough that it bounced off the molten core of the planet and caused an echo earthquake a third of the planet's circumference away.
Where the Precursor had been battlesteel burned.
----------------
"Tango down."
[first] [prev] [next]
submitted by Ralts_Bloodthorne to HFY [link] [comments]

Drive Syndicate Complete guide (ongoing)

(Probably) FINAL UPDATE 1/3 I have hit my wall, and so have others. This event IS. NOT. BEATABLE. Details in Updates.
I will still answer questions throughout the event if anyone still needs help!
​
Table of Contents (To easily find what you want)
  1. Updates
  2. Introduction
  3. Important Points and major differences
  4. What Hazard level to go for? (With in-depth details)
  5. Should I buy SC in the relay packs?
  6. About Pinned Missions
  7. Tricks for getting more Syndicate Coins
  8. Desert Disaster
  9. Lightspeed Chase
  10. Among Skyscrapers
  11. Twilight Getaway
Spreadsheet mentioned

1. Updates

(1/3 final update)
(12/29)
(12/26)
(12/24)
​
(12/22)

2. Introduction

Once again, I am making this guide from my own experience. I will do my best to post as much as I can, but I can't promise everything. I will update as much as possible. I will put a strike through anything that I originally say but turns out to be different. I will post an update and when in bold. That said, I will do my best.
If you are looking for the Rimac DS event on Switch, I made a guide for it last year, and it should be the same. Here is the link IMPORTANT POINT: According to other players on Switch, the event is NOT the same as my previous guide. It appears to be more P2W. So, use it more as a guideline rather than completely accurate. Sorry :/

3. First off, key differences and other key points (Important)(Updated 12/22)!

4. Should I always aim for Hazard Level 3? Or is level 2/1 okay?

Easy tl;dr: For cars you don't already have, keeping it two stars BELOW MAX is the most effecient! ALWAYS do the level 3 races if you already have it pretty high. (At least for cars so far). THIS IS ASSUMING THESE CARS WON'T NEED TO BE FULLY STARRED LATER ON.
Slightly more detailed tl;dr: Depends on your end goal/what you have. If you already have a lot of BP for many cars, do the level 3 races only. And if you get lucky on the rolls. If you don't think you can fully staupgrade your car, you can do the lower ones, but will get significantly less SC. If you already have the car fully starred, or close to fully starred, definitely do the level 3 ones. Otherwise, star it to two stars below max.
Now the math. Basically, the ratio for level 3 is roughly 2:1. For level 2, about 5-6:1. For level 1, about 6-7:1. So if you double the number of races at level 2 rather than level 3, reaching the same amount of SP, you will still have less SC.
Here is a spreadsheet of all the details
One extra thing, u/LordMadPunt made a decent point: "You can eke out a few extra SPs with this rule (also from the previous DS): Always use the highest hazard level that does not complete the mission. If completing the mission is unavoidable, use the highest hazard level for that." This is a good point to get just a little extra from the missions. However, if the SP will be the same (as seen in the last line of my spreadsheet), level 3 is still best.

But what if you don't want to/can't upgrade your car all the way?

I did the math on that for in both Lightspeed Chase and Among Skyscrapers. Whatever you do, you will need BMW I8 Roadster at at least 2*, fully upgraded. To get to 4*, you will need 75 BP. The drop rate for the packs is 20%. Using just this, lets say it would take about 32 rolls, or 160,000 SC, then buy all 10 of the individual BP (much cheaper), for 14,500 SC. Total, 174,500.
But that is a pretty crappy situation, because it doesn't take into account the guaranteed drops. I found that I got on average about 2.7 per roll. 75 BP - 10 individual BP = 65 BP / 2.7 = about 24 rolls. 24x5000 = 120,000 + 14,500 for the individual BP, 134,500 SC. Still a lot. But again, it depends on your luck.
What do you get by fully starring? For 3*, 10000 SC in pinned missions, and for 4* 20000 SC. Then take into mind the losses in not doing the hazard level 3 and then 2. I didn't calculate this when I originally did it, but from my own guesses from my other calculations. Let's say even liberally, (can someone confirm?) another 20000 SC lost.
In total, this is 50,000 SC you can get from having a fully starred.
This is no where close to the amount spent. Even from my more realistic, better chance roll, that is still 134,500 - 50,000 = 84,500 extra you will have to pay.
In short, you will get to keep more SC by only starring up BMW I8 Roadster to 2\. Even if my math is off a bit, still a much better deal! I 4\ it all the way, and I personally really like it, but it seems like it is not needed.
What about the Arrinera Hussarya 33? Whatever you do, you will need Arrinera Hussarya 33 at at least 3*, fully upgraded. To get to 5*, you will need 63 BP.
Using the above rate, you will need to roll 20 times for 53 BP, (150,000 SC) plus all 10 individual BP (22,000ish?), which is 172,000. What do you miss? 50,000 in pinned missions, and to my calculations, about another 50,000 in Hazard 3 missions. 172,000 - 100,000 = 72,000 extra needed to fully star.
Key point! This is assuming you have no BP of the Arrinera Hussarya 33 at the beginning of the event. Fewer BP are needed obviously, so it costs less to fully star. I had the Arrinera Hussarya 33 already fully starred, so it makes sense to fully star and do the level 3 races if you have it already or are close.
Conclusion? If you don't start with the car fully starred or close to it, don't spend the SC to do it unless you get lucky with a higher drop rate or luck with jackpots. Unless of course you like that car and want to fully star it :P
Even if my estimations for SC earned from level 3 races is way off, it still isn't worth it if you start from zero on that car*.*

5. Should I buy SC with tokens in the shop?

Easy answer, yes, at least the first 2 or 3. I personally bought the first two (totaling 50,000SC) at the beginning, as that was what I needed last year. Once I needed to star up the I8 Roadster, I didn't quite have enough SC to star it up without buying any. You might get lucky, but it is Gameloft. Then, when I got to Lightspeed Chase III, I needed more, so the first purchase was definitely needed. When I started Lightspeed IV, I had no choice but to buy the third pack (50,000)

