u/another_user_name

Right because he's no longer a Planeswalker.

Vacuum on the exhaust, that'd be a pulse jet.

That's awesome! We had a team in the early 2000s. We had to win an intraschool tournament and then represented State at intercollegiate competition. The funding for the intercollegiate part dried up in... 04, 05, maybe?

But the intraschool tourney carried on past that.

How's it done today?

No problem, and please keep up the good work :)

Your reaction seems defensive, but maybe I'm misreading. You've done some good work here and I think your intuition is good.

It already changed the sport. You suggested run differential (runs for minus runs against) in your edit, and that is a good metric. Probably the right one. Simple, descriptive, effective.

But since you said you didn't know an equation to determine who is best, a few of us familiar with Bill James suggested his really successful Pythagorean Win Expectation formula.

Run differential is a good choice as is Pythagorean Win percentage.

Arcana cleric, too, right?

Holy shit, 21% at the root, according to wikipedia.

It's a NACA 5 series: 23021 at the root, 23009 at the tip.

My initial point literally used the word "should", not "are". Please go back and read it. I then gave examples of political debates --those that happen in parliamentary bodies-- that are like how I stated asserted presidential debates should be.

To summarize my points: --Debate moderators should stick to moderation, not questioning or interviewing --They in fact do so in many political debates, including parliamentary ones.

Of course there's plenty to argue, I didn't just say I want the presidential debates do actually be (actually moderated) debates, I gave a reason why they should be. I'm arguing for an improvement in the campaign process.

What are you arguing? As stated, it seems to be that "political debate moderators do not stick to actual moderation at all". That's clearly untrue, see parliamentary debates. But even if it were true, why emphasize it when I clearly said should the whole time?

Are you familiar with the fact-value distinction? I think that's the crux of our communication difficulties.

Lol. Right? That's how it feels watching presidential yelling matches. At this point, I'd take even the 2012 version.

And we all know how that movie ends.

Yeah, I have. They happen all the time in Congress and Parliament. Politics is a far greater sphere than a mere presidential campaign.

So even if we pretend that presidential debate deserve the label of debate, the proposition that political debates don't work as I stated "at all" is clearly wrong, and no amount of your repetition or condescension is going to change that.

All that said, the is/ought conflict should be clear. I'm arguing how debates in general, including presidential ought to be conducted while you're both misunderstanding the context and mistaking my position for a statement about how they are currently conducted.

I acknowledged elsewhere that they're less debates and more parallel interviews.

Your repetition leads me to believe you have little experience with actual debates.

You're literally involved in one right now. Do you expect the moderators to come into our discussion and start asking us questions, or do expect them to stand aside until we violate the forum's rules?

If you only intend to mean televised presidential debates, well, those rarely actually involve debating.

Edit: And that's to worse for the US. Actual formal debates have a lot of merit and the presidential debate system actual be such a formal debate.

Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to listen and respond.

I've been in more than a few debates and they've all worked like that. Moderators moderate. A moderator asking questions calls into question their impartiality as a referee.

Journalists in my experience are poor moderators because they treat debates as parallel interviews rather than debates or discussions between candidates or position holders.

It's easiest not to engage at all, so calling me lazy doesn't fit my actions. The post I replied to talked about both interviews and moderated debates. I addressed the debate side: moderators shouldn't be asking questions. Interviewers, well, that's what they do.

Disagreeing with a part of post isn't and shouldn't be taken to be disagreeing with the whole point.

And even if I were nitpicking, who the hell wants nits on them?

Right, and the post I reply to talks about both. It's fine for an interview, it's a bad idea for a debate.

That's a ridiculous way to a debate. The moderator should referee and that's it. Questions should come either from the debaters or from designated cross examiners.

What's rose twitter?

Good enough :). What are your feelings on humans?

They're talking about their connections to Epstein, I presume.

Will you be 25 then?

Which is odd, because one of the distinguishing features to me about SLS is that it's been undergoing integrated avionics testing for... years and years. The SIL at Marshall isn't a new thing.

Spaceflight Now's article on Run for Record Testing looks to be a pretty good overview. And it's a year old. I haven't read it for detail, though.

Yes there are. /u/Orion2033 has discussed it pretty thoroughly, too. NASA Marshall, in particular, has been doing integrated avionics and software testing for years in the SIL. This includes integrating with booster components including the TVC actuators, so the idea that it's just Core stage is trivially wrong.

No signature?

I don't generally think people should have to comply with police officers and that obligation decreases as police abusr their power.

However, in this case, people seem to neglect that a car is a weapon and while Blake may have been trying to escape, he may have been weaponizing the car.

Even if was simply escaping, that would still endanger the children in the car.