Data Ariane 2

Updates from a research team

2020.10.25 15:07 South_in_AZ Updates from a research team

MOD approved PSA type posting
I’m on the mailing list for the Science of BDSM research team. I thought their recent update might be of interest. I think I have formatted the most important links for the email to this posting.
Science of BDSM Research Team Fall 2020 update
Dear friends,
We hope you are all doing well. Summer passed by surprisingly quickly (though it also felt like an eternity somehow), and we are midway through our fall semester. This has been a challenging time for many of us, but we have tried to find some silver linings. Our team has been able to focus on working with data we have already collected, collecting new data with online surveys, and learning how to navigate the wonderful world of online communication, which, on the positive side, has allowed us to connect with people around the globe. We have also revamped our website,, so feel free to go check it out!
We appreciate your interest in our work, whether you met us at an event or heard about us online. Without you, our work wouldn’t be possible.
Letter from the Leader
I write to you, once again, from my desk at home. It feels like months since I've seen my office at school. We've all gotten adept at navigating Zoom and Skype and Teams and Google Meet and Discord and Blackboard Collaborate, but it's just not the same as getting together in person. The research team has been trying to make the best use of the time, and I am pleased to report that we've collected data for a new online study and submitted three papers in the last few months. We've also been attending and participating in a number of online events, including a great speaker series at the Leather Archives and Museum, some highly informative webinars offered by CARAS, a full schedule of fun and engaging educational seminars hosted by Twisted Tryst and Galleria Domain 2, and a wonderful online version of Beguiled. Recently, I've been reading some insightful articles by Dulcinea Pitagora, a researcher, therapist, and speaker, including a groundbreaking paper on consent ("Consent vs. Coercion: BDSM Interactions Highlight a Fine but Immutable Line", Pitagora, 2013) and an important and troubling examination of abuse masquerading as D/s ("Intimate Partner Violence in Sadomasochistic Relationships", Pitagora, 2016; both papers available at Finally, if you'll indulge me a non-kink-related recommendation, I have been enraptured by the audio version of Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. Highly recommended.
What We’re Working On
Hannah Tarleton recently completed data analysis for her project on consent practices within the community. This project compared consent practices for pick-up play with consent practices for scenes within romantic relationships. Hannah is currently preparing the findings for publication. She would like to thank everyone who participated in this study. With your help, Hannah collected data from a large (N = 202), diverse sample and found some informative results that she hopes to be able to share soon.
Jennifer Erickson's masters thesis on BDSM sadism produced some fascinating results. A paper describing these results ("The Prosocial Sadist? A Comparison of BDSM Sadism and Everyday Sadism in Multiple Adult Populations") is currently under review at Personality and Individual Differences.
Jennifer Erickson published a review of Ariane Cruz's The Color of Kink: Black Women, BDSM, and Pornography in the journal Sexualities. You can download a copy of the review from our publications page.
We submitted "Challenge at the Intersection of Race and Kink: Racial Discrimination, Fetishization, and Inclusivity within the BDSM Community" to Archives of Sexual Behavior and were excited to receive a revise-and-resubmit decision. We are currently revising the paper and plan to resubmit it next month.
We also got some good news on the paper describing Master Bert Cutler's doctoral dissertation. We received a revise-and-resubmit decision on "Partner Selection, Power Dynamics, and Mutual Care Giving in Long-term Self-defined BDSM Couples" from the Journal of Positive Sexuality. We worked on the revisions over the summer, submitted a revised paper earlier this month, and just received word that the revision was accepted for publication!
Data collection for our scene studies (including EEG measures) are on hold pending the return of in-person events. We are working on analyzing our current data and hope to include some preliminary results in future presentations.
Participation Pins
With our university reopened, we were able to mail out participation pins. Pins to United States addresses went out two weeks ago. Pins to other countries went out last week. If you gave us your address but have not received a pin, please email Brad at [email protected], and we’ll send one out to you. Thank you to everyone for your participation and your patience!
New Study
In collaboration with Dionne (Choc Trei) Henderson, we have launched a new study on perceptions of gender inclusivity within the BDSM/Kink/Leather communities. This online study asks about your thoughts and experiences regarding gender inclusivity within kink communities. The survey is open to everyone who is over the age of 18 and who has attended at least one BDSM/Kink/Leather community event such as a conference, educational class, munch, play party, meeting, etc. This survey takes about 20 minutes.
If you choose to participate in this study, your responses will be anonymous. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. If you have any questions, please contact Brad Sagarin at [email protected].
If you would like to participate, please follow this link.
What We’re Planning
Currently we are planning on hosting online presentations since in-person conferences have been put on hold due to COVID-19. We are hoping to host monthly presentations as well as an AMA event on Reddit. Details coming soon.
submitted by South_in_AZ to BDSMAdvice [link] [comments]

2020.10.18 04:27 billy_mcgee Drop Your Kicker Week 6: Hold Gabriel Davis, Add Duke Johnson