6. About "PINNED MISSIONS" for extra SC

7. Tricks for getting more Syndicate coins

There are a few little tricks to get the most Syndicate coins as possible. u/dragom7 made a great page with details you can find here. I have tested it myself, and it works! Especially the intentional losing of a match (thanks also u/neverchurningbutter!). Go for the lowest ratio in this spreadsheet, and thanks to u/dragom7's suggestion, I highlighted the races with the best and worse ratios (starting from Twilight Getaway). Just be careful, the way I wrote ratios and the way he did are different!
Also, as mentioned in other areas, if Syndicate Coins is a priority, be sure to NOT upgrade your cars all the way.
(Update 12/24) Also also, some level 2 hazard races have a ratio worse than some level 1s, so check out this spreadsheet to find out what has the best ratios are.
(Update 12/24) If you are REALLY pushing to get the most SC (and you have the time to watch extra ads), intentionally lose frequently if the ratio isn't good. In theory, you could get a lot more if you only played the ones with good ratios. It would just take a long time....
​

8. Desert Disaster

This one is very straight forward. It does not take any Hazard Level during the whole thing, most (all?) are just "Finish the race" goals. You get to used a maxed Rimac for free, and all the races are on the new Nevada track. It is pretty easy to get first if you are used to the track from A8 back in the day. New players may have a little trouble because THIS CAR IS FAAAASST. So heads up. But all in all, all four of these are pretty easy (including a special little surprise for the story at the end...)
*30 BP for the I8 Roadster is given as a reward at the end, unlocking it.*
You can get 10,000 SC from pinned missions.

9. Lightspeed Chase

The main races are done in San Francisco.
For the BMW I8 Roadster:
2* 23BP
3* 33BP
4* 42BP (Yes, 4* is needed this time around in order to get the Hazard Level 3 races as well as the pinned missions)
Total Credit cost was more than 1,500,000. A lot. Do the Daily credit events. I will try to record exactly how much for other cars.
One pack is 500 SC, (10-pack 5000 SC). Individual BP are available starting at 1000 SC, then 1100 SC, 1200 BP, etc., up to 10 BP.
Epic Card for BMW I8 Roadster: 27,778 SC (one also available from Milestones from MP 12/18-12/24) (Update, event over). Each additional epic costs 10% more (2778(?) more) each time you buy one.
In general, the courses aren't too bad. Unlike the previous event, you can't restart the game to change the options. Once you get to Lightspeed Chase II, two levels appear. At Lightspeed Chase III, three levels appear. DO NOT DO THE LOWER LEVEL ONES. ONLY THE LEVEL 3 ONES if you are trying to go all the way, as these give the best SC ratio. See #2 above for why this is no longer true.
As stated above, if your goal is to fully upgrade the BMW I8 Roadster, do so before unlocking Among Skyscrapers, as the purchasable BP and the Epic Parts will no longer be available. This means not finishing Lightspeed Chase V.
In Lightspeed Chase V, you will use the Bugatti La Voiture Noire, which will require upgrades to stage 1 (Yes, just stage one). HOWEVER this requires 4,600 SC for each of all four parts, a total of 17,400 SC. Keep this in mind while you play Lightspeed Chase.
The last stage also is a 1v1 race with a time of 1:49 to beat. Note that this is the first race with a time goal. You won't be able to beat the other racer, as the Green Lizard is supposed to have a superior ride at this point. The time itself, without any big mistakes, is not a big challange.
*30 BP for the Arrinera Hussarya 33 is given as a reward at the end.* It takes 35 BP (according to the wiki page) to unlock. You can get the remainder from the shop when Lightspeed V is completed.
At the end of Lightspeed Chase, I had about 55,000 SC (including the 150,000 SC bought with tokens) to get going on Among Skyscrapers.
Pinned Missions SC given:
Lightspeed Chase I: 10,000.Lightspeed Chase II: 10,000.Lightspeed Chase III: 10,000.Lightspeed Chase IV: 20,000

10. Among Skyscrapers

The main races are done in New York.
For the Arrinera Hussarya 33 (the wiki page):
1* 35BP (Yes, you will need 5 more BP than what is given as a reward)
2* 15BP
3* 21BP
4* 28BP
5* 35BP (Fully upgraded, but epic parts not needed)
​
One pack is 750 SC, (10-pack 7500 SC). Individual BP are available starting at 1500 SC. I don't know how much is goes up nor how many are available, as I already had this fully starred. If it is the same as the BMW, it will go up 10% after each one bought. *Someone hit me up and I will add it!
Epic Card for Arrinera Hussaryar 33: 41,667 SC. Each additional epic costs 10% more (4167 more) each time you buy one.
In general, the courses aren't too bad. Unlike the previous event, you can't restart the game to change the options. Once you get to Among Skyscrapers II, two levels appear. At Among Skyscrapers III, three levels appear. DO NOT DO THE LOWER LEVEL ONES if you have it at a high level already. ONLY THE LEVEL 3 ONES if you are trying to go all the way, as these give the best SC ratio. See 2.Should I always aim for hazard level 3? Or are level 1/2 okay? above for details as to why.
As stated above, if your goal is to fully upgrade the Arrinera Hussaryar 33, do so before finishing Among Skyscrapers VI, as the purchasable BP and the Epic Parts will no longer be available.
In Among Skyscrapers VI, you will use the Bugatti La Voiture Noire, which will require upgrades to stage 2 . This requires 7,500 SC each for all four parts, a total of 30,000 SC.
The last stage also is a 1v1 race with a time of 1:47 to beat. You won't be able to beat the other racer (I freakin 360 spinned him and he crashed at82% of the course, and he still won!), as the Green Lizard is supposed to have a superior ride at this point.
*30 BP for the Apex AP-0 is given as a reward at the end.* It takes 45 BP (according to the wiki page) to unlock. You can get the remainder from the shop when Among Skyscrapers VI is completed.
On a bit of a strange note, I had the absolute worse luck on the pinned missions in Among Skyscrapers III. The starting amount was always low and it took me FOREVER to get it maxed.
At the end of Among Skyscrapers, I had about 55,000 SC (including the 150,000 SC bought with tokens), to get going on Among Skyscrapers. But, I already had the Hussarya 33 fully starred. This seems pointless to point out since everyone will be at a different points/SC amounts depending on what cars they already have unlocked as well as what path they choose.
Pinned Missions SC given:
Among Skyscrapers I: 10,000.Among Skyscrapers II: 10,000.Among Skyscrapers III: 10,000.Among Skyscrapers IV: 20,000.Among Skyscrapers V: 30,000.

