Leferd

I actually ended up rooting for her. I found the American TV shills and Lilly King especially insufferable.

True. But the data in MOBAs is readily available. Which is rich for exploitation in the right hands. Potential gold mine opportunity before the rest of the field can catch up. *edit* Nahaz is featured in the article.

Excellent longform piece on MOBA by former baseball GM/sportswriter-extraordinaire, Ben Lindbergh. https://theringer.com/the-wild-west-of-e-sports-1cc050f8100e#.l4px5b9fq What I found fascinating is the discussion on how eSports analytics are still behind MLB and the NBA -despite the prevalence of data available. However, it can provide a huge competitive advantage for those teams that know how to use it. The analytics movement is there, but the adoption rates are still at the baseball equivalent of the 1980's. Also...Mark Cuban introduced an eSports betting service?? Grantland is dead. Long live The Ringer.

Yes, that will be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now To be fair, Donald Trump did make it a point to say that his caps are made in the USA. Which I don't necessarily doubt.

Yep, that was a cool story. I believe the SF Chronicle (or it could be the Mercury News) published a similar story when Norman passed away.

Hell of a block by Saric. Looks like THE PROCESS may work out for The 76ers after all.

Women's Rugby Sevens, where have you been all my life?

I'll be watching/streaming constantly but like Keyrock, the real Olympics don't really start for me until track starts.

I associate that name with Spenser for Hire - the P.I. show from the 80's with Robert Urich and Avery Brooks. And that's spelled differently.

Trump should blame the Fire Marshal.

Impressive. Looking better than expected considering how much was raised.

New York Times video compilation from various Trump rallies. Warning. Salty language.

Trump's current odds of winning in November is a little bit better than your chances of hitting the flush on the river to my Ace high straight --which is encouraging but still extremely scary and possible. The anxiety levels are proportionally the same.

We've got Red Robin in California. Or at least here in the Bay. I usually go with their blue cheese burger.

Welp. Looks like the RNC was a bust. ...And The Donald completely flopped.

I'm counting on George P. Bush.

Yeah, that's all great and everything, except for the part where only like 17-18 million people (I can't remember how many votes she got exactly, but it's somewhere around here) actually voted for Hillary in the primaries, out of about 220 million voting-eligible adults in the U.S. (or of an estimated, based on previous elections, 135 million or so people who will actually even be motivated enough to vote this election). In other words, yes, a majority (and I mean this in the most literal sense, as it's not even a supermajority) of the people who voted in the primaries for Hillary might be excited about her (...and we cannot even accurately access how excited people are about Hillary, particularly with all the revelations that were happening towards the end of the primaries as well as after...), but that's ignoring the fact that those core voters are only a fraction of the total amount of people expected to vote for her in the presidential election. Now, the biggest flaw in this argument is that these figures mostly hold true for previous primaries and candidates, too. But, well, when the combined unfavorability ratings of the two nominees are literally historical, I think it's perhaps worth considering the possibility that most people, in general, are even less excited about the prospect of voting for either candidate, and will be "voting against" their least liked candidate even more this election than in previous. That's fair. It'll be hard to gauge with limited data...but at the very least, Democratic voters (as the base of her support) do actually like her. They'll probably come out with a poll asking this very question. In other news, Johnson is getting a town hall with CNN. I'll likely watch. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/libertarian-town-hall-gary-johnson-william-weld/index.html

No, that's not false, I was being literal. I've got a bunch of American friends who in conversation with me over the last month have all said something along the lines of "I don't like Hilary, she's the lesser evil so I'll be voting for her because I don't want Trump as President. It's not a false argument when that's their perception and reason why they happen to be voting the way they will. The reason they think that is open to argument, but not that they said that to me. Except that you made the argument that Clinton may win the election because she is seen as the lesser of two evils when the numbers indicate instead that a clear and very strong majority of those actually voting for her view her as being favorable. Your American friends voting for Clinton in November may have those feelings, but they are in the minority when it comes to the reasons for voting with her.

This is of course, the man running Trump's campaign... This is after all, a man who was also behind despots in Africa and the Philippines. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This is false. That's narrative we're getting from the Trump campaign, which is disingenuous. Take the Democratic Primary. Clinton received 55% of the votes --with a 12% margin of victory over Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/ She won because a clear majority of Democrats clearly prefer her to Bernie Sanders --and not because she's the "lesser evil." And of course, there's this: The Pew survey indicates that 90% of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton and 88% of those who went back and forth on Sanders and Clinton will vote be voting for Clinton. It could be the case that many of these voters are doing it out of fear for Trump, but If voters are casting out of fear, we'd be seeing much lower percentages. Let's assume that Democrats are going to vote Clinton and using data from the above chart--as of June 12, 75% of all democrats have a favorable view of Clinton. When taken in the aggregate, a majority of all voters clearly have unfavorable views of Clinton...but among those that are going to be voting for Clinton anyway, a strong majority actually like Hillary Clinton. She's not the demonic boogie monster that voters will only reluctantly vote for.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ FiveThirtyEight's interactive gun violence database.

After the Republican National Convention, RCP's polling averages has Trump ahead by 1.2pts: Trump 40.0; Clinton 38.8; Johnson 7.3; Stein 3.0. The numbers will drastically change after the post DNC bounce is factored in the next polling rounds. Now's the best time ever for Irish gamblers who want to bet on Clinton to put money down. She's getting 1-to-2 odds to Trump's 13-to-8 at Paddypower.

This is just sad. Increasingly happening in schools all over the country. https://www.splcenter.org/20160413/trump-effect-impact-presidential-campaign-our-nations-schools#.V5zIfX0kOsA.twitter

It used to be fairly regular. Atleast when Gaider, Woo, and Priestly worked there. But then...anonymous people in the internets are jerks.