Welcome back to Drop Your Kicker, my weekly column where I use data to identify players who are rostered in a low percentage of leagues that can be added right now in deeper PPR formats before they cost you FAAB the following week.
Last week I recommended Gabriel Davis. John Brown was ruled out for week 5 and Gabriel Davis played every snap for the Bills. Davis turned 9 targets into 5 receptions for 58 yards. He also had an impressive touchdown that was called back due to an offensive penalty. He displayed some pretty amazing athleticism on the pay, leaping into the air to make the grab like he saw the golden snitch. Josh Allen likes to throw these kinds of DGAF balls all the time, and with Davis’s size and athleticism, he’s bound to catch a few of them this year. Davis now has either 50 yards or a touchdown in 4 straight weeks. After practicing in full on Thursday and Friday, John Brown was back to a limited status on the practice report from Saturday. That means John Brown is legitimately questionable again for a potential shoot out with the chiefs. I’m holding Gabriel Davis wherever I have him. If John Brown is ruled out again, I would definitely recommend starting Davis in week 6. Better days are coming.
I also want to talk a little bit about who I recommended picking up two weeks ago, Justin Jackson. For those who flexed him last week like i recommended in my column, he ended up with 14.4 PPR points for a solid RB23 finish on the week. Two weeks ago, hardly anyone thought Justin Jackson was worth an add at all. After Ekeler went down, people started adding him for modest bids in some leagues, and heavier bids in others, particularly in higher stakes formats. This week he was the number one add in 4for4 and Rotoworld’s waiver wire column for week 6. This kind of thing should be familiar to most of us who have been playing fantasy for years. Things can change on a dime, and we wanna be ready for that change.
Two weeks ago everyone thought they hit gold with Joshua Kelley. This week he’s been dropped to the waiver wire in many leagues. I’m still holding him where I have him, but he’s simply a part time player who is more of a hand cuff to Justin Jackson now in my opinion. Sometimes, we discount players unfairly because the hive mind is really excited about their main competition for work. And we did have some reasons to be excited about Joshua Kelley’s workload early in the season. It just didn’t work out for him so far. Sometimes rookie development takes a little time. Anyone who owned Miles Sanders last year can remember that sometimes, a rookie RB doesn’t hit right away. For now, Jackson is the better option. He was more elusive, and displayed the higher burst score that I mentioned in my column the last week in an actual NFL game.
One of the best fantasy tips I ever got was from Evan Silva of Establish The Run. From his time working at Rotoworld, Silva learned a lot about how to read blurbs from beat writers effectively. What Silva was right to point out, is that when beat writers project a certain amount of volume for a player, they’re just guessing, the same way any of the rest of the fantasy analysts are guessing as well. When a beat writer says a certain player was the only running back to get any practice time with the first team, that’s information we can use to inform our own projections. But when a beat reporter projects the RB snap percentage on a team any given week, it’s not data, it’s simply a projection from one person who happened to see a little more practice time than the rest of us. We should take note of these beat reporter projections, but not treat them like they’re an actual data point. Last week, one of the most upvoted posts on this sub was a link to a tweet from Daniel Popper, beat writer for the Chargers. He projected that Kelley would play 65% percent of the snaps, and Jackson would play 35%. Honestly, I think his projection was a reasonable assumption, although I would have guessed more like 60/40 in Kelley’s favor. Jackson played 40% percent of the snaps two weeks ago, to Kelley’s 57% in week 4. The problem was, Kelley wasn’t playing very well in week 5, leading Jackson to outproduce him on the field, and eventually out snap Kelley 59% to 35%. It turns out Jackson is probably the better player between the two. Which makes a lot of sense given that Jackson was listed as the number 2 RB before his injury in week 1, and he had an extremely productive game in relief of an Injured Melvin Gordon in week 13 vs the Steelers last season. If a running back is actually better than the starter in front of them, we can’t always trust that an NFL coach would agree with our assessment. Sometimes coaches play a worse talent, and there isn’t anything we can really do about that. In the Chargers case, they saw that Jackson was playing better, and they left him on the field late in the game for some key 3rd down conversions. He also got the first snap of the game, and 30 plus yard run during the first drive, which probably means the coaching staff already knew Jackson was the better back heading in to the week. Sometimes all we can really do is try and identify which backup RB is actually better than the starter, and hope the coaching staff agrees. Which leads us to my pick for week 6.
The big story in the NFL this week was of course the Le’veon Bell trade to the Chiefs. A lot of fantasy managers are tripping over themselves to trade for Bell, with the hope that he might take over as the featured back in Kansas City. I haven’t looked very deeply into this situation, so I don’t have any particular take on the KC backfield, but what I will say is that what we saw this week was that the fantasy community seems to think that an upgrade in a RB offensive situation can change their fantasy outlook dramatically. Bell will be expensive to acquire at this point though, so how do we use this idea of a talented running back suddenly being placed in a better coaching situation to our advantage?
My Drop Your Kicker player of the week 6 is… Duke Johnson. I can’t overstate just how bad of a coach and GM Bill O’Brien was. And one of the most boneheaded moves he ever made as GM was to trade Deandre Hopkins for David Johnson after we already saw that Johnson was washed. I have fond memories of David Johnson. In his prime he was one of the most explosive players in the game. But that was when they used him creatively in the passing game in Bruce Arian’s offense, and when Johnson still had some burst to his legs. O’Brien proceeded to run David Johnson up the middle into a bad offensive line, hoping against hope to “establish the run.” It cost him his job.
Last week, we saw some encouraging signs from interim head coach of the Houston Texans, Romeo Crennel. Graham Barfield shared on Twitter that in week 5 “Watson set season-highs in play-action rate (29%) and air yards per attempt (11.1). O'Brien was using play-action 16% of the time (third-lowest).” Play action is an incredibly effective tool that a lot of old school coaches haven’t adapted to using effectively yet. Anyone who is competitive at anything can intuitively see why that would be the case. When the defense has to pick whether you are going to run or pass on a given play, they might make the wrong decision and sell out to stop the run, leaving someone open in the passing game, sometimes even the RB themselves. Warren Sharp has been sharing data for years that supports the effectiveness of the play action pass. Watson was also throwing the ball downfield more in week 5, which is going to lead to a more effective offense overall, which means more scoring attempts for the RBs as well. The Texans scored 30 points in week 5, their best offensive output of the season by 7 points, also leading to their first win of the season. Quarterbacks matter more than any other player on the field. We know this because when a good quarterback gets ruled out, Vegas changes the betting lines by a large margin. When really good RB or WR is ruled out, betting lines barely move. But a good quarterback can definitely be held back by a bad coach. Aaron Rodgers can certainly attest to this.
So now we know we have an excellent quarterback with an upgraded coaching staff, and David Johnson at RB, who hasn’t been particularly effective. So why do I think Duke Johnson has a shot to do any better? In 2020, Duke Johnson is just a much better player than David Johnson, and I don’t even think it’s a hot take to say so. Duke Johnson already broke out with a 1,000 yard season in 2017, but he’s been buried on depth charts with bad coaches ever since. In 2018, he had to deal with Greg Williams, as the Cleveland Browns proceeded to squander all the talent and draft picks that analytics enthusiast Sashi Brown had acquired during his four year tenure as executive vice president of the Cleveland Browns. Then in 2019, Duke Johnson had to play under Bill O’Brien. Even in that environment, he scored over 10 PPR points in 7 out of 16 games in the 2019 season, including games where he scored 20, 19.1, and 16.7 PPR points.
It could simply be that Duke never matched his 2017 breakout season because of Bill O’Brien. The new coaching staff has already said that they know how good Duke Johnson is and he might start to get used more in both the run game and the pass game, as early as this week. Now, this might simply be coach speak. But I want Duke Johnson on my bench just in case. I’ve literally been waiting years for a coach to take him seriously. In the 2018 and 2019 seasons Duke Johnson had 124 targets, good for the 12th most RB targets in the league during that time frame. But those were also his two lowest target totals of his career. He had 74 targets in 2015, another 74 targets in 2016, and finally 93 targets in 2017, which he turned into 74 catches for 693 yards. Then he went to coaching hell.
Duke’s receiving prowess matters. But he can run the ball too. Many fantasy analysts have long predicted that if given the opportunity he could be a 3 down back. In five NFL seasons, he’s played all 16 games every single year. He’s proven to be durable in a way that other pass catching backs haven’t. This off-season, JJ Zachariason did a study on how to find breakout RBs. What he found was that you want to target backfields where there wasn’t a RB picked in the first couple rounds. David Johnson’s 3rd-4th round ADP fits the bill here. You also want them to catch passes. We know Duke can catch passes. You also want them to be in a good offense. The arrow is pointing up on the Houston offense with the departure of Bill O’Brien.
The most interesting aspect of Zachariason’s study was that breakout RBs came from all ages, it wasn’t just rookies. I think this data conflicts with how most fantasy managers play the game. In a week where a lot of people are adding La’Mical Perine because he’s a rookie unknown, I’m instead adding Duke Johnson, because he’s a better player with a better quarterback and coach. Duke is also a great pass catcher. He’s 27 years old, which shouldn’t be a knock on him. Duke already broke out in 2017, and it’s easy to explain why he hasn’t been fantasy relevant in recent years.
Finding a breakout RB is hard, but we should focus on having a good process. If they don’t breakout we can simply move on. While a lot of people, including myself, drafted Duke this year and then dropped him in the early waiver weeks, it’s time to pick him back up. He’s currently rostered in 26 percent of Yahoo leagues. If Duke is not available in your league, I don’t totally hate adding T.J. Yeldon. u/maskdmirag reached out to me in a comment in last week’s Drop Your Kicker column with some reasoning for why Yeldon should be this week’s drop your kicker add, and I think it’s awesome that other people are grinding the Athletic news articles to find undiscovered gems. I’m actually starting Yeldon in a deep league where I had a lot of RBs on bye, in part due to u/maskdmirag advice. I had been considering Yeldon for the column anyway, and his advice nudged me into starting him when Duke wasn’t available. If you all have ideas for next week’s drop your kicker column feel free to continue to comment on this thread throughout the week. I’d love to hear more ideas. I usually don’t decide who I’m going to write up in this column until late Friday night or early Saturday morning. You can also find me on Twitter
For what it’s worth, JJ Zachariason used his process that I outlined above to name Duke Johnson as a potential breakout this off season. The process matters more than the result, and I think the process has never been better for picking Duke Johnson. He’s already eating into David Johnson’s passing down snaps, and their next two matchups suggest that the Texans will be in passing situations more often. Hayden Winks shared on Twitter that when the Texans are leading, David Johnson has a 41% touch share, but when the Texans are trailing, that number dips to 28%. The Texans might be trailing a lot in the next two weeks. In week 6 they have the undefeated Titans, who have a really strong offense, and then in week 7 they face the Packers who have been torching opposing defenses weekly. In Justin Edwards’s weekly Offensive line matchups column he lists the Texans as having a 25th ranked offensive line, and the Titans rank at 26 in fantasy points allowed to RBs. If ever there was a time for Duke Johnson to break out for good, it would be during this two week stretch. If he doesn’t flash by the Texans bye in week 8, you can certainly drop him.
The last thing I want to share is a quick highlight reel of just how good Duke Johnson was in 2017, since a lot of people probably forgot or weren’t playing fantasy yet. I’m not a film grinder, nor am I an expert in evaluating RB play on film, but sometimes you see a guy who so easily passes the eyeball test, it can't be ignored. Remember, he hasn’t missed a game due to injury in his entire career, and he’s probably in better shape now at 27 years old than he was in 2017. I recommend watching the highlight reel with the sound way up. Enjoy the clip! If you want a more recent highlight of how elusive Duke Johnson looks, check this clip out from out from u/invisible_r3, shared in the thread below.
For those who are curious about why I named the column "Drop Your Kicker" here's the explanation:
It’s more of a catch phrase that’s meant to say, "drop your lowest upside player." However, in Yahoo leagues that have the game time to Tuesday waiver settings, you can actually drop your kicker, leave a guy you want to speculate with on your bench, and then drop them after they play their game if they don’t work out. If not playing in those formats, my recommendation is to simply drop your lowest upside player for the recommended add, which is Duke Johnson this week.
TLDR: Add Duke Johnson. I wouldn't start Duke this week. You should still start a kicker.
submitted by billy_mcgee to fantasyfootball [link] [comments]

