Yes, it's definitely too close to call at the moment. One unexpected result can swing everything in a different direction. Atletico look to be in a better place now than they were before that 5-0 game... but who knows how it will be at the end of the season?

No, the verdict is telling you that.

I'm not an expert. It seems to me as an observer that the cause of death is obvious. And the outcome of the trial gives the same result as my uninformed opinion.

True. And I think Atletico have a decent run of 'easy' fixtures now, which on the back of that 5-0 win last time should be just what they need to keep themselves at the top of the table. They have Athletic Club, who haven't won a league game for ages, and Huesca and Elche, who are right down near the bottom of the table. If they can get 3 wins from 3 games there, which shouldn't be beyond them, then Atletico will be in a great position coming up to the crucial game after that, vs Barca.

The Super League idea is now over, as all six English teams have withdrawn, following a huge backlash from fans.

The idea of a closed elite club where the big clubs can play one another and be forever safe from relegation goes against the whole spirit of sport and fair competition. Whilst it would have been nice to see the big teams play one another more often, I'm glad for the sake of the game that this idea has now been abandoned.

Knee on the neck for 9 minutes might have had something to do with it. The exact role Chauvin had is the role of murderer. Hope that clears up any confusion. There's also a video.

This whole debacle reflects very badly on those clubs that wanted to join. It reveals once again the huge gulf between the profit-seeking owners and the sports-loving everyday fans. Each of the English clubs has issued a humiliating apology. Hopefully lessons can be learned from this, and the structure of the game will improve as we move forward.

I've had one shot of the AZ vaccine. I had very minor fever and chills overnight, with a slight headache. By the next morning I was back to 100%.

Vaccination is not just about the individual, though. If you get vaccinated, then you help to slow the spread by building effective herd immunity in the wider population. If you don't get vaccinated, then you can still get infected and pass the virus onto others, who may have risk factors.

Unfortunately, you've used one of my trigger words, which necessitates the following rant:

Israel is vying with North Korea for the title of most morally bankrupt nation on the planet. Their much-lauded vaccine success story is drenched in the blood of Palestinian dead. The Israeli lebensraum has kept the native Palestinian population subjugated and confined to de facto concentration camps since 1948.
Israel are refusing to lift their blockade of the camps for vaccine supplies, despite condemnation from the UN:

_link

To which the response from the Israeli Health Minister is:
_link


Israel are actively preventing vaccines enter the country, and saying it's the responsibility of the imprisoned to source their own vaccines. Meanwhile the Israeli population is almost fully inoculated. So they can sit back in safety and watch their Palestinian prisoners die. Israel's behaviour in this, as so many other things, is unconscionable. It's effectively ethnic cleansing.


_link

I wouldn't say scared. A little concerned about the quantity of anti-vaxxer craziness that's out there, and whether in some countries the level might be sufficient to prevent effective herd immunity. Evidence does seem to suggest that the anti-vaxxers are pro-virus, and want to keep the virus going and associated lockdowns etc going for as long as they can. Kind of counter-intuitive, as these are the people complaining about the lockdowns in the first place... but there you go.

... as you should if you are starting out from a conclusion 'vaccine=bad', and then seeking out odd-balls and lunatics from the darkest corners of the internet in an effort to source evidence to support that pre-established conclusion.

Probably better to start instead from the data (large datasets from multiple sources, and meta-analyses), and then determine a conclusion based on what the data tell you.

This brings us back to my point about Africa suffering from excessive population growth. This is partly due to the 5 stage development cycle, but also certainly due in large part to catholic missionaries... they 'converted' the African population as part of the colonialist drive to establish control... and of course the catholic church bans contraception. The refusal due to western indoctrination to use contraception leads directly to a population increase, which in many cases these countries can't support... which in turn contributes to poverty, malnutrition and starvation. The pope and the catholic church are responsible for a huge amount of suffering on the African continent.

Yes. It's clearly the fairest method. However, it's very rare to see such a system implemented. And the reason for this is quite straightforward - it's the party who is in charge who gets to write the laws. And it's the party in charge who stands to lose out under a switch to a fairer system... because the current system is unfair in their favour. They benefit from the current unfairness, and have no incentive to change it.

