That does show ambition, but at the same time it's a big risk because you've got to get all of those new players to gel together.
Remember Fulham came up, spent £100m, and then got relegated.
Villa nearly did the same thing last season, and only escaped somehow on the last day.

It's difficult for teams that come up, I think they are probably better spending more on fewer players if they can... but of course it is difficult to attract elite players if you're newly promoted.

Perhaps, but we do see this effect time and again in elections across the world, so it would be quite a precedent if the pollsters have actually managed to account for it. We do also of course have the issue that when a poll starts implementing modifications and algorithms to correct for perceived inaccuracies, then it ceases to an extent to be a poll and becomes more of a predicted outcome, with its accuracy dependent not just on the honesty of prospective voters, but also on the type and quality of the modifications.

I think one reason for this discrepancy is that people aren't always honest in opinion polls. Generally it is right-wing candidates who benefit from this effect: there are likely far more people who will vote Trump but won't admit it, than there are people who will vote Biden but won't admit it. We see this time and time again across different countries. The more controversial (and right-wing) a candidate is, the greater the effect. I'd imagine betting companies are fully aware of this, whereas opinion polls simply reflect what people say they will do, rather than what they actually do.

Bitcointalk username: Cnut237
Bitcointalk profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1118642
Posts count (including this one): 2519
Bitcoin address: bc1q35y86908na4ep32ww38ha4gk4ssuvw89m2leqz

Liverpool for me. They were in a class of their own in 19-20 prior to lockdown, and their deterioration after lockdown can be attributed to the fact that they'd effectively got the league won already. If there had been no lockdown, I think Liverpool would have won by more.
Other teams can of course bring in new players to improve, but the number of players they'd need to bring in to beat Liverpool would likely have some negative effects due to a lack of familiarity with one another - as we often see when teams bring in a lot of new players. The only potential exception I see to this really is Messi. Perhaps Man City of last season plus Messi could win the league.

Yes, there is. Of course the dataset is limited because this is just shootings, and doesn't include instances of police murdering people through choking or neck-kneeling. Unless you are arguing that the police may have a problem with racism, but wider society doesn't? In which case I'd just direct you to the nearest 'all lives matter' person.

But the situation is improving, because finally this is being acknowledged and a lot of people are appropriately outraged. We have progressed a long way beyond the 50s/60s Rosa Parks era, with the US even electing a black president. And we will eventually get to the point where people are treated equally irrespective of colour, but it remains a long journey. The US is a global leader in many things, and if this is handled correctly, they can provide a good example for other countries (my own included) to follow.

Yes, that didn't help. But I think as soon as Hamilton got through the first few corners on the opening lap, it was pretty much guaranteed that he'd win. Bottas can't compete because he's not good enough, Verstappen can't compete because his car's not good enough. Drivers and constructors championships are as good as over already. Still, we can't take anything away from Hamilton, he's a top driver performing at the top of his ability.

I take your point, but I would argue that if everyone looked at facts, then we'd have 100% consensus. If a person's opinion is in wild divergence from the evidence, then I'd suggest that they started by forming a conclusion, and then sought (extremely selective) evidence to back up that conclusion... which isn't science.


Yes, they have been proven wrong. It shouldn't be a contentious issue, it's very similar to the smoking-doesn't-cause-cancer argument I mentioned. It doesn't matter to them that they've been proven wrong, because their arguments are not based on facts, because they started from a conclusion and worked backwards. This is also why a lot of people believe in the literal truth of the bible. Facts from this viewpoint are an irrelevance. It's faith, not logic, there is no real consideration of empirical evidence. This is why you'll never be able to use facts to change the opinion of a climate change denier.


Yes, there is a disconnect. This is due to the mechanism by which people receive information. Partly social media confirmation bias bubbles; partly TV new trying to be 'impartial' by having one expert from each side (which gives the erroneous impression that the scientific opinion is split 50/50). But mostly because news channels (on whatever medium) are owned and controlled by extremely rich people, who tend to represent the interests of extremely rich people, which are threatened by any disruption to the status quo.



Okay, start building one now, and post here again when you're done. Photo or it didn't happen.

I appreciate this could all be done somewhat more quickly if the political will and expertise was there, Japan for example has a history of building them quite quickly, but other countries face pushback due to environmental concerns, and may lack the Japanese expertise and experience. If we are talking about all nations switching to nuclear to avert climate catastrophe, then it's not going to happen. You're not going to get a fission reactor built in sub-Saharan Africa in a couple of years. It's not the rapid solution that we need right now.