2020.09.29 01:01 Thi11yG00th All-time ranks based on comparative fantasy performance

Hey guys. First time posting here. I love analyzing sports data and historical ranking. I recently decided to try to create a historical ranking based on fantasy performance.
Without any end goal in mind, took the top 10 performers at each position (QB, RB, WR, TE), and gave them points based on rank (10 points for first, 9 points for second, all the way to 1 point for tenth). I did this for each season from 1970 (the merger) to 2019. I liked what I ended up creating, but the data wasn't as extensive as I'd like, and there were players ranked very high simply for one great fantasy year. Long story short, it wasn't a good ranking system.
I took my idea with the top 10s and decided to do this with the top 25s. This created a much more extensive list, with over 400 RBs for example, and also helped to mitigate those who only had one good season.
I then took the totals and used them in conjunction with each player's average rank per season to create a ranking.
While rankings can always be debated and there will never be one set of equations to determine how good a player is compared to others, especially throughout 50 years, I think the rankings I have are interesting and I'm proud of it.
I've completely finished all but the TEs at this point and I'd like to share just the top 25s I have for the other positions. If you guys want more info or would like the complete spreadsheet to be shared once I'm done, let me know.
QB 1. Peyton Manning 2. Brett Favre 3. Drew Brees 4. Tom Brady 5. Dan Marino 6. John Elway 7. Aaron Rodgers 8. Joe Montana 9. Warren Moon 10. Roger Staubach 11. Terry Bradshaw 12. Fran Tarkenton 13. Dan Fouts 14. Ken Anderson 15. Philip Rivers 16. Steve Young 17. Jim Kelly 18. Russell Wilson 19. Randall Cunningham 20. Matt Ryan 21. Cam Newton 22. Ben Roethlisberger 23. Donovan McNabb 24. Boomer Esiason 25. Drew Bledsoe
RB 1. Walter Payton 2. Barry Sanders 3. Emmitt Smith 4. LaDainian Tomlinson 5. Adrian Peterson 6. Marshall Faulk 7. Ricky Watters 8. Curtis Martin 9. Marcus Allen 10. Eric Dickerson 11. Tony Dorsett 12. Thurman Thomas 13. Franco Harris 14. Frank Gore 15. Ezekiel Elliott 16. Matt Forte 17. Herschel Walker 18. Clinton Portis 19. LeSean McCoy 20. Todd Gurley 21. Edgerrin James 22. Chuck Foreman 23. Neal Anderson 24. Billy Sims 25. Arian Foster
WR 1. Jerry Rice 2. Steve Largent 3. Randy Moss 4. Terrell Owens 5. Marvin Harrison 6. Julio Jones 7. Calvin Johnson 8. Antonio Brown 9. James Lofton 10. Harold Carmichael 11. Cris Carter 12. Larry Fitzgerald 13. Sterling Sharpe 14. Gary Clark 15. Torry Holt 16. Michael Thomas 17. Tim Brown 18. Mike Quick 19. Harold Jackson 20. Gene Washington 21. Mark Clayton 22. Brandon Marshall 23. Reggie Wayne 24. John Stallworth 25. Andre Reed
submitted by Thi11yG00th to NFLstatheads [link] [comments]

2020.09.22 19:38 rnburn [P] Domain Specific Hyperparameter Optimization for Logistic Regression

[P] Domain Specific Hyperparameter Optimization for Logistic Regression
With logistic regression it's possible to efficiently compute an approximation to the leave-one-out cross-validation. If C represents the hyperparameters, then this is an overview of how the approximation works:
  1. Find the coefficients b that optimize the log-likelihood for the given C.
  2. For each data index, i, compute the hessian H_{-i} and gradient g_{-i} of the log-likelihood with the ith data entry removed.
  3. Apply the Matrix Inversion Lemma to efficiently compute the inverses H_{-i} ^{-1}.
  4. Use H_{-i} ^{-1} and g_{-i} to take a single step of Newton's method to estimate what the coefficients b_{-i} would be if the ith data entry was removed.
  5. And finally, you can use the b_{-i}'s to make predictions for each i and derive an estimate of the LOOCV.
You can see the paper A scalable estimate of the out-of-sample prediction error via approximate leave-one-out by Kamiar Rad and Arian Maleki for more details.
Let f(C) denote the approximate LOOCV using log-likelihood as a function of C. Then not only can you compute the value of f efficiently, but you can also efficiently compute its gradient ∇f and hessian ∇∇f. With the gradient and hessian, it's possible to make hyperparameter optimization entirely internal to the fitting of logistic regression. There's no need to specify a search space or use Bayesian optimization -- you can optimize the approximate LOOCV objective directly.
I just made a release of a project peak-engines (github) that provides this functionality. Here's how to use it:
Install the project. (Available from pypi).
pip install peak-engines 
Load an example dataset
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler X, y = load_breast_cancer(return_X_y=True) X = StandardScaler().fit_transform(X) 
Find the C that optimizes the approximate LOOCV, f.
import peak_engines model = peak_engines.LogisticRegressionModel(), y) print('C =', model.C_[0]) 
C = 0.66474879 
If we compute the LOOCV by brute force and plot, we can see that the approximation and its optimum very closely track the real LOOCV and optimum (notebook).
By turning hyperparameter optimization into a second order optimization problem, you can also easily handle penalty functions with multiple hyperparameters. For example, you can run
model = peak_engines.LogisticRegressionModel(penalty='bridge'), y) print(model.hyperparameters_) 
to fit hyperparameters for the bridge penalty. And here's a notebook (github) that compares the bridge penalty to the l2 penalty on a 10-fold CV.
submitted by rnburn to MachineLearning [link] [comments]

2020.08.26 02:02 circa_1 Why should I not draft Tom Brady?

Here are some statistics I put together comparing Bruce Arians offenses over the last 12 years, and Tom Bradys QB play over the last 5. It should give you a clear picture as to what type of numbers to expect of a QB in a Bruce Arians system. Whether it be a Big Ben, an aging Carson Palmer (lol), Winston, or even a Ryan Lindley, Blaine Gabbert, or Drew Stanton, Arians likes to throw the ball, a lot. I wish I had more insight, and analysis on the subject, but ill just have to let the data speak for itself. Does this change the way you look at Tom Bradys ADP this year?
1 Year Attempts Comp % Yards TD's INT's
3 Steelers OC Ben 2007 404 65.3 3154 32 11
4 " 2008 469 59.9 3301 17 15
5 " 2009 506 66.6 4328 26 12
6 " 2010 506 66.6 4328 26 12
7 " 2011 513 63.2 4077 21 14
8 Colts OC A. Luck 2012 627 54.1 4374 23 18
9 Cards HC C. Palmer (34) 2013 572 63.3 4274 24 22
10 Pal/ Stan/ Lind 2014 557 55.4 3899 20 12
11 C. Palmer 2015 537 63.7 4671 35 11
12 " 2016 597 61.0 4233 26 14
13 Palm/ Gabb/ Stan 2017 597 55.6 3958 21 18
14 Buccs HC J. Winston 2018 378 64.6 2992 19 14
15 " 2019 626 60.7 5109 33 30
17 Patriots Brady (43) 2015 624 64.4 4770 36 7
18 2016 432 67.4 3554 28 2
19 2017 581 66.3 4577 32 8
20 2018 570 65.8 4355 29 11
21 2019 613 60.8 4057 24 8
submitted by circa_1 to fantasyfootball [link] [comments]

2020.08.05 06:32 mkeeb1547 AiP 1.05 - Potential Bug - Naked Diving Achievement

*Some AiP spoilers ahead*
I've been trying to get all 40 achievements in Ariane in Paradise v1.05; the only one I have been missing is the "Naked Diving" achievement (the hint says to look at Day 2 - Coral Reef).
On my original data (with all of my initial saves and what not), I've gone to the coral reef several times as each gender, gotten the naked diving scene and the naked-in-boat gallery picture, but haven't unlocked the achievement.
However, on a clean install (redownloading version 1.05, wiping the AppData/Roaming/RenPy/ArianeInParadise folder) I went directly to the reef on my first playthrough and was able to get the achievement. Interestingly, I didn't see any message saying I got the "Naked Diving" achievement, but I did see the "Hide and Seek" achievement message.
This could very well be a one-off bug on my particular computer (I have been having hard drive issues), but nonetheless I thought I'd share.
submitted by mkeeb1547 to dateariane [link] [comments]