11. Twilight Getaway

The main races are done in Rome.
For the Apex AP-0 (the wiki page):
1* 45BP 2* 17BP 3* 23BP 4* 32BP 5* 45BP
Twilight Getaway I: Hazard 3 2626 (1*) Pinned Missions: 15,000 SC
Twilight Getaway II: Hazard 3 2926 (2*) Hazard 2 2626(1*) Pinned Missions: 15,000 SC
Twilight Getaway III: Hazard 3 3189 (3*) Hazard 2 2926 (2*) Hazard 1 2626(1*) Pinned Missions: 15,000 SC
Twilight Getaway IV: Hazard 3 3547 (4*) Hazard 2 3189 (3*) Hazard 1 2926(2*) Pinned Missions: 30,000 SC
Twilight Getaway V: Hazard 3 3810 (5*) Hazard 2 3547 (4*) Hazard 1 3189(3*) Pinned Missions: 45,000 SC
Twilight Getaway VI: Hazard 3 3980 (1*) LVN (INCLUDING IMPORT PARTS!)
One pack is 1250 SC, (10-pack 12500 SC). Individual BP are available starting at 2500 SC. I don't know how much is goes up nor how many are available, as I already had this fully starred. If it is the same as the BMW, it will go up 10% after each one bought. *Someone hit me up and I will add it!
Epic Card for Apex Ap-0 : 69,444 SC Each additional epic costs 10% more (6944 more) each time you buy one.
The difficulty has stepped up in this set, at least for me it felt that way. Be sure to play only Hazard level 3 missions through Twilight Getaway III if you can, as 3* Apex is REQUIRED to move on.
As stated above, if your goal is to fully upgrade the Apex AP-0, do so before finishing Twilight Getaway VI, as the purchasable BP and the Epic Parts will no longer be available.
In Twilight Getaway VI, you will use the Bugatti La Voiture Noire, which will require upgrades to stage 3 . This requires 12,000 SC each for all four parts, a total of 48,000 SC. This needs three import parts EACH, which are 18,000 SC each, for a total of 216,000!! (CONFIRMED 12/24)
The last stage also is a 1v1 race with a time of 1:46 to beat. You (probably) won't be able to beat the other racer, as the Green Lizard is supposed to have a superior ride at this point.
*30 BP for the Porsche 911 GT RS is given as a reward at the end.* It takes 55 BP (according to the wiki page) to unlock. You can get the remainder from the shop when Twilight Getaway VI is completed.

12. Burning Pursuit

The main races are done in Cairo.
*NOTE: This is the first section of the event that needs a 4* car to advance. Also, thanks a bunch to broius for info of parts beyond what I could get! Proof
For the Porsche 911 GT3 RS (the wiki page):
1* 55BP 2* 18BP 3* 24BP 4* 32BP 5* 47BP 6* 47BP
Burning Pursuit I: Hazard 3 2109 (1*) Pinned Missions: 20,000 SC
Burning Pursuit II: Hazard 3 2458 (2*) Hazard 2 2109(1*) Pinned Missions: 20,000 SC
Burning Pursuit III: Hazard 3 2806 (3*) Hazard 2 2458 (2*) Hazard 1 2109 (1*) Pinned Missions: 20,000 SC
Burning Pursuit IV: Hazard 3 3285 (4*) Hazard 2 2806 (3*) Hazard 1 2458 (2*) Pinned Missions: 20,000 SC
Burning Pursuit V: Hazard 3 3677 (5*) Hazard 2 3285 (4*) Hazard 1 2806 (3*) Pinned Missions: 60,000 SC
Burning Pursuit VI: Hazard 3 3893 (6*) Hazard 2 3677 (5*) Hazard 1 3285 (4*) Pinned Missions: 100,000 SC
Burning Pursuit VII: Hazard 3 UNKNOWN. 4007 (2*) YUP YOU READ THAT RIGHT! YOU GOTTA STAR UP THIS THING! 45,000 SC for 10-pack, so probably around 900,000+ SC if you are lucky! Not to mention the upgrades themselves. I have yet to see a single person actually do it.
Here is a vid of a dude with 400,000 SC spending on the packs. Spoiler, he didn't get it.
One pack is 2000 SC, (10-pack 20000 SC). Individual BP are available starting at 4000 SC.
Epic Card for Porsche 911 GT3 RS : 111,111 SC Each additional epic costs 10% more (11,111 more) each time you buy one.
As stated above, if your goal is to fully upgrade the Porsche 911 GT3 RS, do so before finishing Burning Pursuit VII, as the purchasable BP and the Epic Parts will no longer be available (Update 1/3)If you are reading this, you won't be able to progress further, so take your time getting the epics if that is your goal.
(to be continued [edited] as I clear more/more becomes available if someone can actually get farther)
I really hope I can get all the way through the DS even :/ Won't happen, sadly...
submitted by conradbilly to Asphalt9 [link] [comments]

Vegan Gains Statistics Review

Hey guys, Mathematician here currently finishing up my PhD.
I've just watched the VeganGains debate and want to clear up some things about the statistics discussed.
VeganGains argues that the confidence interval can be used to determine the statistical significance of a result, this is true. VeganGains is correct when he states that the vegetarian and vegan hazard ratio (HR) is statistically significantly lower than the control group (Meat eaters). However, only by a very small margin. VeganGains cannot say that vegans and vegetarians have an 8% reduction in hazard ratio, he can simply say that it is statistically lower than meat eaters by at least 1% with 95% confidence.
However, the trick that VeganGains is using is in using the table that combines vegetarianism and veganism. The author separates the tables out and it shows that there is no statistically significant improvement to the hazard ratio.
I was quite disappointed in the mathematicians that joined the call in that they weren't able to adequately explain this. Put simply, a 95% confidence interval provides, with 95% confidence, a boundary within which the true value sits. This means that if a boundary does not include the "null" (which is just the base value that we're using for comparison) then there is a greater than 95% chance that the true value is less than the "null". That is to say that there is a statistically significant difference between the comparison value and the determined value.
The final guy did the best job of explaining this concept without knowing that VeganGains had clearly cherry-picked the data since almost all studies show that vegetarianism is in fact much healthier than veganism, citing the lower vitamins and minerals as the cause. Furthermore, the Appleby study understands the limitations and provides the appropriate analysis in that there is no statistically significant reduction in the hazard ratio of low meat eaters, vegetarians or vegans when compared against meat eaters.
submitted by AydenClay to Destiny [link] [comments]