I'm not saying that. The consensus is that it is happening. There is no consensus that it's not happening. Certainly some of the 3% of scientists who believe it's not happening are idiots; others simply say whatever they're paid to say. The 'scientists' who are saying that either there is no climate change, or else there is but it's not caused by human activity... are exactly the same type of 'expert' who thought (or said they thought) a few decades back that there was no link between smoking and cancer.

I think you're undermining your own argument here. 97% indicates a huge weight of numbers. Whatever your viewpoint, you will be able to find a single scientist who supports it. You are unlikely to find a 97% consensus unless your viewpoint is in alignment with the actual underlying facts.

Put it this way, you have severe stomach pain and you phone the doctor. He is at a conference of 100 stomach specialists, and he puts you on speaker. 97 of the 100 specialists say that you've ingested poison and you need to go to the hospital immediately, the other 3 say don't worry, it's nothing. What would you do? I'll be extremely generous and assume the 3 are not employees of the poison company.

I would suggest trusting experts rather than random students. Students aren't experts, that's why they're students. You can certainly argue that some experts are biased, but it stretches credibility rather a lot to suggest that 97% of experts in a given field are deliberately lying in order that they might become "darlings of the liberal media".


Nuclear power is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels... but reactors take a very long time to build. Given the pace of climate change, we probably don't have time for that, and need to switch our attention to renewables instead, as well as lifestyle changes. The ultimate dream I suppose is commercial fusion, but that is always a few decades away...

Climate change is real, and is caused by man. The evidence is overwhelming. I think most people (and many forum members) do believe this, it's just that the evidence is so overwhelming, that relatively few bother to engage with climate-skeptics. Similar to how relatively few people try to argue with anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. The question has been settled. Those who can't see the evidence or disagree with it will never be convinced by data, empirical evidence, facts. The thing that I find strange is that they view whatever crap the fossil-fuel lobbyists come out with as unbiased and impartial.

There is close to a universal consensus amongst climate scientists - 97% agree that humans have caused recent global warming.

For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause:

Governments did not want to implement lockdowns, because of the economic damage they cause. This is why most (all?) countries brought in lockdowns too late, they waited and waited in the hope the virus would just go away. Of course if they'd just put in an early quarantine system for new entrants, lockdowns would not have been necessary. Governments do care about the lives of their citizens, but they care far more about the economy. Lockdowns were a last resort, not a desired outcome. They were implemented because the alternative was no lockdown, pandemic running wild, overrun health system, many many more deaths and, the most important government consideration, even more economic damage.
Why do you think a government would implement a lockdown if there was no need to do so? It's not a compelling conspiracy theory if there is no-one who benefits.

Evidence.

I don't think the issue is Americans being stupid (they're not), or the police being stupid (they're probably not).
Rather it's about racism being endemic in the US police force (and to an extent this being symptomatic of racism within elements of the wider society). If you couple police racism with the fact that they are allowed to use lethal force, then it becomes an extremely urgent problem.

Whilst you can often find single cases to illustrate any point you want, particularly in a country as vast as the US, the fact that the police felt able to treat Jacob Blake this way given the current climate is a huge warning sign. We've had months of BLM protests since George Floyd; police racism and casual murder of non-whites is right at the top of the news... and must surely be in the forefront of the minds of every frontline police officer out there. And still, despite this, despite the police being fully aware of the wider situation, they still feel perfectly happy to attack and kill non-whites whenever they feel like it, and with zero justification. History suggests they can act with impunity - it is rare that they face justice.

A terrible consequence of the way the world is structured at the moment is that whenever there is a crisis, it is poorer and more vulnerable people who are hit hardest. This is particularly true of a pandemic. My hope is that  if remote-working becomes embedded and more generally accepted, then eventually this can spread beyond national boundaries, and that educated people in poorer nations might be able to secure lucrative jobs that were previously based in city-centre offices in richer nations. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of how difficult it is to even get an education in a poorer country.

What I meant by this was that people who have returned to local towns but still have 'big city' jobs will spend (a portion of) their high income in the local economy, thus giving it a boost and potentially helping to create more local jobs. I'm not suggesting it will be a huge effect, just that if this happens then there should be some positive effects for the local economy.