2020.07.31 02:14 gds519 With the release of the 10th Annual NFL Top 100 Players, I have compiled all 10 lists to create a Top 100 Players of the Decade

The NFL has released the 10th edition of its annual Top 100 Players list, and since each list focuses on each player's accomplishment in the previous season, I thought it would be interesting to create a list to see which players made the greatest impact over the course of the decade, at least in the eyes of their peers voting on these lists.
To create this list and rank these players, I went through each Top 100 list and assigned players points based on their rankings, 100 points for #1 all the way to 1 point for #100. The table showing the Top 100 players is shown below, and the full spreadsheet with all 398 players who have made at least one Top 100 list is at this link:
The ranking each player received in a particular list are displayed in each year's column, with the total points accumulated shown in the "Points" column. The "1st Half" and "2nd Half" columns are how many points the player accumulated in each half of the decade, essentially, points from 2011-2015 lists and 2016-2020 lists, respectively. "Count" refers to the number of lists that player made, and "Peak" indicates the highest rank that player received on any list.
Since the list takes into account seasons from 2010 to 2019 equally, some players who were some of the best in the game may not rank as high as they would on another All-Decade list (e.g. Peyton Manning, Calvin Johnson) because they haven't been in the league for the last few years. Conversely, generational talents we have seen rise recently (e.g. Patrick Mahomes) may see low rankings that may not fully encapsulate their impact on the NFL in their short careers so far.
Some quick interesting stats:
Unsurprisingly, Tom Brady takes home the #1 spot, having been ranked first three times, and never ranked outside the top 6 until 2020. Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees finish as the clear #2 and #3, with Von Miller ranking as the highest non-QB at #4. Russell Wilson, Julio Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, Ben Roethlisberger, J.J. Watt, and Patrick Peterson round out our top 10.
Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Fitzgerald were the only players to land on all 10 lists, and each player making the composite Top 100 appeared on at least two lists and was ranked in the Top 50 in at least one year. Overall #1 Brady also leads the field in points from both halves of the decade, but Julio Jones and Aaron Donald are close behind in second half points thanks to great performances over the last five seasons. Lamar Jackson is the only player to receive a #1 ranking (on the 2020 list) and not appear in the composite Top 100, mainly because 2020 makes his debut Top 100 appearance.

Data from

Player Pos Points
1 Tom Brady QB 971
2 Aaron Rodgers QB 933
3 Drew Brees QB 884
4 Von Miller LB 677
5 Russell Wilson QB 636
6 Julio Jones WR 633
7 Larry Fitzgerald WR 633
8 Ben Roethlisberger QB 615
9 J.J. Watt DE 610
10 Patrick Peterson CB 573
11 Rob Gronkowski TE 563
12 Antonio Brown WR 558
13 A.J. Green WR 556
14 Luke Kuechly LB 536
15 Adrian Peterson RB 526
16 Richard Sherman CB 506
17 Khalil Mack LB/DE 501
18 LeSean McCoy RB 484
19 Aaron Donald DT 474
20 Cam Newton QB 468
21 Calvin Johnson WR 464
22 Joe Thomas T 463
23 Ndamukong Suh DT 459
24 Philip Rivers QB 452
25 Darrelle Revis CB 448
26 Peyton Manning QB 445
27 Earl Thomas S 425
28 Odell Beckham Jr. WR 397
29 DeMarcus Ware LB 397
30 Andrew Luck QB 383
31 Tyron Smith T 364
32 Clay Matthews LB 363
33 Jamaal Charles RB 357
34 DeAndre Hopkins WR 353
35 Matt Ryan QB 352
36 Bobby Wagner LB 348
37 Andre Johnson WR 347
38 Patrick Willis LB 334
39 Le'Veon Bell RB 333
40 Travis Kelce TE 325
41 Todd Gurley RB 320
42 Dez Bryant WR 319
43 Haloti Ngata DT 310
44 Ezekiel Elliott RB 301
45 Brandon Marshall WR 299
46 Tyreek Hill WR 288
47 Terrell Suggs LB 288
48 Geno Atkins DT 283
49 Trent Williams T 271
50 Justin Houston LB 270
51 Gerald McCoy DT 268
52 Arian Foster RB 266
53 Ed Reed S 264
54 Marshawn Lynch RB 263
55 Jimmy Graham TE 260
56 Kam Chancellor S 258
57 Fletcher Cox DT 248
58 Julius Peppers DE 243
59 Chandler Jones DE/LB 228
60 Alvin Kamara RB 227
61 Troy Polamalu S 227
62 Matthew Stafford QB 226
63 Jalen Ramsey CB 222
64 Jadeveon Clowney DE 219
65 Cameron Jordan DE 217
66 Mike Evans WR 217
67 Wes Welker WR 214
68 Cameron Wake DE 213
69 Ray Rice RB 212
70 Tamba Hali DE/LB 210
71 Calais Campbell DE 206
72 Demaryius Thomas WR 205
73 Michael Thomas WR 204
74 Frank Gore RB 204
75 Charles Woodson CB/S 203
76 Aqib Talib CB 201
77 Patrick Mahomes QB 194
78 Eric Berry S 193
79 DeSean Jackson WR 191
80 Marshal Yanda G 190
81 Mario Williams DE 190
82 Justin Smith DE 188
83 Vernon Davis TE 184
84 Jared Allen DE 183
85 Deshaun Watson QB 182
86 Eli Manning QB 182
87 DeMarco Murray RB 179
88 Ray Lewis LB 178
89 Joey Bosa DE 177
90 Marcus Peters CB 175
91 Jordy Nelson WR 175
92 Roddy White WR 175
93 NaVorro Bowman LB 174
94 Stephon Gilmore CB 171
95 Jarvis Landry WR 168
96 Joe Flacco QB 167
97 George Kittle TE 166
98 Davante Adams WR 166
99 Robert Mathis DE 166
100 Harrison Smith S 165

Edit: Changed the Table to make everything a little more readable in this format. All the data is still in the Google sheet.
submitted by gds519 to nfl [link] [comments]

2020.07.09 20:41 Ozone21337 Checking Love Compatibility With Astrology

There are many ways in which you can check whether or not you are in a compatible relationship. Astrology makes this possible. Data pertaining to your birth helps one analyze the corresponding planets. This information is
used to generate your birth chart. Your astro birth chart reveals which planet affects your love life, your likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, your partner's birth data is used to generate his or her birth chart. Using these two charts, a comparison is made to check if you two match or you don't. Depending upon popular astrological beliefs, Astrologers are able to draw conclusions and make predictions for you and your partner.
The accuracy of these reports may shock and baffle you. How can millions of people around the world have the same fate and be clubbed under one sun sign? It's a good question, but Astrologers have figured out a way to study the uniqueness each birth chart presents itself with. A free report available online like a Free Love Compatibility report may not be accurate or personalized for you, but there are many reports available in Astro websites that create accurate and personalized Astrology reports for various important aspects of one's life.
In India, Kundalis have been popular since ancient times and they are still an integral part of one's married life. Before embarking on this journey, Astrologers match the kundalis of the bride and the groom to see how good the match is. Planetary positions are analyzed and compatibility of the couple is checked. Problems, if any, are highlighted along with remedies. Muhurats are decided by the Astrologer based on the Kundali match. Some couples have even decided against getting married when major problems are forecasted. But, this is rare and remedies are available for the couple.
Love calculators are again very popular when it comes to match-making, especially among the young. Young teens and adults are interested in quick results and applications that are used more for fun than for any other reason. Love compatibility results are quickly generated and shared across popular social networking sites. This is the latest trend and many have already given these calculators a try.
Here's a quick look at compatibility based on sun signs.
Aries: Fiery sign Aries, you are compatible with fellow Arians, Leo and Sagittarius. Taurus: Taureans find their perfect match in Virgo, Capricorn and Taurus. Gemini: Gemini people are most compatible with Libra, Aquarius and Gemini. Cancer: Cancer natives are compatible with Scorpio, Pisces and Cancer. Leo: Leo is most compatible with Aries, Sagittarius and Leo. Virgo: Virgo is most compatible with Taurus, Virgo and Capricorn. Libra: Libra shares good compatibility with Aquarius, Gemini and Libra. Scorpio: Scorpio is most compatible with Scorpio, Pisces and Cancer. Sagittarius: Sagittarius is most compatible with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius. Capricorn: Capricorn is most compatible with Taurus, Virgo and Capricorn. Aquarius: Aquarius people are most compatible with Aquarius, Libra and Gemini. Pisces: Pisces natives are most compatible with Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces.
submitted by Ozone21337 to monlinehoroscopemat [link] [comments]

2020.07.01 16:53 UomoCapra Kerbal Space Program 1.10: “Shared Horizons” is now available!