It's a ruling on a legal technicality, that's all. They have been imposing restrictions using fast-tracked executive orders, rather than running through the full parliamentary process. The government have 30 days to get the rules through parliament.

This is not a 'the-human-right-to-go-to-the-shops-is-more-important-than-the-human-right-to-be-alive' ruling. Because obviously no sensible court would rule in that way, because the idea is utterly insane.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-court-slaps-down-covid-19-measures-reports/

The next 20 years could well be dominated by the effects of climate change... which will disproportionately affect poorer nations and those subject to population pressures, and those on the climate front-line... in many cases, those countries in Africa. I think this will act as a further inhibitor on the rise of Africa, particularly as many African nations still have rapidly increasing populations.

There's a fascinating dynamic visualisation here detailing each country's progression across the five stage demographic transition model... it's apparent that many African nations are earlier on in the process.

The rivers are actually a big part of it. Africa's major rivers are in general less navigable than those on other continents. This impedes development beyond a local level.
Consider also that as the cradle of civilisation, Africa was already occupied... whereas other places were not. Obvious recent example is America... people went from crowded, over-exploited, corrupt old Europe to a pristine land of boundless opportunity (and with navigable rivers).

As for the trouble of modern Africa... these are largely the aftermath of colonialism... with the colonial powers not only bleeding the country dry, but also typically creating a power vacuum when they eventually left. See the tragedy of Rwanda as an example here.

Historically, religion has primarily been a method of social control. Partly as a tool to enhance cohesion, like a tribal affiliation, fighting together for the glory of your deity, as a proxy for a flag, or other symbol. Partly also as a tool to enforce good behaviour... god as an all-seeing all-knowing invisible policeman... if transgressions against the prescribed moral code are automatically punished in the afterlife, then you as a leader have less need to surveil your citizens.

Nowadays I suppose it's often a crutch or support mechanism for those who find scientific reality a little brutal and hard-edged... which can be helpful as well as harmful. Also, with the weight of history behind it, religion has a huge cultural element and importance as shared heritage.

I think you posted that while I was typing my reply... basically what I was going to say above, although yours is less diplomatic (and more honest?)

It's difficult to see a perfect answer to this sort of situation. Perhaps there isn't one.

An interesting parallel I suppose is the paralympics, where each event has a large number of different classification groups depending on degree and type of impairment. But even then, you'd expect that because each group by necessity covers a range, then people classed in the same group will still have differing levels of impairment... which in elite sports where fine margins can mean the difference between winning and finishing last, can make a huge difference.

Exactly, it's just posturing. Russia in the Ukraine and China in Taiwan are both testing the new president out, seeing how far they can push him. There is no appetite for direct conflict between superpowers, or an expensive foreign war.

The Russia/China parallels are quite striking, their strongman attitudes, the way they present their respective annexations as 'internal' matters. But it's a balancing act, they both know they can't push too far... it's just a matter of determining what they can get away with... which I would imagine is quite a lot.

Loss of some key players, plus fatigue from the fixture congestion, yes... that's why they dropped the points. And they have the Chelsea games coming up, too, which won't help.

Atletico are back in the driving seat now. Perhaps their match next month vs Barcelona will prove crucial... but maybe not, it's shaping up to go right to the end of the season, i think.
Personally I hope Atletico hold on, they deserve it based on their early season form

They always do blame each other, in that situation. Whenever there is a crash it is usual for both drivers to blame the other one. It's quite rare that they admit being at fault.

Overall, fantastic start from Verstappen, which won him the race. And he did superbly one he had the lead.

Rare mistake from Hamilton, but an incredible recovery (helped by the red flag). I think a lot of drivers after that crash would have just got out of the car... but Hamilton knows every point could be vital, and it was amazing that he fought back to 2nd and got fastest lap, too.

Not sure what we learned about Red Bull vs Mercedes. Verstappen held the lead, but Hamilton was coming back at him at the end. How much was Verstappen just taking it easy with his 20 second cushion? The question continues into the next race...

By posting the question on here, you're probably undermining any potential 'heat of the moment' defence.
But as others have said, obviously contacting the authorities is the correct action.
If it was an actual bomb, then possibly you're on more solid ground as you may need to incapacitate the bomber in order to avert catastrophe.