> unlikely to actually create any consequences for me in particular
I was this play out in relation to rules/laws applied to those under age. Like harsher and harsher anti-drinking law. The same people who I know were drinking underage have suddenly seen the light and believe someone's life should be destroyed for also drinking underage.
Or drug testing. If using drugs is bad for some group of people, wouldn't it be even worse if the group overseeing them were to be using drugs? Start testing congress first.
Driving down the road past a police cruiser on the side with it's lights on is far from safe. The escalation of brightness makes them visible beyond anything else...like the road.
Ok, I agree with this. The offside rule is just weird. A person with a wide stance would simultaneously be close to be both endlines. In any normal sense if one person is further south, the other person is further north -- not so with the offside rule.
It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with.
At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear.
None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR.
The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense.
At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up.
Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong.
I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked.
Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
The US has been asking that when they get a red card that Messi doesn't get. Or a handball on the goal line is ok for a UEFA company. Or a US goal called back when another UEFA team hauls multiple US players to the ground.
You see where I'm going with this? I just can't seem to get upset that a red card that isn't a red card for other teams is getting rescinded.
I've literally been watching for decades and nobody seemed to care before.
A ref got a call wrong and that's ok and should be doubled down on according to UEFA. Well, UEFA can just view this as the disciplinary committee getting it wrong and they can just live with that.
I love cycling and will cheer anything that moves. Right now, though, my go to is watching "norcal cycling" on youtube. The dude covers local/regional races and it's just fun.
And they end up in court cases where the people using it contrary go in with an argument like, "we really need it" or "we already spent it". Depending on how connected they are versus the person who has already passed, they frequently win.
Who would the charges be against? The person who violated some trust, or the market maker?
I could be pretty neutral on the market maker, really. The point of a prediction market is to put information to use.
There may be some line to be drawn on such markets, but that line really isn't drawn. There are just vague gestures that it is both gambling and not gambling due to insider information.
If you wanted to regulate it, legislate which markets can be made. Require notification that it is not gambling and is all about the trading of insider information and that gamblers have less than "fair" odds.
Don't forget the other way of sidetracking what you're asking for: "Why are you doing this, do something else instead."
I think most of my questions ended up with this, when I had very good reasons for doing it the way I was doing it. I typically wasn't showing it because I had isolated the problem I was facing into the minimal amount of code to duplicate it, or I was stuck with the particular tech I was using and we had 12 years of code built on top of it and I couldn't switch.
I was this play out in relation to rules/laws applied to those under age. Like harsher and harsher anti-drinking law. The same people who I know were drinking underage have suddenly seen the light and believe someone's life should be destroyed for also drinking underage.
Or drug testing. If using drugs is bad for some group of people, wouldn't it be even worse if the group overseeing them were to be using drugs? Start testing congress first.