Kerbal Space Program 1.10: “Shared Horizons” is now available!
Hello everyone!
The European Space Agency (ESA) and Kerbal Space Program have come together to bring you brand new content, including the ESA space-suit texture, new parts and variants, and two of their most iconic and groundbreaking missions into the game. Gear up, fuel up and prepare to share horizons with ESA and KSP!
Kerbal Space Program 1.10: Shared Horizons is the game’s latest major update aimed to continue with our efforts to enrich the KSP experience. Build a kerbalized version of the renowned and powerful Ariane 5 heavy launch vehicle, visit comets and push the limits of space exploration with a host of new additions to the game that not only will give you more things to do, but also make the game look and perform better with a bunch of bug fixes and quality of life improvements.
Let’s go through some of the update’s highlights below:

ESA Missions

Thanks to our collaboration with ESA, put yourself to the test and carry out KSP versions of the historic BepiColombo and Rosetta missions! Drop a lander module on the surface of a comet and visit the innermost planet of the solar system to study its magnetosphere and surface characteristics, all in the name of science. Best of all, the Making History and Breaking Ground expansions are not required to play these missions!


In order to make the Rosetta mission possible, comets now roam the Kerbal Solar System. With beautiful tails and larger dimensions than regular asteroids, comets appear in all game modes and you can take on new career mode contracts to detect and visit them. Be vigilant, because you might even see one that is passing through from interstellar space!

New Parts and Variants

Kerbal Space Program 1.10: Shared Horizons includes several new parts and variants to match ESA’s style! Decorate your vehicles with a variety of flag parts that can be attached to your liking, take the brand new Magnetometer Boom along with the MTO and MPO to carry out scientific experiments on Moho or beyond, or capture asteroids and comets with the Advanced Grabbing Unit Jr., a smaller and versatile version of the “Klaw”. Additionally, there are also new variants of some tanks, SRBs, the “Poodle” Liquid Fuel Engine, and decouplers; plus, fairings have not only new variants, but some updated functionality as well.

Jool and Laythe Visual Improvements

The legendary green gas giant and it’s innermost satellite have new high-quality texture maps & graphic shaders, and now look sharper and more realistic than ever! Find a nice beach on Laythe and enjoy the view of Jool’s newly animated clouds. Beautiful!
Jool showcase clip
Laythe showcase clip

And more!

