Yes, I don't think Man U will be getting a Champions League spot this year. They are struggling, and the latest episode with Ronaldo having a sulk when he got subbed off is perhaps another indication that all is not well at Man U. They have some quite deep problems, and a new manager isn't going to fix it, they need new players.

I'd definitely agree about Adrian Newey, if someone has found a better way to do something, then it's more than likely to be him.

Not sure about Button. I think the reference to Brawn is that we could have a runaway team 'like Brawn were', not someone using the same technical approach as Brawn did, simply some team, any team, being a runaway leader in interpreting the regs. Button may be a link back to Brawn, but I don't think he'd have the same level of expertise and insight as a genuine specialist.

We've had free* rapid antigen tests here in the UK for nearly a year now. Not sure what the process is in the US, but we don't have to send the actual test back anywhere, we just notify the NHS of the result, whether positive or negative. So no DNA-gathering.




* let's not get into this debate

This statement seems self-contradictory. I understand that some people reject evolution because they believe in a religious creation... but I don't see how you can sit halfway and say evolution is true, but there is also a creator... it's an either/or question, surely?

If evolution is real (which it is), then the 'tree of life' diagram below is valid. Or is your position that God created a bacterium ~3b years ago, and then sat back and watched everything evolve from that origin? Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand how someone can reconcile the two viewpoints.


https://i0.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/tree-of-life_2000.png?w=2000&ssl=1
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5351015.msg57551868#msg57551868

As we might have expected, Murray is struggling and is a set down against an opponent ranked #120 in the world.
The problem is not his ability, it's his recovery... a long 5-set win in the last round against a top player was always going to take it out of him, it's the same as we saw last season, a great win against a top player is almost always followed by a real struggle against a much lower ranked player.

I feel bad for Murray, but from a betting perspective there is a clear pattern.

Evolution is true; the evidence for this is utterly overwhelming.


If you are talking about the evolution of greater intelligence, then we are probably a few thousand years past the maximum point of 'natural' average human intelligence. Arguably this happened at some point in the neolithic. But human knowledge builds upon the knowledge obtained in the past, and so our technology continues to advance. Increases in intelligence from now will probably be through technological means, whether that's inserting electronics into our heads, or genetic engineering. But the time of increases in human intelligence through 'natural' means is over, as technological changes are orders of magnitude faster. And we can surmise this would be true of any species that achieved our level of technology.

I see a distinction.

It does not benefit the government to stop people going out to the pub.
It does benefit the government to stop people protesting against the government.

If they have no incentive to stop people going to the pub, then it seems likely that there is a legitimate reason to stop people going to the pub.
Perhaps there is also a reason to stop people gathering in a crowd and protesting against the government. Or perhaps if they're all wearing masks it's less of an issue. Perhaps if they're also, somehow, social distancing, it's even less of an issue. Or perhaps it is genuinely a public health risk for them to gather like that.

I can certainly see that having a load of protesters in close proximity for a prolonged period of time during a respiratory pandemic could be unsafe. But that's not really the issue. The issue is the government using the pandemic as an excuse to clamp down on activities that are critical of the government.

If there are 10,000 people gathered together protesting, and the government says "These people shouldn't be gathering like that. Protests are unsafe and are now banned" ... then that's one thing. But if one person then stands outside the city hall with a placard, and the government arrest him because "Hey, don't you remember? We said protests are unsafe and are now banned" then that's quite a different thing.

Hey, we can shut this guy down, right? Because pandemic.

People who spread misinformation (whether intentionally or through sheer stupidity and laziness) are shut down. This is why, for example, the pathological liar Donald Trump was kicked from Twitter. You should see some of the utter crap spouted by anti-vaxxers. And if you refute it, they refuse to engage, and simply share whatever comes out of the sewer pipe next.


That's not quite what they said though, is it? I mean, the headline from your link is "Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse".
I'm sure you're aware that there is a history of governments using certain situations as an excuse to impose draconian new laws, and to restrict civil liberties, as we saw for example in the aftermath of 9/11.

Well, Raducanu won in the women's, which surprised me a bit as she is coming back from Covid. But it turns out Sloane Stephens was also coming back after a break, so was a bit rusty. Very difficult to gauge the level players are at so early in the year.

Nice win for Andy Murray, too, I'm very happy for him to win again at the tournament where a few years ago it looked like he would retire from tennis.
However it was a 5-setter, and last year showed that he struggles to maintain performance across a lot of matches in a short span of time, so he may suffer more than expected in the next round.

He is looking sharp, yes. And he did win the Melbourne Summer Set tournament the other week. A contender for the title, or is that going too far? It's is difficult to know where all these players are at, quite a few of them seem to have had Covid over December, some come back below par, some seemingly right at their best... the Norrie/Korda match is a good example of this, you'd expect it normally to be fairly close, but both players had their preparations disrupted by positive Covid tests, which seems to have affected Norrie more. Might make the betting a little more unpredictable this year.

I don't think they'll apply the 3-year ruling. They've already made some conciliatory comments about that. I would expect he'll be there next year (unless the pandemic is still going on...).



Meanwhile (it feels like all my posts in this thread contain the phrase 'BREAKING NEWS!'), so i'll continue the trend here...

Breaking News!!!
The French sports minister has announced that all athletes will have to be vaccinated in order to attend and compete in sporting events in France.


