You barely got through the opening. Your loss.

Yeah, he forgot to multiply the .883 in the parenthesis. It's actually 111.371.

Ha ha ha. What a bunch of dopes. The answer is actually 104.

Hey! Captain Cards - you forgot to say butthurt.

Ha, "hindsight." I suppose you were in the bathroom last night when all of North America was calling it a terrible decision even before Wacha threw a pitch.

Why bring in Rosenthal? For the same reason Bochy didn't bring in Lincecum in the 9th — because when you're a high-pressure situation, where your season is potentially on the line, you don't bring in a guy who's pitching Class A short season-level baseball, a guy who hasn't pitched in twenty days and has been really…

There can't be a sinlge person who thought Wacha was the right guy even *before* he shit the bed. That is the exact opposite of second-guessing hindsight.

A friend I trust sent this fat dog to me.

You guys don't understand...French military posturing is always a prelude to capitulation and ridicule.

You're a bit backwards, here. GG was created specifically *for* harassing women - at the time, it was specifically Zoe Quinn, although it quickly spread to 'everyone who GG sees as a "SJW" scumbag'. It was only later that others began to claim, "Nuuu, it's about game journalism! It's totally a righteous cause!" even…

Gamergate, first coined by actor Adam Baldwin, is an amorphous campaign that is ostensibly about ethics in video game journalism and defending the "gamer" identity but has come under fire for its links to a wave of harassment, particularly of women, in gaming.

Nah, if there was going to be a nice goal post tonight, it would've been this one from Tyler Toffoli:

dog on the field could have turned out a lot worse, frankly

Pursey Harvin

You hate to see a newspaper get it wrong like this. This kind of careless headline really makes you doubt their credibility. How did this front page get by the editors? I know they jam a ton of work into a tight timeline and everything, but you'd think they'd catch something so glaringly obvious—you spell "filthy"…

All that means is you distrust her statement, not that her rhetoric is poor. And it's not unusual to put the bio of the contributor at the bottom of the article they wrote, naturally. In any case, the response to such an accusation of distrust is to point out which questions of her survey are inherently biased, which…

Pardon my saying so, but I think that's bullshit. "Removing the researcher from the research" is step one in creating a study that survives peer review. Confirmation bias and other logical errors that stem from identity over neutrality would cause other researchers in the field (read: rivals) to rip a study to…

So what were your specific objections to her survey questions?

what she describes there is the approved and proven process for minimising the researcher's effect precisely because the researcher cannot be removed. I think she just wrongly assumed that was common knowledge.

No, it is not impossible to remove the researcher from the researcher. It takes a lot of thought and effort, but it is not impossible.