To learn more you can read the full Changelog here:
=======================================v1.10.0===================================== 1.10.0 Changelog - BaseGame ONLY (see below for Making History and Breaking Ground changelog) +++ Improvements * Added the ability to fine tune fairings or use the existing, snap mode. This behavior reacts to the editor's angle snap. * Added ESA missions tutorial. * Adjusted the Remove Row button in KAL to only delete the row when clicking on the red cross, not the whole segment. * Fuel cells can be set started in the VAB or SPH for launch. * Drag cube debug information now available in VAB/SPH when show aero data in PAW debug option is on. * Improve drag cube system to handle Part Variants and Shrouds on the same part. * Add additional drag cube information to Debug Aero info in PAWs. * Persist Aero GUI UI debug window setting and Debug Aero info in PAWs setting between game sessions. * Performance improvements for engine module. * Performance and memory improvements for launching a vessel from the space centre. * Performance and memory improvements for part action windows by caching them. * Performance and memory improvements for reading and writing config nodes, so better performance for loading and saving. * Performance and memory improvements for undo and redo in VAB/SPH by caching stage manager icons. * Intended duplicated group-actions have a marker to distinguish the part side . * Converter actions now indicate resource type to differentiate them. * Performance and memory improvements for loading vessels. * Preview and select suits for Kerbals via the suit selector icon (coat hanger). * Performance and Memory improvements for game, craft and mission load dialogues. * Performance and Memory improvements for vessel loading. * Performance and Memory improvements for ModuleJettison in VAB/SPH. * The KSC's grass now changes according to the currently set terrain shader quality. * Revamped Jool, giving it a new animated shader and high resolution textures. * Laythe planet textures revamp. Low, medium and high quality terrain shaders. * ESA Collaboration missions implemented for base game. * Added EVA button to the crew transfer dialog. Functions the same as the crew hatch dialog EVA button. * Added the ability to have open-ended/uncapped fairings. * Sliders now display units in the Part Action Window where appropriate. * Optimized fairing mesh construction and exploded view heuristic by caching mouse position. * Reduced GC and unnecessary calculations performed for variants on fairings. * Reduced number of meshes and colliders for fairings to improve draw calls and standarize at 24-32 sides. * Added Marquee scrolling to a few PAW items for when the text is super long. Text is ellipsis in this case and on mouse over will move left then right. * Performance improvements in flight mode by caching variables in ThermalIntegrationPass and PartBuoyancy. * Hide UI elements that aren't being used and avoid unnecessary updates in flight mode. * Performance and memory improvements for DeltaV simulations. * Speed up craft loading and use less memory in VAB/SPH. * The PAW starts towards the outside of the screen instead of over the center of the rocket/screen. * The camera will not position itself at an appropriate distance when switching vessels to prevent the camera starting inside vessels. * KSP now has Comets! * Added two new contracts for comets. * Added surface sample science experiment for comets. * Comets can explode into smaller fragments while entering a CB's atmosphere. * Fairings can now be set to not auto-expand in SPH/VAB via a new PAW option. * Improve performance of splash FX in water by using combination aof close splashes and limiting how many occur in close proximity * Adjusted the "dark" them color to be more visible in the variant selector. +++ Localization * Changed Japanese translation of "Polar Crater" based on community feedback. * Stock vessel name and description translations. * Fix science done at Dessert not showing localized name. * Fix Service Module parts displaying unlocalized text for Shroud. * Fix Command parts displaying unlocalized text for Cutaway. * Fixed a localization issue on the Strategies occurring on FR, IT and PT * Fix unlocalized label for facility level during missions. * Fix grammar issue in From the Moon tutorial. * Updated SC-9001 Science Jr. perform science button so it now matches the new part name. * Fixes translation error in FTE-1 part in Japanese. * Fix missing character in KSP Merchandise link in main menu in simplified Chinese. * Improved phrasing for landing label in Russian. * Fix localized string when debugging aero details. * Fix localization issues with tab headings in Tracking Station. * Fix KSPedia - Numbers on Resources/Conversion Management page alignment in Russian and Chinese. * Fix KSPedia 'app launcher' text box on the Manual/Flight Interface page alignment in Portuguese. * Fix KSPedia text on Rocketry/Basics/Centered page spacing in Japanese. * Fix KSPedia text on Manual/Management page spacing in Portuguese. * Fix KSPedia unlocalized text for measurements is displayed in the 'Effective Range Table'. * Fix KSPedia Japanese Incorrect break line in Control. * Fix numerous part description texts. * Fix a couple of messages in tutorials. * Fix action sets override explanation tooltip text. * Fix Localization of Vessel Naming Group and vessel name in PAWs. * Removed line breaks in the Orbit's Ejection field tooltip in English. +++ Parts * Add fuel line ESA variant. * Add Thoroughbred ESA variant. * Added Rockomax X200-32 ESA variant. * Revamped R-11 'Baguette' External Tank and added silver variant. * Revamped R-4 'Dumpling' External Tank and added silver variant. * Revamped R-12 'Doughnut' External Tank and added silver variant. * Added new variants to the fairings size 1, 2 and 3. Now we have them in white, black and white, orange, silver and gold. * Revamped Struts and added white variant. * New Moho Planetary Observer (MPO) Probe. * New Moho Transfer Module (MTM). * Fix Mainsail's Center Of Thrust. * Fix LV-N engine FX particle offset. * Added the ESA variant to the Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank. * New Flag parts, these new parts can be placed on fairings by holding the Mod key or by setting the Fairing Expansion = Off setting in the fairings PAW. * Parts with Flag Decals on them can now have their decal set to mirrored. * New Magnetometer Boom science experiment. * Advanced Grabbing Unit textures revamped and added a Dark variant. * New Advanced Grabbing Unit Jr. With 2 variants * Fix for LV-N engine not stacking correctly at the bottom. * Added a white and yellow variant to all TD decouplers and TS separators. +++ Bugfixes * Fix Action Groups app position. * Fix mesh scale on short compoundparts causing reentry FX issues. * Fixed Interstage fairings holding onto the payload in certain use cases. * Fix dV calcs for stages drawing resources across decouplers with crossfeed enabled. * Fix unable to timewarp after using Set Position and then Set Orbit cheat. * Fix autostrut being incorrectly reset on parts attached to dynamic nodes if the part is the parent. * Fix drag cubes on J-90 Goliath, 48-7S Spark, LV-909 Terrier, RE-M3 Mainsail, RE-L10 Poodle RE-I5 Skipper, and numerous other parts. * Fix craft browser selecting wrong tab when player switches between VAB/SPH. * Fix the highlight and navigation colors not being set on game start when the settings file did not exist. * Fixed a bug that stopped the player from progressing in the Basic Science Tutorial. * Fix Action Groups app header in flight. * Fix Lights toggle image not showing all rays properly in Altimiter UI. * Fix comm link not displaying correct strength when focusing on a relay satellite. * Fix node icons being rendered on top of other Flight scene UI elements. * Fix broken off solar panels, fairings and shroud parts left on the surface causing vessels to remain in landed state after they take off. * Fix Dont Show Again not working for Delete all Messages functionality. * Fix LV-T45 config by removing duplicate definition of testmodule. * Fixed veteran kerbals dissappearing when being dismissed. * Fix Navball render issue when Maneuver mode is enabled. * Fix resources not being displayed in tracking station in Prospecting Eeloo Scenario. * Fix asteroids having incorrect mass when docking. * Fix bug causing kerbals to not respawn in Space Center. * Fix bug causing difficulty settings to revert when reverting flight. * Fix maneuver node label not showing when switching selected node. * Fix an issue where Maneuver Mode's Maneuver Editor's Gizmos can enlarge or shrink when clicked extremely fast. * Fix 3.75m decoupler and separator drag cubes creating too much drag. * Fix issue where some vessels were not being reset to the terrain when loading them in a save game where the game terrain detail settings had been changed since it was last saved. * Fix a different tone of white in the white fairing variant. * Fix Launch platform selector getting stuck when opening dialogs while it is already open. * Fix Portrait Gallery when EVAing and all gallery pictures have been hidden. * Fix lighting on specular shaded part icons. * Fix 3D object masking in Editor and RnD scenes for Windows platform and openGL forced. * Pinned PAW stays open in the editor on click events and on part selection. * Add some clarity in the strategies that have no-duration (Bail-out and Sell-out) so players dont expect them to remain active over time. * Fix Z-100 battery light showing white in toolbar and tooltip icons sometimes. * Fix fuel overlay becoming offset when dragging the root part by hiding the overlay during that drag. * Remove Jettison event for Jettison parts that are fairings as they cannot be jettisoned manually. * Fix hitching in the main menu. * Fix visual artefacts of atmosphere planets in map view at high timewarp rates. * Interior lights of ship cockpits and passenger modules are linked to the toggle lights action group. * Fixed bug causing empty stages not to be deleted. * Fix label overlap that was happening in some languages. * Part Action Windows will always close when its part is destroyed. * Fixed bug where drain valve values were being defaulted to true. * Fixed bug which caused some building lights to remain on during the day. * Fix camera out of frustum error when reloading flight scene in some scenarios. * Fix inertial tensor errors when reloading flight scene in some scenarios. * Fix log messages when running missions with test experiment node and node is set to any experiment. * Maneuver mode UI negative handles don't flip functionality anymore after adjusting the tool sensitivity. * Docking Port Actions now fire docking ports on same vessel. * The technology path lines don't disappear anymore. * Fix tutorial 'orbit 101' getting stuck when trying to get to the inclination value of 10 degrees. * Correctly handle engines burning across stages for dV calcs. * Fix decoupler handling when no parts attached to decoupler for dV calcs. * Fix stage UI dV display fluctuating up and down whilst burning engines. * Fixed NRE when changing the variant of a surface-attached LV-1 'Ant'. * Fix not copying resource amounts when copying parts in VAB/SPH. * Fix contract part naming to use real part names and not 'research lab' or 'materials bay'. * Fix for some keybindings activating when typing in toolbox part search in VAB/SPH. * Fix camera shake issues in the SPH when using shift and hovering over UI elements. * Fixed disappearing mode toggle button in KerbNet dialog. * Fix for Shadow Projection Settings resetting. * Fix PAW group headers being cut off in some languages. * Fixed an issue where the UT field in Precision Maneuver Editor wasn't able to display Universal Time in the 'y * Fix 'Cannot deploy while stowed.' bug for service bays. * Fix manuever node handles changing value incorrectly when dragging 'anti' handles. * Fix randomization error in Sentinel causing short lifetimes of discovered asteroids. * Fix Exception storm when inflatable heat shield destroyed by overheat in some situations. * Fix incorrect Line Break - Tracking Station - The string 'Last seen * PAW title now matches the new name of an asteroid after being renamed. * Maneuver node no longer moves along the planned trajectory instead of the current one when moving it ahead in time using the Maneuver Mode UI input field. * Fix crew assignment being blocked after loading second ship. * Fix the vesselSituation on unloaded space objects being Flying instead of Orbiting. * Fix flickering Celestial body self-shadow issues with DX11 platform. * Fix icons in map view not rescaling properly when UI scale changes. * Fix the EVA 'Board' button prompt not disappearing when the target vessel is destroyed. * Fix unlocalized label for mk1-3 pod lights. * Fixed the Island runway textures. * Fix camera behavior when camera mode is activated multiple times in flight mode. * Fix loading of Modders KSPedia slides. * Fix beginner tutorials being locked out after pressing Save or Load game buttons. * Fix NRE flood when creating or selecting a maneuver node with the Maneuver Mode UI Intercept tab open. * Fix Set Orbit cheat to allow rendezvous with vessels in an escaping sphere of influence situation. * Fairing panels now display the proper texture you see in the editor instead of pure white. * Fix incorrect drag cube and class size on Asteroids after they have been grappled and subsequently ungrappled or reloaded via scene change or save game load. +++ Mods * Add IPartMassModifier to ModuleJettison. Allows mods to implement mass change on jettison. * Fix application of mass to resource ratios in ModuleResourceConverter recipes. * Renamed a duplicated shader "KSP/Particles/Alpha Blended" to now have one named that and another named "KSP/Particles/Alpha Blended Scenery". ============================= Making History 1.10.0================================= +++ Improvements * Tracking of vessels now works for creator defined vessels that undock and get created during a mission from another vessel. Mission creators can now assign parts that have had vessel rename and priority set to test against in mission nodes. * Moved localization files to base game. * Add checkbox to FlyThrough Test Node to allow the map marker to be hidden * Added a new icon for Test Grapple node in Mission Builder. * Add setting (MISSION_NAVIGATION_GHOSTING) to show nav marker ghosting when the target is behind you. Defaulted to on for all mission games (including ESA). * Added a new Grapple test node to verify if a grabbing unit took hold of a space object. * Space Objects can now be selected in the Distance to node. * Test vessel velocity can now be compared relative to vessels, kerbals, and space objects instead of just the orbited CB. * Nodes in Making History support comets the same as asteroids. +++ Localization * Fixed wrong localization for asteroid nodes in mission builder. * Fix descriptions for Shrimp and SWM-94 parts. +++ Parts * Kickback booster revamp and ESA variant. * Added new variants to the fairings size 1.5 and 3. Now we have them in white, black and white, orange, silver and gold. * Added a white and yellow variant to the size 1.5 and size 4 TD decouplers and size 1.5 and size 4 TS separators. +++ Bugfixes * Fix scenario loading in Mission Builder scene causing Mission Issues. * Fix Vessel/Part tracking on Nodes for Dock/Undock/Decouple/Couple events during a mission. * Added Create Comet node to be used on the Mission Editor. Under the Spawnables section. * Fixed minor typo in Intermediate Tutorial for Missions * Fixed label size to better suit other languages in SpawnAsteroid, mission builder. * Fix label displaying incorrect experiment for collected science data when prompted to overwrite. * Fix incorrect orbit around The Sun for asteroids spawning in missions. * Fix lighting brightness on displayed Kerbals and Vessels in the GAP. * Fix bug that impeded time warping after finishing a mission. * Fix Dawn of Space Age mission failing inmediately after lift off in some cases. * Fix drag cubes for the 3.75m Structural Tubes. * Fixed mirror symmetry placement for structural panels. * Fix GAP vessel filter ribbon disappearing when selecting alternate vessel/part selector in the SAP. * Fix #autoLOC_8005448 showing in Mission builder test distance validation report. * Fix bug causing unlocked servos to be locked when launching * Fix missing line break in node description. * Fix log messages when running missions with test experiment node and node is set to any experiment. * Fix log messages about Gene Kerman's animations being legacy when using him in message nodes in a mission. * Fix misnamed FL-TX440 Tank variants so they are consistent. * Fix a number of typos in the 'Dawn of the Space Age' mission. * Fix wrong size category for FL-R5 RCS Fuel Tank and the Heat Shield (1.875m) parts. * Fix stutter and error in planet viewer transition. * Fix button text issues on Play mission dialog for non-English text. +++ Bugfix * Fixed erratic positioning of Dessert Airfield windmills. =============================== Breaking Ground 1.5.0 ============================= +++ Improvements * Solar Panel and RTG now displays the power units produced based on Experience trait settings in the Part extended tooltip. * Added action groups for the fan blades for toggling the Roll, Yaw and Pitch controls independently and also Turn them all ON or OFF. +++ Localization * Localized Blades Control Rotations. +++ Parts * Fan Shrouds now have a node stack on top. +++ Bugfixes * Fix an issue where the Track Editor would remain open after switching vessels. * Fix for localization overlapping bug for all languages in graphics settings. * Fix spelling errors in robot scanner arm parts. * Fix tooltip not appearing for max limit axis. * Fixed bug when a KAL controlling another KAL's parameters play position stopped. * Fix issue with motors engaging on launch when they have been set to disengaged in editor. * Fixed mirror symmetry placement for propellers, blades, alligator hinges and rotational servos. * Fix Autostrut on Robotic Parts being cancelled (set to off) in some use cases. * Fix Autostrut debug visualization on Robotic Parts when locked/unlocked. * Fix the FTE-1 Drain Valve releasing particles when switching between VAB and SPH. * Fix non-cargo parts being able to be stored in a cargo container. * Fix Hinges and Pistons sometimes returning to build angle when locked. * Fix lock/unlock of robotic parts not working when fired from an action group. 
Kerbal Space Program 1.10: Shared Horizons is now available on Steam and will soon be available on GOG and other third-party resellers. You will also be able to download it from the KSP Store if you already own the game.
Happy launchings!
submitted by UomoCapra to KerbalSpaceProgram [link] [comments]

