Lunch break chart dump for final 2020 regular season numbers

Sheesh Packers/Bills

Rodgers finishes with a big lead over everyone

Which teams were best at avoiding rush attempts in the worst time to rush? (2nd & long)

NGS and @nflfastR CPOE finished pretty similar

Freezing as you hear the faint noise of one of the latex panthers.
As the creaking noises from around the corner get louder and closer you grit your teeth and turn, breaking into a sprint for the door at the end of the hallway...
You don't even get ten steps before you're caught.

The predator jump into your back, sending the both of you crashing to the floor, rolling slightly before you end up pinned beneath it, stomach down.
"You thought you could outrun me?" You hear her purr, the gentle creaks of her body sending a shiver down your spine.
"Poor prey."

You grunt, lifting and turning your head for just a moment before one of her paws presses down on your cheek, forcing the side of your face against the cool linoleum. She cranes her neck down, grinning as she purrs deeper,
"Look at you~. So indignant. So defiant." She grins.

You feel her paw slip a bit down your face, and suddenly you're made hyperaware of the thick scent of her body - like that of a pool, of synthetic chemicals. You had smelled it before, of course - it was impossible not to, with the number of them in the city.

But this was the first time you'd been so close. Your adrenaline fuelled body taking deep breaths, your nose dragging in more of those fumes...
"Aw, that's cute," she giggles, and you're broken out of your stupor. "That heat in your pants, just from my paw~?"
You suppress a moan.

Parag Agrawal
Technology Lead

Leslie Berland
People and Marketing Lead

Kayvon Beykpour
Product Lead

Dantley Davis
Head of Design and Research

Matt Derella
Customers Lead

Jack Dorsey
CEO

Bruce Falck
Revenue Product Lead

Vijaya Gadde
Head of Legal, Policy and Trust

Thread: When I accepted my OBE I did so in full knowledge there would be backlash from academic philosophers in my discipline, and here it is. The letter contains some basic errors about my view - but that's to be expected as their aim is not truth.

I won't bother correcting errors, as I've made my written position clear many times before. We aren't dealing here with an ordinary philosophical dispute here, but rather a pathological desire to roleplay an ethical stance for public applause. But their stance isn't ethical. 2/

They want me - and by extension others, including their own students - to stop talking about biological sex and its social importance, wherever it could make conceivable difference to a trans person (which in their view, is almost everywhere). So, they want me to stop talking..3/

about the fact that in Canada - the country of the letter-author Jonathan Ichikawa - male sex-offenders have been placed in female prisons alongside women prisoners (also in Ireland and UK). I care about those forgotten women. 4/

They pretend any discussion whatsoever of violence against women, and what policies we should have about woman-only spaces in response, can only imply one thing - "all trans women are violent" (OF COURSE most are not, and this is not the implication). They want.. 5/

Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP or POTUS under Article II & the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.

Thread: A look back at the top 10 most-read @undarkmag stories published in 2020, starting with…

#10: I had not personally heard of the Voynich manuscript — a cryptic, centuries old “text” that still baffles researchers — until super-smart @jillianefoley brought this story idea to us. If you don’t know about this puzzle, prepare to be fascinated:

#9: A riveting review by @Svobodster of @jameshamblin's book "Clean" and our collective obsession with "surface notions of cleanliness."

#8: My personal favorite headline of the year, which I continue to argue contains a gift to any budding garage band looking for a name. (You’re welcome). Story by the always excellent

#7: Written all the way back on April 16th, @kategammon’s smart look at the anti-vaxx community’s then-percolating suspicions around the hunt for a Covid-19 vaccine seems eerily prescient as vaccine roll-outs get underway now.

It has been instructive to look back at our tweets re' the pandemic from early in 2020. So here are the questions we have today as we start in 2021. Feel free to add to the list. Let us see how these age a year from now:
1/n👇

1. Getting the world vaccinated -
How can we get the vaccine to everyone? First, we must make enough, then overcome the hesitancy, solve the problems of logistics of distribution and administration. We are struggling in all these areas.
2/n 👇

2. The dosing regimen-
Is it better to give 1 dose of 2-dose regimen to more people vs. give both doses to few?
Data from both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that if you look at the cases after 12 days of 1st shot to the second shot, the efficacy may be in 80-90% range
3/n 👇

3. Vaccine prioritization:
Should we first give the vx to younger HCWs to keep hospitals open or to all the elderly who are likely to be sicker and the reasons hospitals will be overwhelmed?
Israel is doing a fantastic job getting all the elderly vaccinated first.
4/n 👇

4. Variant strains:
RNA virus tend to mutate. Vx are targeting the Spike protein of the Sars-Cov-2. Will there be enough mutation at critical points to make the virus resistant to the Vx?
This will require regular sequencing/monitoring. Besides the UK, who will do this?
5/n 👇

TELEPATHY - Lesson Two:

I'd like to expound a little bit more on a few little side notes that I feel are good to understand, although I am sometimes a bit hyperanalytical, and I can dive into more detail than anyone else cares to know, so feel free to just skim and take what you

There is a distinction between what is something you ought to do and what is legal. It is legal to drink yourself to death. It is probably not a good idea. The distinction is not a small one. Let's apply it to the social norms many people suggest we adopt on silencing others.

