I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car.
I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.
The breaks change the game more than you’d think, especially when the coach gets to have a strategy session with the whole team. Completely changed the momentum in several games.
I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans.
This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.
> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.
Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.
I don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.
Yet somehow print/TV worked for decades just fine without spying on their users.
I do not want the gas station, or the airplane I'm on, spying on me to build relevant advertising. That is the end game of "relevant ads": my gas pump already serves me ads, the airplane I'm on serves me ads, my own car now (via a software update that occurred after purchase) serves me ads. Monitors now serve ads. TVs are abusing people's Internet connections, which isn't ads, but it's basically the same problem: if I can abuse the customer without consequence, why shouldn't I?
Just no. The problem is, I as a consumer cannot vote with my wallet: companies can and will go "I could take your money, and earn $X, or I could do that and ads and earn $X + $Y."; there is not reason for them to choose the former, and most markets are so concentrated (e.g., airlines) that there is not ample competition for the market to provide ample "vote with wallet" choices. Further, in the car example, it's just bait and switch: even when I think I can vote with my wallet, the company can just alter the terms of the deal, knowing full well the switching price of a car makes me subservient to them.
Why? Plenty of websites operate just fine with no or near-zero ads. Just look at the one you are currently on!
And what's with confusing "relevant ads" with "privacy-invading targeted ads"? There's still plenty of ads in print media, on television, and on billboards: none of them are invading my privacy, yet they still manage to be relevant by choosing a medium with a certain target demographic. Websites used to do the same, there's no technical reason we can't return to this.
I'm again reminded that a significant percentage of HN readership are those working in US AdTech, who's very salaries are dependent on abusing peoples privacy. Hardly surprising a hefty part of the HN demographic slants towards opposing privacy laws.
> And maybe there are even fewer people to worry about this, because when the moved to the city, those people stopped having children.
> Who is this good for? Is it good for you?
Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed, this is good for pretty much everybody. There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).
Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.
>Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed,
Retards in the 1960s believed such. But the reality is that it's not even needed a little. And subreplacement fertility isn't "population reduces for a bit, then stabilizes"... subreplacement fertility is actually "the population continues to shrink, accelerating and shrinking faster until extinction inevitably ensues".
So you're not really a "I want a lower population", you're part of a death cult that wants humans gone. Forever.
>this is good for pretty much everybody.
It hasn't been good for anyone, except some tiny minority that is measured as much less than 1%.
>There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).
Already shrinking. Visibly, indisputably shrinking. And the western world isn't doing the polluting.
>Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.
No, it already stopped growing. Ran out of gas, but as the car coasts to a stop you can delusionally pretend that the engine's still on, and that we aren't coasting up the hill. If somehow I were wrong, it wouldn't be unfortunate at all, it'd be a wondrous miracle.
Foreigner from the socialist Nordics here, so perhaps I'm brain washed or something, but I don't get it. After some brief Googling it appears that you mean they have proposed a tax on a service that for some reason used to be tax-exempt.
Why was it tax-exempt? Why should it be?
What sets it apart from any other service where you pay someone to do something for you - such as cook you a meal, transport you somewhere or build you a house?
An alternative take is that we've endured thousands of years of propaganda aimed at keeping women as child bearing, house keeping slaves, and we're finally starting to see the end of that in at least some cultures.
But of course, it's only "propaganda" when you don't like it.
On one hand we have propaganda not even a century old, only possible by the invention of birth control, the creation of tv, radio and newspapers, which itself required the invention of many things such as communications faster than horseback, the existence of strong centralized states which guarantee welfare to the elderly even if they don't have children to maintain it, and technological advances and social changes which make children an expense instead of an economic asset. And this propaganda leads to societies slowly economically collapse and their populations go extinct.
On the other hand, we have the "propaganda" which has existed for thousands if not millions of years, needed no technological, scientific or economic advances to exist, and the societies that followed it grew and made all the advances required for the other.
Of the two, I know which seems to be truer and more natural.
Both priests are assumed to understand Latin. The situation they want to avoid is starting up a conversation with someone in a language they don't know.
So the options are:
1) Use Polish, with the risk of being rude if you happen to speak to the Spanish priest
2) Use Latin and ask "do you speak Polish?", and both the Polish and the Spanish priest will understand.
You could of course argue that it's not so very rude to accidentally try to strike up a conversation with someone in a language they don't know, but apparently Tade0's father thinks it is.
> But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples.
How does that matter? The point isn't that the reader should know that "oh, this is a reserved address". The point is that there should be no room for the address that's actually being used by someone to end up being used incorrectly just because it showed up in some random documentation.
Much like how you probably wouldn't be thrilled if your phone number was used as an example in some random documentation somewhere.
There's also the following copy on the same page:
"Repeated, crippling DDoS attacks from the following countries has caused me to block their access. Apologies to the innocent.
Brazil, Singapore, Angola, Seychelles, UAE."
My guess is that the geolocation Gods placed GP in Singapore.