2020.06.11 08:13 mr_potroast June 10, 2020 - A new GM App & Raiders Deep Dive with Vic Tafur


A bunker filled with heroes - Dan Hanzus, Marc Sessler and Gregg Rosenthal bring you all of the latest news in the NFL including Bruce Arians's thinking about quarantining a third QB, Luke Kuechly's new scouting endeavors, and a league "stealing" Dan's great idea. Raiders expert Vic Tafur joins the podcast to do this week Wheel of Teams deep dive on the Raiders.


Regular Heroes




Data Details
Length 1:07:46
Money Tag "Is anyone still out there?...Hello?"
Date June 10, 2020

submitted by mr_potroast to AroundTheNFL [link] [comments]

2020.06.05 00:26 ariancoin Arian’s Blockchain Evolution

Arian’s Blockchain Evolution
We will take a tour of the history of Arian’s Blockchain, going back to its beginnings, vision, objectives, and achievements to date.
At the beginning of 2017, the Arian project’s development team and the first members of the Decentralized Governance Committee held working meetings to study the market carefully from the user’s point of view and where the world of cryptocurrencies was heading.
The first mining attempts were in blockchains such as cryptonight and bitcoin, which work with the Proof of Work protocol, which leads to the centralization of mining power in the hands of a few companies.
Arian’s developers understand that the crypto world’s future, as well as in technology in general, does not consist of giving complete autonomy to machines or devices. Artificial Intelligence can not guarantee irreplaceable human elements such as perception, manipulation, creativity, reasoning, resilience, and learning for the correct, sustainable, and productive performance. So after extracting the best features of PoW and PoP, the Proof of Achievement was created: a blockchain consensus protocol based on the symbiosis between humans and machines for the block validation process.
This proposal works through a miner’s interaction with a device to achieve validation of Blockchain’s block. Which means with PoAch protocol, the ability and capacity of the user is more important than the device you use to mine. The future belongs to a combination of Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence.

First PoAch use case: Find the Hash
In 2019 the Arian team developed a blockchain video game called Find the Hash, becoming the first official application of their new PoAch protocol. The challenge is to pilot a ship and gather 64 fragments or bytes in a maximum of three minutes competing with other participants; this achievement allows to mine the native cryptocurrency Ariancoin. The winner is confirmed by the game and nodes, allowing the block to be part of the Blockchain. Those who get the reward are called G-MINERS.

Hash Race, find the hash’s optimization
Find the hash turned out to be a successful blockchain game for the miners. The community around it generated feedback that was taken into account to proceed with the implementation and launch of a new optimized version: Hash Race.
In the alpha test version, many users and G-MINERS recognized the new improvements, including a unique process that enabled us to find a new concept of democratic crypto mining.
G-Miners will have a “state” in the process, which can be: activated or inactivated. All participants who start playing will play in the active state until they do their first mining, at which time the “state” will change to inactivated and be activated again in a specific time. For that reason, this will prevent players with higher skills to hog all the mining, and make way for new players, preserving the concept of decentralization in Arian Blockchain in all its features.
Also, the game is incorporating a virtual store with products and tools to purchase with Ariancoin in the HASH RACE Blockchain Game. It will allow you to mine more efficiently and boost the value of the native crypto-currency ARIAN, contributing to the creation of a commercial ecosystem within the game.

Technical improvements to Arian’s Blockchain
To project the crypto asset and its ecosystem towards a massive adoption, we made many optimizations. Therefore the current Arian’s Blockchain is the result of some tesnet versions that helped to improve and reach the final objective.
The Blockchain went from 250 million ARIAN to 150 million, with 50% of a pre-mined reserve (75 million ARIAN) used for payments offered to its early adopter’s community. It removed the well-known halving process, and a protocol called “netplay rewards” was included: a reward system for all G-MINERS to obtain Ariancoins for mining reward of the gamers team up to 3 levels deep of recommendation.
When a reward winner can not establish in the chain’s block, it will be awarded randomly among the community whenever there is a node connected even if it is not playing in a tournament.
All transactions in Arian’s Blockchain will record, so the mining data, transfers between users and benefits of the club as commissions, agile Staking, direct sales, and binary payment mode you will be able to view in the explorer of Arian’s website.
For more information visit us at

ARIAN CLUB / Usability — Community — Adoption
The Arian Blockchain fulfilled the strategic alliance with Arian Club, a decentralized club through which early adopters will enjoy financial advantages to promote the use and adoption of the native cryptocurrency Ariancoin as a means of exchange and usability in the community.
Arian Blockchain has many advantages, such as the possibility of Ariancoin’s crypto mining from any device with an Internet connection. Thus, the protocol outline to be the most suitable and profitable for the so-called “smart device” or “Internet of things.”
This strategic alliance has led to a significant increase in downloads, activation of nodes, interaction with the Arian Interactive Node, and a progressive increase in the price of the currency.
For more information visit the following link:

Agile Staking, a new profitable form of “Holding
The Agile Staking is a capitalization system of the Arian Blockchain protocol. It optimizes the best features of the Proof of Stake Algorithm, and consolidates Arian as a unique hybrid system in the blockchain market. It works with an algorithm that allows the creation of incentives to Ariane’s holders, establishing a shared responsibility with the user to guarantee the security of the network through a daily connectivity of the node to the system.
These incentives will only be available for a limited time until the pre-mining reserve be spend.
Our methodology ensures a more diversified distribution of this crypto asset holders.
submitted by ariancoin to u/ariancoin [link] [comments]

2020.06.02 08:12 berniepanderz Arian Foster's Last Name

I enjoyed and agreed with Arian Foster's segment as a whole, although I will say as a former economic researcher I did disagree slightly with how he valued data/statistics (He's right though data does need context, and models need to control for biases well with omitted variables). His story about police brutality moved me. But damn, I don't know how you can disagree with his overall platform after his last name. African Americans have literally had their identity and ancestry ripped away from them during 200 years of slavery/100yrs of Jim Crow–how does anyone not understand that the black community has been and is still being screwed?
submitted by berniepanderz to PardonMyTake [link] [comments]