I hear quite frequently arguments to the effect that private platforms are legally _allowed_ to silence people. And yes, they are, and yes, they should be. Is this a good idea, though? Let's have a quick look for a moment.

It's possible to imagine a society where every restaurant refuses service to people of the wrong political background, every supermarket checks to see if people arriving match a particular political affiliation before selling them groceries.

We can imagine neighbors only talking to other neighbors of the correct political tribe, jobs refusing to allow people with the wrong political beliefs to apply, etc. This is probably a thing that is legal or at least ought to be legal.

Is it, however, a recipe for a peaceful society? Or would it ultimately lead to something more bloody than the wars of religion during the Protestant Reformation?

1) *IMPORTANT LINK AT END OF THIS THREAD*
(and no, I've never posted a tweet like this before.)

What times we are in. And how few understand or grasp the utter profundity of the moment.

2) Yet despite how it's looking from this current perspective, and after some turbulent months ahead (likely an understatement), the dawning of a true planetary renaissance WILL become apparent to even the most at-present comatose sleeper.

3) The evil is being uprooted and is being defeated.

That is my conviction as has been since April 2020.

About eight months ago I took a whole new look at Présídent Ťrůmp and what he has been doing – and re-orientated what I thought my opinion of him was.

4) When he first entered the pŕesidency, I had looked at and heard about his tweets, and thought, “Gosh. Can you believe it. This is the Pŕĕsidenţ of the Uníted Státés. How very unstatesmanlike to be tweeting stuff like this”.

5) But about eight months ago, I thought, "Why has every single article that has been written about him in the British media since he started running for office been – without exception – negative, negative, negative?".

The Pandemic has got me thinking. On TV, people of the future are always very comfortable with data. They collect it. They analyze it. They adjust their strategies in real time. Not in days or hours or minutes but often literally in SECONDS.🧵👇

They run simulations of different outcomes. The simulations aren't always right but they seem to put them in the ballpark of what's reasonable. People take the simulations and data seriously. They factor them into their planning.

Even when the future government is evil, it's still smart. Even when the future government is rigid and uncreative in how it responds to stuff, it's responses are still logically related to the assumptions it has made, the data it has collected and the analyses it has performed.

Unfortunately, our civilization is NOT THAT. We collect data but usually haphazardly and in ways that make it hard to draw any conclusions. It often takes a long time for us to make sense of data. Politicians often throw out the numbers completely.

We don't seem to care what the probability of various outcomes are. We don't seem to use probabilities when making decisions. Perhaps, you're thinking about the election predictions and about how they were close but not quite right.

An important part of growing as a researcher is developing research taste. But it can be hard to explicitly work on. So I wanted to share some concrete exercises for developing research taste.

(Take my advice with a grain of salt! Note version: https://t.co/2BhyxOKy3q )

Exercise 1: Write down a list of research ideas. Have a mentor you respect rate each idea 1-10. Discuss ideas where you disagree with them after reflection.

It often takes several months of work to truly test an idea. Asking a mentor is a cheap proxy.

Exercise 2: Pay attention when other people try ideas you’ve had. How did the results compare with your expectations?

If you’re investing in brainstorming, you’ll have tens or hundreds of research ideas for each one you try. It can be emotionally uncomfortable when someone publishes an idea you had, but it’s an opportunity to get precious feedback for free.

Exercise 3: Interview researchers around you on their taste. Why do they work on the problems they do? How do they pick problems? What’s their “big picture” of research?

Bonus: If you have a great interview, you might consider writing it up with their permission.

I'd love to think that @michaelsheen's thoughts and responses to Welsh nationhood are the start of a new wave of discussion surrounding who, what, why and how of Welsh Independence.

As support and engagement for #IndyWales increases and the integrity of "Britain" spirals out of control to its inevitable demise, so does the argument against it which more often than not a wave of regurgitated clichés that we must endure.

In turn we have to be careful about this ourselves. We cannot repeat the same rhetoric without evolving our point. And let's be honest Welsh Independence is a good enough point as it is but what can we do to bring those into the fold?

There's plenty of things we can do. Discussion is a key point. It'e tiring for me when I'm the butt of jokes in work for supporting IndyWales and starting a business that's based on it. Yet the arguments by these people are always the same; too poor, too small, too dumb. Boring.

Centuries of misrule, subservience, servitude and asset stripping have led this country and all those within its borders to suffer. And suffer as a whole we have. our shared history with England is a hard one, filled with