Currently watching a show set and produced in the UK. A gentleman says his 21st birthday is at the end of the week and the other person he’s talking to calls it a big birthday for him. In the US, that would be because you’ve reached legal drinking age but since the drinking age in the UK is 18, what would be the significance of a 21st birthday there?

We are just like a drunkard on the verge of breakdown. We want to get rid of our addiction, because it is life-threating. We want to keep it, because we are addicted to it and its drunkenness is making us high. Such conflicting urges. Such we are not gonna make it ... !

Hi,

Are you interested in participating in an anonymous 15 minute research study about the potential relevance of video games to culture, society, personality, and politics? Anyone who is at least 18-years-old is invited to participate. As a participant in this project, you will be invited to answer questions about your video game preferences, opinions on various social and political issues, personality, and demographic information. Full details and the survey can be found here: https://ca.research.net/r/SW2MMQ8.

Thank you very much. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.

I was pretty excited to see new shadows! I wondered which mons in the new wave will be useful for PVE and PVP? Hoping to find out PVP relevance for all leagues given the Go Battle league coming up.

Edits: I know conkeldurr will be good, even though it’s outclassed by Lucario for PVE. Especially curious about Haxorus and gigalith. Thanks in advance all!

Edit 2: Just realized that Pvpoke has rankings for all gen 5 pokemon for those interested in PVP, there is a dropdown menu where you can select all gen 5

So, during the whole season I thought that the flashsideways were an alternate timeline where oceanic 815 never crashed. This was caused by the pocket of energy being neutralized at the end of season 5, so the Swan hatch was never built and Desmond never failed to press the button, crashing the plane.

But if the flashsideways happen when the characters are all dead then what did the events of the season 5 finale cause? Why did Juliet say “it worked” if it did nothing?

So on one hand we have many tech/cloud names ripping higher (SHOP, AMZN, MSFT, OKTA, TTD, AMD, NVDA to name a few), yet on the other hand we have stocks from most industries in the doldrums and pricing in a severe recession (autos, airlines, mortgage companies, hotels, machinery, builders, energy, media).

Is it not a fallacy in logic to assume that tech stocks can do fantastically well in a future economic landscape where hotels are empty, planes are not flying, new homes aren't being built, cars aren't being bought, etc??? If those tech stocks are going to do so well, or are so relatively "safe", then by default, those other industries must be safer than they are currently being perceived as well, no?

Lucio's crossfade heals 16.25 hps to his teammates, 12 to himself

Brigitte's inspire heals 16 hps, 16 to herself.

These 2 are pretty similar in terms of healing output, but there is a big issue now that Sombra is relevant again: Lucio's can be hacked, while Brigitte's cannot. I just can't see why Brigitte's passive is exempt from the hack, while every other passive in the game is. Thanks for reading

EDIT: My claim that every other passive being hacked is incorrect, and was intended as hyperbole. Nonetheless, the comparison between Lucio and Brigitte stands.

It goes like this:

Person A: My claim is "C" and this is my argument "X" and because of it, you will believe in Y and deny X obviously.

Person B: what? I believe in Y and it doesn't have to do with X.

Person A: see? I told you, you are just denying it. You just proved my point.

This is obviously a fallacy because X was never established in the first place. Person A is refuting Y baselessly by using a false cause.

More concrete exemple:

Person A: god is real and atheism is a byproduct of satanism to make people stray further away from god, and you'll deny that obviously.

Person B: i am an atheist and it does not have anything to do with satanism.

Person A: you are denying it, which proves my point.

Introduction

The 2018/2019 season saw Liverpool’s Alisson win the Premier League Golden Glove award. This award is given to the goalkeeper with the most clean sheets at the end of the season. The question I (and a lot of fans) have is why are clean sheets used to determine who the best goalkeeper is in the Premier League? With this piece, I aim to break down exactly what clean sheets are measuring and how effective they are at assessing performance. I also want to assess their applications in other aspects outside of the game.

History

The origin of the stat can’t be traced back to one person, but was generally conceived by reporters in the 1930s. If a team didn’t give up a goal, then the sheet of paper that detailed goals conceded would remain blank, or “clean”. It’s innocuous and perhaps even a bit cute, but I don’t think the reporters would have considered just how widely used the statistic would become. The first Golden Glove award was given in the World Cup of 1994 in the USA. The award was given to Michel Preud’homme of the Belgian National Team. The first time the Golden Glove was given in the Premier League to was to Petr Cech, who had 24 clean sheets in the 04/05 season. It’s still the most of any winner of the award. The award is given to “the best goalkeeper of the year”. But I have major issues with that statement, specifically in how performance is assessed.

A “Blanket Stat”

Clean sheets are what I like to call a “blanket stat”. Blanket stats essentially try to assess the performance of one player over an entire game without factoring in elements outside of the player’s control. Whether or not a goalkeeper keeps a clean sheet is certainly not entirely on the goalkeeper. Goalkeepers face not only a different quantity of shots every game, but they face a different quality of shots. Penalties are sometimes at no fault of the keeper, yet the indiscriminate nature of the stat blankets over this (hence the name).

Clean sheets are unable to measure the extremes of goalkeeper performance. Ederson didn’t have to face a single shot, much less on target, in Man City’s match against Bournemouth on March 2nd. He got a clean sheet for the match. And yet, Artur Boruc and Rui Patrício didn’t get clean sheets in Bournemouth’s match against Wolverhampton just a week earlier, with the keepers only conceding penalties. Neither keeper was the cause of the penalties either. They didn’t put a foot wrong, and yet they were determined to h

The special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).

We can all accept this fallacy is legitimately fallacious. However, often people forget the parenthetical clause “without justifying the special exception.”

When discussing the Thomistic Proof people will commonly claim that the conclusion that there must exist an unactualized actualizer/uncaused cause violates the special pleading fallacy. They suggest that because mundane things require cause the suggestion than an unactualized actualizer is uncaused is fallacious. However, this would not fit the special pleading fallacy.

1. There is justification, and so the simple accusation is not appropriate. The argument should instead shift to whether or not the justification is solid. Simply saying it’s special pleading and dismissing it is abusive.

2. The idea that this would even fit the special pleading fallacy is erroneous. The existence of to genera, one that contains a single member, and one that contains many members does not mean the affirmative is claiming an exception to exist. It merely means that one genus has more members than the other. The Thomistic proof says that things that come into being require cause, so that sets up two possible genera, those things which come into being and those that don’t. Simply setting up this logical distinction is not a special pleading fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

When people erroneously claim that something is special pleading without actually understanding the argument being made this creates a toxic environment that shuts down debate. It is intellectually lazy.

This board has been talking about ratings for awhile. And the arguments have been the same, either the low ratings are a sign that people are disliking the show, or they're not that meaningful because less people are watching shows live or on a week-to-week basis.

So, are there any other measures? Does the BBC say how much the show sells in merchandise? What about trending on twitter?