Yes. The time saving from the removal of commuting is an improvement in efficiency. There is less wasted time. Similarly with companies not having to maintain (as many) large offices, it's an improvement in efficiency because there is less wasted money. This is why I think that some of the remote-working we are now seeing will remain remote. This a key mechanism by which societies advance - improvements in efficiency, it seems inevitable, like entropy. Anything that is more efficient will get adopted.

I meant this specifically in terms of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome. I was referring to the (partial) removal of the geographical component of inequality-of-opportunity. But then, yes, if good job opportunities are spread (somewhat) more evenly, then the knock-on effect should be that geographical income inequality is reduced (somewhat).

I don't know, I think that's a bit fatalistic. We're not really talking about everyone suddenly living in remote areas, more a bit of a move away from more affluent (and costly) cities towards less prosperous towns and cities.

Depends on the industry, I suppose - as well as the country. In the UK, a lot of IT and other technical jobs are still WFH with no imminent return planned.





Yes, I mentioned the companies that rely on city centre footfall; there will certainly be job losses here. Not so sure about delivery drivers, but the service industry will certainly be hit hard.
Also totally agree that CV19 and any permanent shift to remote-working will mean that the poor are hit hardest. This is always the case.
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that I was calling this 'the saviour of society which will get rid of poverty', but I appreciate I could have been somewhat clearer. I am not suggesting that remote-working will lead to greater equality of outcome, I am suggesting that it will lead to greater equality of opportunity.
If we are talking about equality of outcome, then certainly CV19 will not have a net positive effect. For that, we would have to look for something entirely different, most likely some form of government intervention.
I'm not willing to derail my own thread by bringing up UBI again.

---

Edit:
Good point, I'd not considered that, but of course it's obvious. I'd give you a merit, but unfortunately you work in 7s, and that would really deplete my stash.

The gap from Bottas in second to Verstappen in third (and even Ricciardo in fourth) was small, yes. The problem is, Hamilton was more than half a second ahead of Bottas again.
For the race, you'd imagine if Hamilton gets an okay start and gets into the first corner in the lead, then he's all but won. Barring safety cars or some other anomaly.

Crisis accelerates change. The CV19 lockdown precipitated a shift to remote-working for many people. Now lockdowns are lifting, and governments are keen to get people back into the physical office in order to increase city-centre footfall and ensure that bricks-and-mortar businesses can return to profitability - particularly those small businesses that rely on lunchtime traffic from the office. However, here we hit a problem. Governments want companies (plural) to succeed, and so their focus is on a return to previous ways of working... but individual companies are interested solely in their own (singular) viability and profitability. Individual companies have been hit hard by lockdown, we are seeing a lot of businesses being propped up by short-term government payouts, with the anticipation of large-scale unemployment once those payments inevitably cease. Companies are looking to cut costs, and retaining the current remote-working system offers huge benefits both in the short-term (no requirement to solve the unsolvable problem of getting everyone back into the office whilst still retaining social distancing) and in the longer-term (no need to pay huge city-centre rents and the associated costs of running a large office, insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc).

Many people want to continue to remote-work, companies have noticed that productivity has remained consistent during lockdown, and that continued remote-working offers huge financial savings... perhaps the death knell has been sounded for the culture of presenteeism.

If we can assume that a large amount of the new remote-working due to CV19 will remain remote in the longer-term, then does this help to reduce inequality within societies? The situation applies to many countries, but taking the UK as an example, cost of living in London (and to an extent the wider SE) is considerably higher than in the rest of the country. So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas? A young graduate in a poor northern town might previously have been limited in their job opportunities because of a desire to remain in the area (for social or other reasons)... but can now apply for and work a 'city centre' job without leaving the area?

And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?

That was my question, too. We have seen leftist-style government intervention in a lot of countries as a response to CV19 - perhaps this is what the OP had in mind? These will likely be temporary measures, as governments remain committed to free-market capitalism. I don't think we're headed for socialism yet.

Having said that, capitalism as currently practised is not sustainable without governments acting to keep it in check. Inequality is growing, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer... which is one reason that leftist solutions are gaining in popularity.

Achieved racial harmony. Oh, and he aced that dementia test. No-one is more stabler or geniuser.

I agree. The only time Mercedes looked weak was when three factors combined: a) very hot weather, b) demanding circuit, c) only softer tyres available.

Given that we are now heading out of the European summer, that takes one of those factors out immediately. The only hope for other teams is that the upcoming restriction on engine modes hits Mercedes hard... but you'd still see them winning everything really.