lukas099

You are grading American football on a world football rubric. One could just say that world football is not demanding because you don’t need much strength, you can be small and fast (easier than being big and fast), you don’t have to be physically resilient enough to get flattened by a 350 pound man and jump back up, you don’t need hand skills, etc.

Agreed, pretty much any man can dramatically increase their lean body mass from baseline with 3-6 hours per week of resistance training for 6 months if they haven’t already done so.

I agree that strength is specific, but my point is that ‘bodybuilder muscle’ is not strictly ornamental.

Powerlifters have incredible muscle mass, they just aren’t picky about covering it with body fat because it doesn’t make sense for the sport. The main reason bodybuilders are weaker is that their caloric intake is much lesser (especially at meet prep when they sometimes are practically starving themselves to death).

Fair enough. I would submit that you probably have a local perspective as well.

It’s not the #1 sport there, but NFL football is popular in Canada too. To me, it’s dominance in North America is enough to qualify but I respect your position.

Personally I can’t see how Brady is not a top athlete. It’s like judging a jazz musician on the skills needed in pop music or vice versa. You have to look at success within the genre or sport.

That man is a treasure

Throwing a football accurately to a moving receiver whilst evading tackling giants surely qualifies, right?

I cannot possibly comprehend how someone could think that NFL football and NBA basketball are ‘not physically difficult’ sports.

> And it's well-known it's not a physique that correlates with actual physical strength

100% disagree. The last I checked, muscle size is the strongest correlating physical characteristic with force production. Also, have you not seen videos of Ronnie Coleman lifting weights?

I largely agree with you, but in general more muscle => stronger so bodybuilder muscles are not strictly ornamentation. In fact it’s not uncommon for bodybuilders to become powerlifters and vice versa.

Also, an underappreciated role of muscle mass is as a giant store of emergency amino acids.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, but I was talking about Mahomes.

He’s the most successful player in the most competitive position in the most competitive league in one of the most competitive sports on Earth.

American football requires a different skill tree than world football. So of course if you only judge by the standards of world football he is not great. But why would you do that?

And athleticism as different from health. In fact, beyond a threshold I believe it is detrimental to it.

Well, it is called the Library of Congress; is it not under the control of the Legislative?

Probably gonna show a lot of ignorance here, but isn’t that a big part of the difference between our brains and AI? That instead of one system, we are many systems that are kind of sewn together? I secretly think AGI will just be a bunch of different specialized AIs working together.

> Most modern germ theory says all bacteria is bad.

I've never heard anyone say this.

Not saying you’re wrong, but when people with kids say this, it means very little to me. Like of course you’re going to say that, otherwise you’d be admitting that having your kids was a mistake.

Is there not a convention within formal logic defining this type of statement to be true or false?

> That day will come

You act so sure, yet your own post betrays that you know it’s not based on current evidence (“waiting for the day…”).

Now I know where Poolsuite came from: https://poolsuite.net

Warning: sound

The consequences for renters is also severe if not enough housing is supplied because it doesn't make financial sense to do so.

> Many of those people living paycheck to paycheck have a budget where they're saving or investing a significant amount of their money, and accordingly, money feels tight.

I don’t understand. Isn’t everybody living paycheck-to-paycheck then?

Not only that, there are 'parasitic genes' that are wholly bad for the animal and the species.

> So, there must be some really good evolutionary reason for sleep.

Just one, but partitioning activities in time allows for further specialization. For example, instead of having generalist eyeballs that are okay at seeing in light and dark, you can have specialist ones that are really good at one or the other. Then another species in the same area that utilizes similar resources can specialize in the opposite, reducing competition between the two species (this is called resource partitioning).

Then, once there's a chunk of the day that is less productive than the other, it makes more sense for the body to devote that time to various recovery mechanisms. Then that chunk of time is even less productive, making using that time for recovery even more attractive.

> Is there some really important reason many animals have brains in their head

I'm guessing proximity to sensory organs.

Macs are my favorite too, but they don’t have the consistently crisp texture of the honeycrisp.

It's working for the Russians.

> But I think it is mainly because the compost bin isn't big enough

Pile size is almost all that matters for how hot it gets, in my experience.

> they are a terrible monopsony (basically destroying retailers that are not Chinese knockoffs)

Wondering if you or someone could explain this. I looked up monopsonies but still confused.

Can Apple force Mozilla to make Google the default browser in Firefox?