But what would you have him do? You still haven’t made clear how things would be better if he resigned - there would just be a less helpful coach in his place.

That's what I figured, and feeding/vet bills/etc. aren't cheap. Seems to me that if a drone can do it even close to as well as a dog (especially if it could be automated at some point), a drone could be a cheap option for this job.

Can you put some numbers around that? Commercially available drones aren't necessarily all that expensive (a few hundred dollars), and dogs aren't all that cheap to own.

That makes sense. If you don't love your job, you're defrauding your employer. If we weren't running out of space in our prisons already, we certainly would be once laws enshrining your bizarre worldview were passed.

Your friends are wrong about Ritalin and meth being the same thing, or even "basically" the same thing. I hear that a lot also about Adderall, and that's wrong too. Meth is sold legally under the trade name Desoxyn - none of those other drugs are meth.

I'm not sure I agree with this argument that he's a bad guy because he's making money off a corrupt system. Yes, he is doing that, but he's doing it in a way that's as beneficial to his players as possible. If he took a stand on principle and refused to coach, he'd just be replaced with someone less player-friendly…

Your husband is either pulling your leg, mistaken, or he coincidentally had handprints on his car.

Assuming that you're telling the truth, the second sentence of your first paragraph along with the following two paragraphs are indeed all facts.

I see what you mean - I didn't catch that read on my first pass. Now that I'm going back, I'm thinking it's likely yours is the right read, though I'm still not positive.

I respect this article for what you're saying and the message you're sending to your son.

Well hey there Bob!

Exactly. When I think of Andre Johnson, I think "great receiver". When I think of Cortland Finnegan, I think "that pest who got beat up by Andre Johnson".

Your first sentence hit the nail on the head - it has everything to do with individual differences and how affected different people are by alcohol. I have friends who can have 10 drinks in a couple hours and you'd barely know they've been drinking, and other friends who are wasted after a Bud Light.

I'm not totally sure where we disagree, except maybe on the 1% part - I hate, hate, hate the "99% vs 1%" cliche because it's so, so wrong. It's really more like "99.99% vs 0.01%" - the wealth is unbelievably concentrated at the top

Eh, I don't like that example - Musk is much more an "elite" than any car dealer. Not that he isn't right in this case (I firmly believe he is, to be clear), but I would hardly consider any individual car dealer "elite" (sure, maybe the biggest ones are very rich, but that's more a "some extremely rich guys vs some…

Very fair points - we're on our way towards that (frighteningly quickly), but a sufficient level of automation probably hasn't been achieved yet, at least not that we're aware of.

Totally agreed, I would say in some ways technological progress entrenches the elites, particularly if they can keep those technologies out of their opponents hands, or if the technology is weaponry too complex for anyone but the elites to fabricate.

"There wasn't much celebration from their bench today, so you didn't see him much."

Interesting - the Wikipedia page says that Panama City was excluded from the Panama Canal Zone, but presumably it's an issue of how "Panama City" is defined - I'd guess the suburbs aren't part of that excluded area. Definitely not something I'm an expert on, so I'll confess I'm just guessing on that point (and…

Wikipedia has him listed as being born in Panama City, which I believe was excluded from the Panama Canal Zone. He became a US citizen in 1986.