So the way it's going, he won't be able to compete at the French Open, either. Next stop Wimbledon?

Just to clear up any potential confusion... The Covid vaccines are extremely effective, and have saved countless lives already. I spend a lot of my time on this forum in the P&S section presenting data on vaccine efficacy, and refuting any ridiculous claims made by anti-vaxxers. I am extremely pro-vaccine.

Yes, Covid does affect your body, yes, long covid is another issue. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm simply offering a perspective on why someone in Djokovic's specific position who is already anti-vaccine, and has reached the pinnacle of their sport as a direct consequence of changing what they put into their body, might be reluctant to take the vaccine... even if it prevents him entering the AO.

If his new diet has made him into Superman, then he may see the vaccine as his kryptonite. That's all.

Is it safe to assume that you're not actually a qualified biochemist?
Have you actually looked at the studies and associated data around mask efficacy? Surgical masks are obviously better than simple cloth masks, but the data show that cloth masks do have a protective effect. Even if they aren't 100% effective, they are still going to reduce viral load.

I find this point to be quite interesting. I think his refusal to get vaccinated is a part of the reason he is such a good player. Back in the old days, when he was first coming through as a top talent, he wasn't a world-beater. But he changed his diet completely in order to optimise his physical performance. He cut out gluten, and he cut out dairy as well, and he reduced his sugar intake to very low levels. If you think about it, this is a very restrictive diet, and he has stuck to it rigidly. He absolutely will not eat any food that reduces the perfect efficiency of the machine that is his body.

So in this context, if you are that obsessed with perfect physical performance, it's understandable if you see a vaccine as something that pollutes your body. And if you are young and hyper-fit, as Djokovic is, and you know that if you catch the virus you are only likely to get mild symptoms... then I can understand why he doesn't want the vaccine.

I don't agree with his decision at all, and I think he hasn't behaved well in this instance... but I can sort of understand why he thinks the way he does.

Here's what Djokovic eats in a day

 
I've not seen anything that looks hugely appealing so far.
One thing I do think is going to happen in the women's, where I think Raducanu will lose, but the odds aren't amazing and so not really worth taking the risk. I do think she'll have a better year than many are predicting, but she's currently coming back from a break after contracting Covid last month. If she hadn't lost 6-0 6-1 last week, the odds on her losing in the AO might be more appealing. But as I'm from the UK, I would feel bad betting against her anyway.

Breaking news... Djokovic's appeal has been rejected and he'll be deported.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60014059

That was his final appeal, so it's definitely happening now. He officially "poses a threat to public health", and will be deported.

No-one comes out of this looking good.

Yes, it's difficult to see him challenging for slams again.
He was good in patches last season, and in a one-off match he was capable of playing with the top ranked players. It was just that his body couldn't maintain it, and it seemed like every good victory was followed by a disappointing defeat as his body struggled to play consecutive matches in a short space of time. That is where this week has been encouraging, he's beaten some good players and been able to keep going, round after round.

So he may not challenge for slams again, but he is certainly getting closer to that level, even if it may be impossible to regain it exactly.

It's interesting to learn about the difference between countries, thanks. Although I do still think there's a critical difference between being educated for the purpose of learning useful facts and skills, and being educated for the purpose of passing exams.

It is certainly a a good idea to try to measure the performance of teachers relative to all other teachers, and the easiest way to measure this is through exam scores, so I understand why the approach is used, I just think it's somewhat counterproductive in that you're not measuring their ability to teach the kids so much as their ability to train them. But I'm not sure how you'd obtain quantitative data to determine teacher ranking other than this way, so I don't know what the alternative is.

I'd also argue that - again, specifically in my country - teaching at university is all wrong. A generation ago it was free for students to attend, they just needed high enough exam scores to meet the entry requirements, and at university they were taught for the purpose of learning. Nowadays that's all changed, there are now huge fees involved, kids have to pay a lot of money to attend university, the number of university places open has increased dramatically, so now practically anyone can attend, regardless of exam scores, so long as they're willing to either stump up the cash or else get saddled with debt. And because such high fees are involved, it's not really about learning for the sake of learning, it's primarily a transaction, paying cash for qualifications.

I think Wood makes perfect sense as a signing. Newcastle's only aim at the moment is to avoid relegation; nothing else matters. Here's the bottom of the table. There's a clear gap to 16th. It looks like the teams who will be relegated are any 3 from the bottom 4. It makes perfect sense for Newcastle to buy Burnley's star striker, even if he never plays a game, the purchase has weakened Burnley and increased the chance of Newcastle finishing above them. £25m is a lot, but the money doesn't matter to Newcastle, what matters is staying in the top division. You can either strengthen your own team or weaken your opponents, it amounts to the same thing.

Yeah, I feel the same. As I said earlier, his behaviour in this instance really casts a light on his behaviour during matches, and the convenient "injuries" he gets at key moments. He's showing his personality to the whole world here, the way he is trying to bend the rules in his own favour, or just pretend the rules don't apply to him. The arrogance here is astonishing. And I think for most people, if they are refused entry to a country, and the public are vocal in saying they don't want them to come... then you just don't come. You don't take it to court, lose the case, and then continue the legal fight... actually fighting the country itself for a right to break their rules. I think a lot of people have lost all respect for him.