Jeepers, thats a lot of notes

** *EPISODE 1- Filmed before a Live studio audience- -Some differences to the Marvel logo: the Ironman character that appears before Hulk is now gray. Captain America also seems to be gray, but slowly gains color. Dr Strange is now featured performing the multi-arm magic trick from "Infinity War". Visible at the 0:22 mark.
-We know as fans that whoever is in control of the "WandaVision" show also controls the aspect ratio and colorization. As the Marvel logo is finishing up, it interestingly turns gray and the aspect ratio changes. Does this mean whoever is in charge, is in charge of EVERYTHING WE see?
-Vision states he is "incapable of forgetfulness and remembers everything." Vision states that he is incapable of exaggeration. In episode 5, Vision confesses to Wanda that he actually does not remember his life outside of Westview. So Vision does not actually remember everything and is very capable of exaggeration.
-Wanda's conversation with Vision at the (9:07) mark. She tells Vision she had "everything under control", Wanda makes sure to look at Agnes the moment she says this line. Is Agnes the one in control of the broadcast?
-Agnes seems overly dedicated to playing her role. What is she not telling us?
-Wanda's pet nickname to Vision is "Diane", and Vision's pet name to Wanda is "Fred". I will bring this point back up in episode 2
-Again, Wanda follows Agnes by doing everything she told her to do. Wanda attempts to recite statistics on the death of single men, and purposelessly falls down in order for Mr.Hart to catch her. So we know, already, at a minimum Agnes is very influential to Wanda.
-For some reason , after opens the front door and Agnes hands her a pineapple, Mr. Hart asks "Who was that?", with Wands claiming she was "a salesman", and Vision claiming she is "a telegram" and "A man selling telegrams." Why lie? Why not just say it was your neighbor?
-In regards to Ms.Hart saying "Stop it" 13 times, which can be a coincidence, or a reference to Marvel Super-heroes #13, which was Captain Marvel Carol Danvers first ever appearance. Stretch? Yeah most likely.
-The episode ends with Vision pulling out a remote and turning off the TV himself, while a hexigon shape surrounds him and Wanda.
Episode 1 credits- Produced by Babs Digby, Directed by Abe Brown, written for television by Leonard Hooper, Director of photography- Pamela Brewster, Music director Sammy Addison
*** Episode 2- Don't touch that dial - Beginning of the episode Wanda and Vision are preparing for a talent show
-Wanda replies with a seemingly innocent joke "Are you kidding? Fred and Linda are building a moat and a fully functioning portcullis and no-one even knows why" If Wanda was 100% in control then she is doing a genius job hiding it. Why did Vision have to remind Wanda of her que in regards to the cabinet of mysteries. Why does no one know about Fred and Linda's moat and portcullis? What is going on here?
-Right after Vision leaves, Wanda appears to be cleaning and maintaining her home. All of a sudden we hear a drum sound (disney+ subtitles did not have subtitles for the drum sounds, but it did have "thudding" as Wanda patted down some pillows) There are no subtitles explaining the drum sound.
-Wanda goes outside and discovers the color S.W.O.R.D drone. Wanda is clearly confused and does not understand the origin if the drone ( which is not the same drone Monica flew in during Episode 3. Jimmy Woo later states it could have been production design.)
-Also regarding the helicopter drone scene, it appears while Wanda is seemingly hypnotized by the helicopter, the front of her house changes design, specifically the lawn area and fences appearing that was not there before. Wanda even gets a feeling and looks over at either the 2nd floor of her house, or Agnes' home. I cannot exactly tell by the shot. However SOMETHING told Wanda to look at that direction....
-...All of a sudden Agnes pops up and says " Look, it's the star if the show!". Some think this was Wanda imagining Agnes saying this, but I seriously doubt this. Agnes seems aware that there is a "show" and is doing everything in her power to make Wanda FEEL as if she in in CONTROL.
-As Wanda walks back inside to put away Agnes' bunny (who starred as baby Jesus in a play), Dennis the mailman is walking down the sidewall and has seemingly friendly banter with Agnes. Agnes:"Oh morning Dennis". Dennis:" Morning Agnes" Agnes: "Stick 'em up ( making fake guns with hands) Dennis:"Don't shoot im just a messenger"
-Agnes claims Dottie's flower bloom under the penalty of death
-At the lunch, or whatever it is, Wanda is trying to copy what Dottie is doing in terms of etiquette. She is clearly following Agnes' orders. Wanda was actually visually surprised over Dottie's hostile behavior towards Bev. Dottie states "The devil' s in the detail, Bev." Agnes then tells Wanda "That's not the only place he is." Agnes could just be joking, which is always how Wanda perceives it. Or Wanda may just be cray-cray
-Monica ( as Geraldine) tells Wanda "I actually don't know what I'm doing here", which is very telling since we, as the audience, know how Monica entered "Westview", or do we?. Wanda answers "I"m starting to feel that way myself. "
-Vision attempts to partake in the neighborhood watch meeting, but before he does, the subtitles captured a little bit of Herb's and Norm's conversation. They are very clearly talking about the other side of something. "Lets say Green" Norm:"Yeah, I mean the other side could be dirt."
-The group of guys, especially Herb, are clearly aware of what is going on in Westview. Herb refers to Visions concerns of police presence as "protocols and nonsense."
-Vision is handed a piece of gum, a possible attempt at maybe making him malfunction?
-Later in the episode, Wanda is attempting to bond with Dottie who tells Wanda "I've heard things about you. You and your husband." Wanda tells Dottie she does not mean any harm. Dottie replies "I don't believe you", followed by Johney Woo's radio interference..
-After Dottie cuts her hand on broken glass her blood is in color. Tells Wanda that a housewife gets blood stains out of white linen by doing it herself. How often is Dottie cleaning white linen soaked with blood? Is it related to the "sole" (or soul) fundraiser for Westview elementary? Later, in episode 5, Vision expresses concerns to Wanda about there being no children in Westview.
-At the "Talent show for the children", Wanda is concerned because she has no idea where Vision is. "I dont know where he could be"' says Wanda. How is Wanda the one controlling Vision? She clearly does not know where he is. Vision appears and was very clearly within earshot the entire time! Wanda even tries to explain the situation with Dottie and the toy helicopter outside her home, but Vision is too cross-faded on dat Big Red to give proper assistance.
-Wanda "Listen something STRANGE happened with Dottie. Well, something STRANGE happened before that too" timestamp 18:06
-Vision, clearly not-controlled by Wanda, tells the audience " Today, we will lie to you and yet you will believe our little deceptions because HUMAN BEINGS are easily fooled due to their limited understanding of the inner workings of the universe."
-After Vision does the trick where he pulls the hat thru himself, Wanda introduced mirrors as a way to confuse the audience into believing " something.". When Bev questioned " Is that how mirrors work?", Dottie replies with "Shut up, Bev". One of my working theories is Bev is actually Meg from family guy but I will save that for another post. /s
-Either Dottie just really does not like Bev, or Dottie is preventing Bev, or anyone, from using logic when thinking.
