Ranny

🚨 Kylian Mbappé: “It’s a shame I could not play El Clásico… I love playing that game, I always score against Barça!”. “I was 100% ready to play. I always want to play. But we move forward”.

Thought on this coaches pyramid? 👀

•France are more fluid and unselfish. •Mbappé moves around the attack when he plays for France and it works because he plays with players who have a higher IQ and there is no one in the attack who sees the LW as his grandfather’s inheritance. Hope this helps😘.

🚨🗣️ Zidane on Mbappe and Vinicius performance against Girona: “I’ll be honest, because nobody at Madrid should hide from reality. The connection between Vinicius and Mbappé… it doesn’t work. Not at the level this club demands. You can have two incredible players, but football is about balance, understanding, sacrifice and right now, I don’t see that chemistry. When Vinícius played with Karim Benzema, everything made sense. Benzema was a real striker, he knew when to drop, when to link play, when to disappear so Vinícius could explode. That understanding wasn’t forced, it was natural football intelligence. Now? Mbappé and Vinícius are doing the same things in the same spaces. Both want the left side, both want to run at defenders, both want to be the finisher. You can’t have two players thinking they are the main character, it breaks the balance of the team. And you saw it again in that 1–1 against Girona. Mbappé is trying to learn how to be a striker on the job, but that’s not his game. You don’t just ‘become’ a number 9 because the system needs it. For me, it’s simple, even if people don’t want to hear it. If this continues, one of them has to go. Football is about chemistry, not just names on paper. And honestly? If you sell one, you reinvest smartly. Someone like Michael Olise, a player who actually connects play, creates, find a prolific striker and balances the attack and That’s how you build a team, not by stacking superstars who cancel each other out.”

a moving man will meet his luck 🥀

Bayes’ theorem is probably the single most important thing any rational person can learn. So many of our debates and disagreements that we shout about are because we don’t understand Bayes’ theorem or how human rationality often works. Bayes’ theorem is named after the 18th-century Thomas Bayes, and essentially it’s a formula that asks: when you are presented with all of the evidence for something, how much should you believe it? Bayes’ theorem teaches us that our beliefs are not fixed; they are probabilities. Our beliefs change as we weigh new evidence against our assumptions, or our priors. In other words, we all carry certain ideas about how the world works, and new evidence can challenge them. For example, somebody might believe that smoking is safe, that stress causes mouth ulcers, or that human activity is unrelated to climate change. These are their priors, their starting points. They can be formed by our culture, our biases, or even incomplete information. Now imagine a new study comes along that challenges one of your priors. A single study might not carry enough weight to overturn your existing beliefs. But as studies accumulate, eventually the scales may tip. At some point, your prior will become less and less plausible. Bayes’ theorem argues that being rational is not about black and white. It’s not even about true or false. It’s about what is most reasonable based on the best available evidence. But for this to work, we need to be presented with as much high-quality data as possible. Without evidence—without belief-forming data—we are left only with our priors and biases. And those aren’t all that rational.