Something something something *golden balls* something something.

Adopted prince??!?!? Spoiler alert... (R+L=J)

It is harsh, but I think that this is the only way to adjudicate these types of fouls. For a world-class striker, I'd have to believe that these 1-on-1 with the keeper is easier to score than a penalty kick so without the threat of a red card, the defender will commit the foul in most cases.

To be fair, if it looked like the seat next to me might be empty and an anorexic dwarf came to sit next to me, I'd be affronted (albeit knowingly asshole-ishly) by their invasion of my space. It's more that I hate EVERYONE who dares to sit in a seat next to me.

There's got to be an acceptable trade involving other acts that are sanctioned within a marriage.

Dancing requires music. This is wiggling.

No I haven't which is probably why we're not seeing eye-to-eye. I have an econ degree which is where this comes from. Since I'm not a runner, my view of "optimal" is a basic one: lowest possible time. I understand that on a personal level, people are optimizing their own performance with training goals.

Then yes, we do agree.

I don't EXPECT anything different, I'm saying it's not optimal.

Ok, I understand that.

That's optimization :) removing the human element of feeling good about hitting a goal, some of those people could run faster.

Yes, I understand all of that, but marathon runners are not some special breed of individuals who are exempt from the laws of statistics. The lack of a normal distribution on the chart (the chart does not reflect a normal distribution) indicates there's something in the behavior of runners that affects that.

The chart pretty obviously shows that there are people who can reach a better time (say, 3:30:00) but don't, because they've paced themselves that way. That's not optimal, statistically speaking.

That's the point though. Targeting a time is not efficient or optimal.

Statistically speaking, it doesn't matter what their "target" is. If runners were running optimally, there would be people who ran for a target, but bested it, and there would be people running for the same target, but not reach it. Hence, the normal distribution.

You seem mad, I think I've changed my opinion on changing the team name just so you have a better day.

I re-read his Wikipedia, you're right about that.

No, I agree that they had it worse, but if we're going to spend our time trying to correct all of the injustices in sports, we'd be here for a long time. I don't think this rates very highly in terms of priority when workers are dying in Qatar and the NCAA is exploiting its athletes for its own enrichment, especially…

It was named in HONOR of a Native American (William Dietz). Also, Redskin originally wasn't a slur (so say etymologists). I don't see it as a legacy of racism, but I guess it is to people who are looking for those things. The Redskins were one of the first integrated teams, and since you seem to know a lot of…

Irish-irish? Or American-irish? Because you might want to look up the phrase "irish and dogs need not apply."