-Vision and Wanda introduce the "Cabinet of Mysteries" which leads Agnes to ask "Are you sure you don't want an audience volunteer named "My husband Ralph?". Who is Ralph and why have we not seen him after 5 episodes?? My other-other working theory is Ralph is Meg from Family guy but I will save that for another post.
-At the end of episode 2, Wanda and Vision tell each other "For the children" and then all of a sudden Wanda is pregnant. Wanda and Vision then go outside to investigate a noise and discover a beekeeper with a hexigon on his uniform. Wanda says "no" and the broadcast rewinds.
-The episode ends with us hearing Jimmy Woo's broadcast attempt "Wanda, who's doing this to you, Wanda?" So either someone is actually controlling Wanda, or the person in control of the broadcast wants US to believe that someone is controlling Wanda.
***Episode 3- Now in Color
-At the 5:30 mark Wanda describes the kicking as a "strange sensation." Only reason I'm including this is because she said the word "strange". Deal with it. She also explains it as "kind of fluttery" and "accidentally" turns decorative butterflies to life. "Oh did I do that? I didnt mean to," says Wanda (who is supposed to be in total control. Maybe she is unraveling? Absolutely losing her mind and all grips with reality?)
-Vision decides he wants to name the son Billy, and Wanda wants to name him Tommy. The entity in charge of the broadcast decided "Why not 2 children? More children to harvest souls from. Every child has solely one soul. S̷̮̜͊̍O̸͓̬̓̿̋̃U̴̫͊L̸̼̺̲̓̆͠ ̵̪͎͋Ö̴̗̹̦̼̀̎̿͘N̸̬͂̈́̀̏͝ ̸̨̗͔̺̃Ḋ̷̨̘̿̚I̵̜̲̬̖͆̅S̸͇͉̯̣̈́̓̈́N̴̝̖̘̟̉͝Ë̷̹̰̝̠͌͆͠Y̷̨̗͚͐̂̓Ṕ̴̝͎̟͔̐̈̈́͝L̸̛̼̥̾̀U̶̥͍̽͠S̴̭̞̥̾͊͊̏̇
-At the 7:06 mark Wanda begins to feel pain. "Its not painful, but it's, strange." The 2nd time under 2 minutes Wanda describes her pregnancy as feeling "strange."
-Wanda experiences more pain due to her pregnancy that the power is knocked out for the entire block. At the 8:06 mark Dottie is shown asking her husband, Phil Jones, if a certain pair of earings made her look fat. The power then goes off. Phil then says "Oh thank God." So two episodes in a row where characters have mentioned the "Devil" and " God". There are other theories regarding the devil in Marvel, but his name has never been mentioned, and Im trying to create theories based on what I am watching ON SCREEN.
-Wanda at the 8:28 mark (TO VISION) "Do you think they know it's my fault?" (regarding the power outage) Vision:"Our neighbors?" Wanda:"Well,yes, with all the close calls we've been having, it seems the people of Westview, are always on the verge of discovering our secret." Vision:(PAUSE) "Yes, I know what you mean. But its more than that, isn't it? Mr. And Mrs. Hart, dinner. Outside with Herb." At the 8:58 mark Vision looks directly at the camera, "I think something's wrong here, Wanda."
-The look I would describe Wands giving Vision here is "fearful". The broadcast then rewinds to the moment Vision says "Yes, I know what you mean."
-at the 11:48 mark Vision superspeeds out of the house, without changing into his human form. He left in a rush because he has to find the doctor to help Wanda. This entire episode is a weird one for Vision, because in episode 5 he was very upset when Wanda used magic in front of Agnes, breaking their own rules. In this episode he egregiously breaks his own rules.
-Another example if Wanda not having total control, is her dealing with the stork at her house at the 13:47 mark. Wanda attempts several times to use her magic powers to make the stork disappear with no success.
-At the 16:46 mark Vision picks up his doctor, and in front of the doctors wife, gives the doctor the piggyback ride I always wanted my father to give me as a child.
-Monica delivers one child and when Vision arrived back at the house he ends up helping delivering the 2nd unexpected twin. The broadcast version Darcy views in Episode 4 is different than episode 3. In episode 4 it was Monica that delivered BOTH children. In episode 5 Monica also tells Wanda she helped her deliver her babies.
-Outside, Vision's doctor explains he possibly will not be vacationing. "I don't think we'll get away after all. Small towns, you know. So hard to...(pause) Escape." The laugh track after this line is absolutely surreal.
-We then clearly hear Agnes speaking to Herb. Agnes seems especially interested in who Geraldine/Monica is. Beginning at the 20:33 mark Agnes:(Whispers) What is she doing in there? Herb:"I dont know" Agnes:"Did you see her go inside? Herb:(Whispers)She went right in. Agnes:(Whispers)"and her tummy was...Did Geraldine...
-At 21:06 it starts to get juicy. Remember Agnes, back in episode 1 (ep.1 at the 13:40 mark) "Many hands make light work, and many mouths make good gossip." The lady spreads gossip as a tactic.
-At the 21:27 mark Wanda references her real life outside Westview. "I'm a twin. I had a brother. His name wad Pietro." I believe Wanda speaking of the real world helped Monica snap back and ask Wanda "He was killed by Ultron, wasn't he?"
-Obviously Herb wanted to tell Vision "because we are all fake" but Agnes stops him.
-Inside, Monica senses Wanda is starting to realize who she actually. Wanda yeets her out of Westview and back into her "reality".
-At the very moment Wanda sends Monica away, at the 24:08 mark, the camera cuts to Agnes looking at Herb, who then completely changes her attitude and tone. Says a couple jokes and rides off on her bike. Was Agnes aware of what was going on inside the house?
-Herb then tells Vision "Catch you on the flip side, Vision." Dictionary.com defines "Flip-side" as "an opposite, reverse, or sharply contrasted side or aspect of something or someone" Was Herb trying to send Vision a warning?
-When Vision asks Wanda "Where's Geraldine?" Wanda replies with "Oh she left honey. She had to rush home." After that line, starting at the 24:50 mark, Wanda really starts to appear like someone dealing with some serious mental illness. The moment she says "Hmmmm" at 24:53, the aspect ratio begins to fade.
-The episode ends with Monica, after getting blasted thru an entire house, and tossed from a high distance into her reality, lands pretty hard and yet does not seem so suffer any real injuries. In fact in episode 5(9:03 mark), the CAT scan machine does not seem to be working. The results came in blank.When Darcy asks the nurse to check Monica"s lab result, the nurse says "I need another blood draw." Monica chuckles and basically says "nah im out" with zero repercussion. Like....what? Its clear that we are dealing with an alternate timeline inside of another alternate timeline. Even Herb back episode two theorized this. "Lets say Green" Norm:"Yeah, I mean the other side could be dirt." Would you rather live in a peaceful suburban reality, or a reality where every day is about stopping supernatural threats?
I am going to leave the rest of the episodes for a future updated post. I think I may have my my point clear here. There have been several callbacks to Age of Ultron. On top of that Disney+ will recommend watching Age of Ultron after episodes because the execs know that movie is imperative for truly understanding this show, and what is to come. We know Pietro comes back at the end of Episode 5, recasted as the Pietro from X-men, played by Evan Peters. Thus confirming the multiverse (thanks to Disney-Fox purchase). While Darcy was watching that clip of Pietro and even had to time to say "She recast Pietro.", behind her it seems like the S.W.O.R.D facility was dealing with an emergency. If my theory is correct, then they have received some unexpected guests from another reality.
submitted by SwoopDaEagle to MCUJimmyWoo [link] [comments]

