Jump to content

Voluminous Banality

Full Members
  • Posts

    365
  • Joined

Everything posted by Voluminous Banality

  1. Correct, it's literally the flip side which I literally just said. It's evident that you neither understand the original tweet nor anything I've posted, so this is a good place to end the exchange.
  2. I didn't miss the point of the tweet. To answer in the terms that you are using, in 3 years, Trump got us 90% of the way to becoming a net exporter of petroleum. In the next 3 years, Biden pushed us the final 10% across the line. You are right, of course, that it's not all about Trump and Biden, but this data hardly supports chest-beating over Biden's over-performance in this regard.
  3. Yes, you don't understand it. You posted a chart showing petroleum imports drastically decreasing between 2017-2020 and then decreasing at a slower rate after 2020: That corresponds to a rapid INCREASE in net exports or DECREASE in net export deficit from 2017 followed by a much SLOWER increase in net exports from 2020-2023: In other words, the chart you posted perfectly supports the statistical (non-political) point I was making. If you still don't understand it, that's okay. Have a good day.
  4. It's not bullshit. Your'e not understanding the chart. Net exports between 2017-2020 rose by approximately 9 quadrillion Btu. Between 2020-2023, they rose by approximately 1.2 quadrillion Btu. I'm not even making a political point. I'm just responding to a statistical pet peeve. It's literally statistics 101.
  5. For those like Steven Rattner who don't know how to read a chart, this is what the chart is really showing. I don't even care about the point he is trying to make, but the horrendous data presentation cannot be abided.
  6. Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies. Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.
  7. Love the optimism. Biden is going to roll just as soon as he figures out the playbook.
  8. I don't disagree with you, but we're looking at it as college football fans. KFord is just using a formula weighted for competitiveness and quality. Nebraska has been anything but quality the last several years; they've been abjectly terrible. They haven't won more than 3 conference games or more than 5 games overall since 2016.
  9. This ranking is based on a blend of "projected quality and competitiveness." The spread in those games (Texas-Florida/Arkansas) is projected to be high, thus making the games less "watchable" (according to this ranking). The spread factor is the same reason that aggy is on the list 6 times, including games against Auburn, Florida, and Missouri. aggy will be mediocre and those three teams will also be mediocre, so the spread in those games is projected to be low. The list doesn't suggest that aggy will be playing in a lot of huge games, just that they are in the middle of the pack and will be playing other teams around the middle or above them in the rankings. Thus those games are ranked as "watchable," despite being matchups of average teams. Similarly, the "projected quality" factor is why Texas appears four times in the top-10 while most of aggy's appearance are on the bottom half of the list.
  10. People who didn't want to be great: every national champion in the three major men's sports for the past 85 years. 😄
  11. Deboer must have had a Herman-esques initial team meeting. Deboer at first Alabama team meeting, probably:
  12. As much as I'd like to pile on, give credit where credit is due. Eyeball test puts this at around 60 degrees.
  13. You watched that giant goober flounder around in the booth for several minutes like an upright beached whale and that was your takeaway? Did he even answer a single question without leading with, "Yeah . . .," followed by boilerplate clichés? His profound recruiting insight, delivered in monotone: "We will recruit players in Texas; we will recruit players outside of Texas." He then capped off that painfully colorless commentary with kudos to Elijah Robinson for "holding it together during some very difficult times" and a recap of his inspirational introductory message to the team which basically consisted of, "Let's go be what we should be that we haven't been"? That's the guy you thought did well in the booth and didn't sound like an Ag?
  14. Little did we know, this poll needed an option for "12+ wins (Texas misses the CFP)."
  15. 15% of the run time was pregame or it would have been just over a minute and a half.
  16. More egregious than the lack of holding calls on OU in this game were the no-calls when Worthy was face tackled in the air before the ball arrived and tackled by the facemask at the goal line preventing a TD (among other blatant facemask infractions on OU that went uncalled throughout the game). There were other missed calls, but those are game-changers, especially when they are only being called one way.
  17. You missed the news. This would be a death sentence for Texas football.
  18. Who says Texas doesn't prepare players for the league?
  19. Amen. This post is an inspiring breath of fresh air in a sea of banality.
×
×
  • Create New...