Bryan Adams

@JordanZirm The Celtics standard for health is when a player shits himself in the floor, so this is actually pretty impressive in that light

crazy that Jayson Tatum is the only athlete in history to come back from an Achilles tear

@JackDuffin Is this a "Membou over Graham" tweet?

The one piece on this with DTs You can usually find a group of FAs each year who produce ~10% pressure rate and cost around $6m each. It is much easier to build something in the aggregate at DT via FA compared to QB, T, ED, CB or WR

@terronk My argument is that "I'm trying to figure out what idiot wrote this code" is where you start, and the idiot can be either Claude or Four-Months-Ago Bryan and it doesn't make a ton of difference

I’ve found this to be the case with programming, but I’m unsure how much of a problem it is. I don’t think humanity stops advancing if we lose programming skills, but otoh, programming is just formalized problem solving. You can in fact outsource critical thinking to an agent.

@BenAxelrod Lol you fuckin' nailed it

🤷‍♂️x.com/JoshTheAthleti…

Future Kevin Stefanski quote: “I understand the question. Respectfully, I’m not going to get into all of that. I have a lot of respect for Baker. We had some great times together. But my focus is on the Falcons and my role with this organization”

@jake_burns18 As a Browns fan who has lived in Boston for 31 years, let me tell you: no fan base deserves it less.

@RBMD1982 Totally agree. One of my hot-take ideas along these lines is for governments to send thank-you notes after taxes are paid. "You paid an effective tax rate of X%, and your contribution provided Y benefits to Z people." People just like to be thanked.

It’s good for Zohran, but I am also convinced by his argument that it’s good for people’s faith in government, that it spurs a virtuous cycle of trust building and civic energy

@minordissent A shame -- your posts are thought-provoking (even if I often disagree). You won't hear from me again.

@bpadams Bryan, we are not a match. I have removed you as a follower. I wish you the best of luck.

Yeah the essay was pretty scathing. I don’t recall him having a single good thing to say besides “but he’s really funny”. While i do admit, it gave me a critical perspective on Adams who I had a universally positive perspective on beforehand (and thus i suppose I am begrudgingly grateful for my new, more nuanced perspective) i don’t really see how anyone could read it as not bone picking/pissing on Adam’s grave.

@minordissent He was very critical but, you said -- "I don’t recall him having a single good thing to say besides 'but he’s really funny'." That statement is false. But I read your (false) statement as being an accusation of an ad hominem attack. Do you feel he was unfair in his criticism?

@bpadams Yes those were 3 of the roughly 5 or so positive sentences buried within the essay of scathing criticism

@SirYacht_ @Browns ah man, why did you have to do this

Our additional first round selection in the 2026 NFL Draft via Jacksonville is officially set at pick 2️⃣4️⃣ 📰 Read more: brow.nz/057d5e

@tomtomtom1776 @minordissent This is pointless, I'm done.

@bpadams @minordissent How does your question about which side the author perceives the Good incident change or affect his claim in this post? Genuine question, do you not understand or see the connection between his claim and the Good incident (qt). Still questioning if you can think abstractly

Kind of a tangent but: One thing very important to think about whenever you are trying to accurately detect patterns based on limited data (online or otherwise) is whether it’s “a canary in a coal mine” or “the exception that proves the rule” For me personally, back in 2011 when i first saw videos of cops using what i perceived to be excessive force, i thought it was the former. “imagine how much they are doing this where we don’t see it! ACAB!” However after watching enough videos (fun fact: i actually had a Facebook page where i would post police shootings daily trying to bring awareness to the issue but then ran out in only a few months) and doing deep dives into the whole story on cases like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, I realized it’s the opposite. If you took a random sample of 1,000 full body cams of police encounters that ended in violence (which is probably only 1% of all police encounters), you would find that: ~95% were totally justified, 4% you didn’t like but are technically legal (and you would begrudgingly accept them as justified after watching the 950 times where some wacko went crazy on the cop and they responded in a way you totally agreed as fair), and only 1% of the time you would genuinely believe were excessive force and bad. We never see the 99% of times where there wasn’t violence because no one cares. Of the 1% where there is violence, we never see the 95% where everyone would agree it was justified because also no one cares. We do see the 1% of the 1% where it was clear cut that the cop used excessive force but it quickly gets forgotten about because everyone agrees and thus there is nothing to discuss. We however ALWAYS see the 4% and talk about them for YEARS because they are a rorschach test for our bias and generate the most amount of engagement and attention and debate. Thus, what appears to “empathetic people” to be a problem with 90%+ of police encounters because they think the videos are a canary in a coal machine, is actually a problem with 0.01% or less because they are the exception that proves the rule. It is worth asking yourself where society and (your own life) have this heuristic inverted such as this.