[OC] What is happening to La Liga? Why are the goals drying up, why are the top clubs struggling so much?

Small edit to make something clear: the thing I'm concerned about is not the end of the era of domination by Barça and Madrid, but rather the generally decreasing attractiveness of the league to neutrals. I don't mind Cádiz and Getafe improving and winning against the big two, but I'd (obviously) prefer them to win 4-3 or 3-1 instead of shithousing a 1-0 win (which is also not me trying to play down their achievement or saying they should rather play attractive football instead of trying to win at all costs).
Being a big fan of Spanish football and La Liga myself, I wrote a comment on the Monday Moan thread stating how I'm nearly starting to get jealous of the drama and spectacle in EPL, Ligue 1, etc. Now, instead of spending my Monday moaning, I decided to give it some thought of my own and analyze the situation in La Liga, the league that has been dominated by 2 of football's biggest and most succesful teams for the biggest part of its existence. I will be studying (sports) journalism starting November, so a little bit of extra practice won't hurt.
First of all, I'm German, grew up supporting Madrid, but by following La Liga, travelling Spain, visiting various stadiums and speaking the language fluently, I started to become insanely invested in Spanish football, and I now hold sympathies for teams all over Spains first 3 divisions (Espanyol, Málaga, Tenerife, Dépor, Cádiz (and RM Castilla of course)). So I'm trying to get rid of any existing bias for this post.

What is happening to La Liga?

This is (as to be expected, or I wouldn't be writing this) a question that can't be answered easily, but has to be analyzed from various perspectives, on and off the pitch.

The gap between top and bottom is narrowing.

Financially, La Liga has never been closer together. There are various reasons for this.
  1. The re-distribution of TV money as agreed in Real Decreto - ley 05/2015 of 30. April 2015
  2. The inflated market being beneficiary for midtable and lower sides as selling clubs
  3. Mistakes made by Madrid, Barça and Atleti in the inflated market
Most importantly, LFP is obliged by law to redistribute the revenue made through marketing of each club's audiovisual rights, starting with the 2015/16 season in La Liga and Segunda División.
I have linked the Spanish version of this law above, but you can see all the changes made to the distribution of TV money (in English) on this offical La Liga page.
The main difference is, clubs can no longer negiotate deals with broadcasters for their TV rights themselves, instead, LFP negotiate the deal, and clubs get a share determined by a common distribution key.
This, in general, is a very good change that has been eagerly awaited by basically all clubs except for Barça and Madrid. Just to put the situation before the law came into place into perspective, Atlético, who won the league in the season before, only made 42m€ from TV rights in 2014/15, while Barça and Madrid shared 280m€ between the two. To further demonstrate how absurd the distribution before 2015 was, Cardiff City, who were relegated after finishing bottom of the PL in 2013/14, received 74,5m€ (Source: B/R).
This change was enforced by the government not because, but despite the efforts of LFP, who wanted ongoing dominance of the two Spanish giants, to not only see them successful in international competition, but also to keep La Liga attractive for fans all over the world, fascinated by monsterous scorelines and goalfests produced by the big two.
​
This table shows the average TV money received by some clubs from 2013-16 and 2016-2019, followed by the percentage of increase from period 1 to period 2.
As you can see in the table above, the big two have only marginally increased their average TV income per season, while most "smaller" clubs' average TV income has massively increased, Atleti and Celta even increasing their TV rights revenue by more than a 100%.
A second, minor aspect is the inflated market being very beneficiary to selling clubs in La Liga. As visible in this list on transfermarkt focusing on net spend of La Liga clubs in the period between 2015 and now, except for the big 3 clubs, only Valencia, Sevilla, Getafe, Betis, Osasuna and Mallorca have positive net spend. All other 20 clubs featuring in La Liga in that period have negative net spend, therefore having made profit on the transfer market, with Málaga (81.25m€), Athletic (59.6m€) and Las Palmas (32.7m€) topping the list.
On the other hand, we have Barça with a net spend of 368.3m€, Madrid with 130m€ and Atleti with 22.65m€. All of this with, as mentioned, stagnating TV revenue.
Investment, in general, is to be expected for such massive football clubs. Barça and Atleti have mainly been investing in well-developed players to guarantee them immediate success (Griezmann, Coutinho, Pjanic, Vidal for Barça, Costa, Carrasco, Morata, Gameiro for Atleti). This strategy is not exactly working well for these clubs, especially Barça were surely aiming to further prolong their national dominance and to strive for better results in international competition, yet they missed out on the last two Copa del Reys and one Championship, while massively disappointing in UCL. The investment risked by those two clubs isn't exactly generating the immediate success that people expect after such expenditures. Adding to that, according to Barcelona themselves, they've amassed 488m€ of debt, although presidential candidate Victor Font is stating that "the club's debt is very high. It's much higher than the club explains".
Madrid on the other hand are finding themselves in a period of transition with the old guard steadily declining, and president Florentino Pérez decided to approach this transition in a calm way, investing in big talents and having a big network of loan players. Players like Jovic, Vinícius, Rodrygo, Militão are costing them around 40m€ each, and don't seem to be up to the task yet, though. With Hazard, a mistake similar to or even bigger than most of Barcelonas flop signings was made. To some extent still riding on the success of 2016-18, a massive investment is to be expected in the 2021 summer window. If they don't manage to set themselves apart from the rest of the league and regain their status as an undisputed world class team after that, I'd expect the problems Barcelona are facing right now to occur in Madrid as well. While having paid off any debt they previously had, they have now taken on a 500m€ loan to renovate the Bernabéu.
Why some of the signings have underperformed, what's going on at Barcelona and if Madrid's period of transition will be successful are all topics often discussed on this sub, so I will not include them in this submission.
But, as a matter of fact, due to (failed) investment and the Coronavirus pandemic, the financial prowess of the big three has decreased dramatically.
The narrowing of the financial gap in La Liga has seen many midtable clubs make their record signing over the last few years such as Cucurella - Getafe, Luis Suárez - Granada, Alcácer - Villarreal or de Tomás - Espanyol. A few years ago, it wouldn't have been imaginable for Betis to pull off as signing as high profile as Nabil Fekir. So as we can see, the narrowing of the financial gap in La Liga is also leading to the narrowing of the gap in quality.
The last time the league was as close together, quality-wise, was probably the small era of Basque dominance from 1980 to 1984.