@tomtomtom1776 @minordissent And yet when I asked -- with legitimate curiosity -- if that's what was intended by the post, I ended up getting insulted by you as a non abstract thinker?

@bpadams @minordissent @bpadams I can’t tell if you are confused in good faith, didn’t read the post, or literally proving inability reason about statstical abstractions. The post explicitly talks about statistical rarites, specifically viral bodycam incidents. Which Good’s obviously is…

@tomtomtom1776 @minordissent Max: (quotes tweet about Renee Good shooting) "Let me make a tangential point" Me: "I can't tell what this tangential point means about Renee Good" Tom: YOU FAIL TO THINK ABSTRACTLY Ok, mhm, sure.

@bpadams @minordissent The point made wasn’t about the specifics of incident in the qt. It’s an example that shows how easy it is to let 1% edge cases distort how we reason about the 99% base rates and consequently see the world. It’s a failure to think abstractly about distributions.

@tomtomtom1776 @minordissent How is ignoring a quote tweet "abstract thinking"?

@bpadams @minordissent Are you unable to think abstractly?

@minordissent You quoted a tweet from CBS News that has her name in the first sentence.

@bpadams it’s almost as if that’s not what my post was about

@CodySuek The Watchmen season was incredible if you're a fan of the graphic novel

@RealMikeKeaton @bendreyfuss Same, brother

@bendreyfuss So far I’ve been lucky

Congratulations to Jonathon Ross, famous English television presenter whose Google results will never be the same.

@TomWright165389 @minordissent The fact that ICE supporters can't support reasonable limits on the use of lethal force and accountability for officer behavior undermines the entire argument for immigration enforcement. If law and order is important, it must apply to everyone -- immigrant and ICE -- equally.

@TomWright165389 @minordissent The broader context, as the LATimes laid out, is a history of agents getting in front of cars as a pretext for violent force. There is no question that this agent followed that pattern: he positioned himself in front of the car and then used lethal force.

This view is common and reasonable on the surface but ultimately retarded and naive. First, because LEOs have legal authority to fire upon anyone assaulting them with a deadly weapon. It doesn’t matter what their intent was with the assault or if there was some possibility the officer could have found some other way of not getting killed by them or even whether shooting them wouldn’t have made them less likely to get killed themselves (as in the case of shooting someone driving at you where you’re still getting hit regardless) If people say that this shouldn’t be the law, then okay you can argue it should be changed. But it is presently the law and these LEOs in these police shooting videos are following protocol and training, or at least extremely close to it. And second, because getting rid of this law would be retarded. The threat of death is the only reason most criminals comply with LEOs. If LEOs had to use kid gloves constantly with deranged violent criminals and could never defend themselves, no sane person would ever become a LEO and criminals would be emboldened to take more risk and commit more crime. Social order is built on violence. all laws are violence. That fact that violence is rarely used to enforce them is not evidence the violence is unnecessary. in fact it is precisely the opposite. It is the fact that people know they will get absolutely rocked if they try to commit crimes that prevents them from doing them in the first place. It’s the same reason the 6 ft tall 200 lb kid in high school never got bullied and the 5 ft tall 100 lb kid did. Or that only neglected loner kids get molested. Criminals prey only on those who cannot defend themselves. Being capable of the most violence actually leads to the least violence, because it eliminates the question entirely of whether the attacker could win. For whatever reason, Liberals cannot comprehend this fact and it is why all their niceness and non violence always leads to more violence and crime in the end.