The football is more defensive-minded

My write-up on the financial aspect may answer the question on why games are now closer than before. The question still remaining is, why do most games seem to not be ending with scores like 3-3 or 5-4 (scores we regularly see in the PL) but more likely scores like 1-0 or 0-0?
​
Season Avg. goals scored per match
2011/12 2,7632
2012/13 2,8711
2013/14 2,7500
2014/15 2,6553
2015/16 2,7447
2016/17 2,9421
2017/18 2,6947
2018/19 2,5868
2019/20 2,4789
2020/21 (so far) 2,1509
(source)
First of all, it is easy to see the goals have been drying up in La Liga over the last 3-4 years. Out of the last 10 seasons, the three seasons with the least goals scored per match in La Liga are 20/21, 19/20 and 18/19.
Is this the result of goalscorers leaving the top teams, or is the league getting increasingly defensive-minded?
Let's take a look at the goals scored by Barca and Madrid in this timespan
​
Season Combined goals scored by RMA and FCB
2011/12 235
2012/13 218
2013/14 204
2014/15 228
2015/16 222
2016/17 222
2017/18 193
2018/19 153
2019/20 156
2020/21 (normalized to 38 matchdays) 121,6
We're seeing a massive decrease in goals scored by Madrid and Barcelona starting 2017. Before that, both teams normally had a goal tally of 100+ per season, while the last time they achieved this feat was in 2016/17 (Madrid with 106, Barça with 116).
It is obvious that the insane goalscoring numbers of the big two massively improved the goals per match ratio in La Liga, but it would be to easy to blame this fact only on them becoming worse or the rest of the league becoming better.
There is a lack of reliable goalscorers in La Liga.
From 2010 to 2020, the top scoring player in La Liga was 6x Messi, 3x Ronaldo and 1x Suárez. With Ronaldo now having left, Suárez having declined and Messi at least having declined in his numbers, the careers of 3 of the best players of our generation will now come to an end. Who is there to replace them though?
Benzema and Messi are probably the only reliable, world class goalscorers that guarantee their team 20+ goals in La Liga at the moment. The likes of Gerard Moreno, José Luis Morales, Iago Aspas and Lucas Ocampos are surely decent players, but La Liga has been known for the sheer amount of world class attacking players. The days of players like Forlán, Costa, Neymar, Suárez, Griezmann, Agüero, Villa, Eto'o, Raúl, Bale, Falcao, Higuaín, Negredo, Soldado etc. scoring 20+ per season, in seasons where CR7 and Leo both scored even more (40+ goals), are over.
It is now extremely difficult for La Liga teams to hold their top scoring players. The financial prowess of the Premier League is as strong as ever, and even a newly promoted club like Leeds is able to snatch one of the better attacking La Liga players in Rodrigo Moreno away from Valencia. Championship teams like Watford and Fulham are loaning players out to top 10 La Liga Clubs (Cucho Hernández from Watford to Getafe, Anguissa from Fulham to Villarreal). Ever since the Neymar move to PSG, not even Barcelona and Real Madrid are safe of losing their top players, which is why they put absurd release clauses into the contracts of players (Benzema at 1b€, Messi at 750m€ etc.). And if it wasn't for this, like we all know, Messi would probably be gone as well by now.
This isn't the only reason why top teams find it increasingly harder to break down deep-lying defensive lines.
More and more clubs are making defending their main footballing philosophy.
Seeing that the top clubs are getting weaker and weaker in attack, many midtable and lower league clubs are no longer afraid of playing the big teams. They've realized top clubs are struggling with deep sitting defensive lines. This is a phenomenon that has evolved all around Europe's top leagues, even before but especially since the 2018 World Cup. Possession-based top teams (like Spain and Germany's NTs, Barcelona, City...) are struggling harder and harder with scoring goals. Smaller teams in La Liga have taken advantage of this and simply park the bus, giving possession to the bigger sides. Especially Madrid and Atlético normally don't utilize this possession well and prefer to have less of the ball but more space in attack.
Now, this has seemingly always been the case in La Liga, smaller sides always park the bus against the big teams, so what has changed?
Clubs like Athletic, Alavés and especially Getafe under Pepe Bordalás have made defending, shithousery and timewasting, a physical style of play, their complete footballing identity. They don't park the bus against Madrid only, most of the times they also do so against opponents like Elche (sorry Elche fans). They play a hybrid defensive style of sitting back and giving possession to their opponent, while also gegenpressing and waiting for their opponents to make mistakes. The main objective is to not take any kind of defensive risk, under any circumstance, while also doing everything the rulebook allows to get a good result over the whole 90 minutes.
These teams are taking Atleti as an example, who can now be seen as a near-world class club, having reached this status with few resources and with a very defensive footballing mindset.
On the other hand, there are still "smaller" clubs who are trying to play beautiful attacking fooball, most notably Villarreal, Betis, Levante and to some extent La Real and Celta. In my opinion, the "downfall" of Betis and Celta, from teams consistently competing for European spots to teams fighting against relegation, can't be explained with lack of quality of their players, bad signings or bad coaches, but with them failing to adapt to this more defensive play style. Villarreal's and Levante's trajectories have been relatively satisfactory, but are still hardly a full success. Real Sociedad are seemingly on the way up, but that's because they play some sort of hybrid tactics under Alguacil and can do very well defensively against big teams (0-0 against Madrid on matchday 2) but also well offensively against "smaller" oppositions (yesterday's 3-0 win against Betis). Teams like these, but also Barca and especially Madrid, will often have a lot of possession and play extremely slow-paced football, while trying to search for a gap that just isn't there.
The defensive playstyle that has developed is obviously only possible through the increasing quality of defensive players in La Liga, which on the other hand is only made possible through the redistribution of TV money, bringing us back to our first point.
Clubs not adapting to this style of play and instead trying to push through their own style of play, their own "DNA", will continue having a very hard time. Koeman has realized this, and his team is already starting to give opponents more possession than they did under Setién or Valverde. This will lead to Barcelona having more attacking space, but also having to transition to defence more often.
All in all, or as you do on reddit, TLDR:
2015's redistribution of TV money + transfer market inflation + big teams' mistakes on the market have led to the quality gap in La Liga narrowing, lack of reliable goalscorers and clubs making defending their ideology is leading to slow-paced, defensive football
It's the first time I'm ever doing something like this and it started out as a long comment in the Monday Moan thread, so obviously this is not a professional analysis, and I've left out a lot of tactical analysis on Getafe & co. and decided not to further analyze the current states of Barcelona and Madrid, but I'd appreciate your thoughts and input.
Let me know if you find errors, mistakes or something that just isn't 100% correct in your opinion.
submitted by IcefoxX5 to soccer [link] [comments]

hazard ratio less than 1 video

A hazard ratio of 1 means that both groups (treatment and control) are experiencing an equal number of events at any point in time. A hazard ratio of 0.333 tells you that the hazard rate in the treatment group is one third of that in the control group. What the “event” is depends on the type of study. Now let’s take a HR less than 1. Let’s say that in your experiment the calculated Hazard Ratio is equal to 0.65. This is how you can interpret and report it. The mortality rate in a group of smokers drops by 35% compared to the group of high-calorie diet. The mortality rate among smokers is 0.65 times of that among patients with a high “An OR of less than 1 means that the first group was less likely to experience the event. However, an OR value below 1.00 is not directly interpretable. The degree to which the first group is less likely to experience the event is not the OR result. It is important to put the group expected to have higher odds of the event in the first column. An average hazard ratio of 1 indicates no difference in survival rates / event rate over time between the two groups being compared, on average. If the hazard ratio is larger than 1 it means an increased risk of an event across all time points, on average, while if it is less than 1 there is a reduction in that same risk. Hazard ratio=1 means no difference between the two. Getting one is as likely as getting the other. Flipping a coin will give you heads or tails equally lightly. Hazard ratio>1= there is a... Odds Ratio, Hazard Ratio and Relative Risk 63 Table 5: Examples of RR and OR for different probabilities. ˇ 1 ˇ 2 RR OR.4 .1 4 6.2 .3 .67 .58.04 .01 4 4.125.02 .03 .67 .66 Hazard ratio (HR) Broadly equivalent to relative risk (RR); useful when the risk is not constant with respect to time. It uses information collected at different times. The If the hazard ratio is > 1, it indicates that the treatment group has a shorter survival than the control referenced group, and if it is < 1, it indicates that the group of interest is less likely to have a shorter time to the event than the reference group. The ratio does not quantify the magnitude of the difference. 81% Reduction in the Risk of Radiographic Progression or Death, Hazard Ratio=0.19 (p less than 0.0001) We can see from these examples that when an event is a negative outcome, it is pretty common to interpret the hazard ratio to "percent reduction in risk". The hazard ratio of death for the intervention group compared with the control group was 0.46 (0.22 to 0.95), which is smaller than unity (1.0). Therefore, the hazard of death in the isoniazid prophylaxis group was less than that in the control group. If the confidence interval includes 1, then the hazard ratio is not significant. Interpretation of Hazard Ratio. Because Hazard Ratio is a ratio, then when: HR = 0.5: Patients in the new treatment group at any time point during the study period were 62% less likely to die than patients in the control group, and we are 95% confident that the

hazard ratio less than 1 top

[index] [6464] [5468] [8560] [4250] [2216] [5118] [9046] [9847] [3689] [8289]

hazard ratio less than 1

Copyright © 2024 m.onlinerealmoneygames.xyz