2020.05.29 18:28 Academic_Career Writing Comments that fit your Narrative

I just want to remind everyone to be careful reading comments on players because it is super easy to write a comment that suits a narrative about a player.
In fact, it's so easy that it doesn't even need to be totally accurate. Just throw in some buzz words and a few upvotes and you'll look like a fantasy genius.
For example:
Rob Gronkowski
Positive Player Summary: While Gronk did retire for a season, he still only turned 30 last year. The year off will have been great for his body, and he has been vocal about how CBD has helped his recovery (which is now okay for NFL players.)
He is teaming up with the only QB he wants to play for in a lethal Bucs offense. He won't be able to be double covered like in New England because of great players outside in Evans and Godwin drawing away coverage. Brady is also familiar with 2 TE sets and has led historically good offenses with them. Expect Gronk to play 60% of snaps with 80 catches, 800 yards, and double digit touchdowns.
Negative Player Summary: Gronks body was old and slow before he retired, he is now 2 years older and 2 years older and slower. The wrong side of 30 is not very forgiving for Tight Ends, especially ones this injury prone. The Bucs offense has a lot of mouths to feed, and don't expect Brady to be throwing as many yards as Jamies did last season. Gronk will see some redzone targets, but wont be anything more than a weekly dart throw where you hope for a TD. Arians has notoriously misused Tight Ends and you shouldn't expect that to change when he hasn't suggested otherwise. I'm expecting 400 yards and 6 touchdowns.
That's 2 completely different ideas about Gronk. Both would collect upvotes without any actual data just spewed out BS.
Try it for yourself on a player of your choice!
submitted by Academic_Career to fantasyfootball [link] [comments]

2020.05.29 18:09 Academic_Career Writing Comments that fit your Narrative

I just want to remind everyone to be careful reading comments on players because it is super easy to write a comment that suits a narrative about a player.
In fact, it's so easy that it doesn't even need to be totally accurate. Just throw in some buzz words and a few upvotes and you'll look like a fantasy genius.
For example:
Rob Gronkowski
Positive Player Summary: While Gronk did retire for a season, he still only turned 30 last year. The year off will have been great for his body, and he has been vocal about how CBD has helped his recovery (which is now okay for NFL players.)
He is teaming up with the only QB he wants to play for in a lethal Bucs offense. He won't be able to be double covered like in New England because of great players outside in Evans and Godwin drawing away coverage. Brady is also familiar with 2 TE sets and has led historically good offenses with them. Expect Gronk to play 60% of snaps with 80 catches, 800 yards, and double digit touchdowns.
Negative Player Summary: Gronks body was old and slow before he retired, he is now 2 years older and 2 years older and slower. The wrong side of 30 is not very forgiving for Tight Ends, especially ones this injury prone. The Bucs offense has a lot of mouths to feed, and don't expect Brady to be throwing as many yards as Jamies did last season. Gronk will see some redzone targets, but wont be anything more than a weekly dart throw where you hope for a TD. Arians has notoriously misused Tight Ends and you shouldn't expect that to change when he hasn't suggested otherwise. I'm expecting 400 yards and 6 touchdowns.
That's 2 completely different ideas about Gronk. Both would collect upvotes without any actual data just spewed out BS.
Try it for yourself on a player of your choice!
submitted by Academic_Career to DynastyFF [link] [comments]

2020.05.18 07:50 mansimeinu2000yahoo France Ceramic Matric Composites (CMC) Market Size, Industry Trends, Share and Forecast 2019-2025

France ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.9% during the forecast period. France is one of the most technologically advanced and modern countries globally. Safran group is one of the major companies headquartered in the country. It works in aircraft propulsion and equipment, and aerospace and defense business. In 2017, the company has spent around $1.5 billion in R&D programs. Moreover, in 2018, it also acquired Zodiac Aerospace in order to expand its aircraft equipment manufacturing activities. Apart from these, in November 2018, the company introduced a Safran Ceramics, a research center for CMC located in Aeroparc. It is situated in Le Haillan and has around 9,800 square foot facility completely dedicated to CMC R&D. The research center is also focused on the research of next-generation brake discs to provide support to ArianeGroup's R&D in order to improve the performance of CMCs used in space launchers.
Request a Free Sample of our France Ceramic Matric Composites (CMC) Market:
Dassault Aviation is another major French-based company manufacturing military and civil aircraft. The company has manufactured more than 10,000 military and civil aircraft including 2,500 Falcons to exports products to more than 90 countries globally. In 2018, the company generated revenue of around $5.6 billion. The company is majorly operating in France, as 80% out of 11,500 employees are working in France. The country has a huge number of orders for military aircraft. In 2018, the company got the order of 12 Rafales and 4 Falcons as compared to 38 Falcons in 2017. Due to this, a significant market will be observed for the lightweight material in the aviation industry in the country and owing to better properties, CMC will find a significant application during the forecast period.
A full Report of France Ceramic Matric Composites (CMC) Market is Available at:
France Ceramic Matric Composites (CMC) Market Segmentation
By Product Type
· Silicon Carbide Reinforced Silicon Carbide
· Oxides/Oxides
· Carbon/Carbon Composites
· Others (SIC/C)
By End-Use Industry
· Automotive
· Aerospace & Defense
· Energy & Power
· Electrical & Electronics
Company Profiles
· 3M Co.
· CeramTec GmbH
· General Electric Co.
· Honsin Group
· Lucideon Ltd.
· Safran Group
· SGL Carbon SE
For More Customized Data, Request for Report Customization @
About Orion Market Research
Orion Market Research (OMR) is a market research and consulting company known for its crisp and concise reports. The company is equipped with an experienced team of analysts and consultants. OMR offers quality syndicated research reports, customized research reports, consulting and other research-based services.
For More Information, Visit Orion Market Research
Media Contact:
Company Name: Orion Market Research
Contact Person: Mr. Anurag Tiwari
Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Contact no: +1 646-755-7667, +91 7803040404
submitted by mansimeinu2000yahoo to u/mansimeinu2000yahoo [link] [comments]

2020.05.15 20:34 legalrancher Coach Approval Ratings, According To NFL Subreddits: Phase 1, Preseason

Summary Of My Study (If You Want To Skip This And Just See The Results Go To The Bottom)
I am currently very bored from being stuck at home and decided to use my time in a better way than just sitting around. I wanted to create a study where I poll every NFL fanbase on their approval rating of their head coach, to get a sense of who may be on the hypothetical hot seat as the year unfolds. Essentially what I'm doing is taking data at 3 different points: before the season starts, midway through the season, and at the end of the year, and measuring how much fans change their opinion over time with wins/losses coming in.
After 3 days of polling, I was able to get results from 31 of the 32 teams. The only team I couldn't get anything from was the Browns, whose mods wouldn't let me post in their sub. Cool, I guess.....but also they have a new head coach who isn't Freddie Kitchens so I'm assuming the results would be optimistic.
Possible Distortions In Data
I shouldn't have to tell you this, but these polls probably aren't 100% accurate. Possible things that could distort the results of the polls are:
Raids From Rivals: Fans know I have a poll in every sub, and there's really nothing stopping them from hopping over to another team's sub and downvoting an opposing coach.
Methods Of Collection: Some teams including the Jags, Cowboys, and Packers don't have polls on their subs, so I had to get the results on a google form instead. Google forms are much easier to tamper with and also these polls got less votes, so teams surveyed in this way may have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Time and Availability: Some of the polls (I think 3) got removed before the 3 day time period ended, meaning the votes couldn't come into full fruition.
New vs Old Coaches: Since we're in the middle of a pandemic, it's kinda hard to judge new coaching hires, so votes for guys like Joe Judge were more based on optimism than anything.
The Results
Now that I've bored you to death with mumbo jumbo, let's actually look at the results, sorted from highest to lowest rating. According to NFL subs, the most approved coaches are:

Name Of Coach Team Head Coach Since Approval (%) # Of Votes
Andy Reid KC 2013 98.23 1467
Vic Fangio DEN 2019 97.65 85
John Harbaugh BAL 2008 96.98 927
Frank Reich IND 2018 96.81 1223
Sean McDermott BUF 2017 96.77 991
Sean Payton NO 2006 96.56 1394
Doug Pederson PHI 2016 96.42 2122
Mike Vrabel TEN 2018 96.25 826
Brian Flores MIA 2019 96.23 1009
Kyle Shanahan SF 2017 95.55 1011
Mike Zimmer MIN 2014 94.43 1580
Ron Rivera WSH 2020 93.83 486
Mike McCarthy DAL 2020 93.6 297
Bruce Arians TB 2019 93.35 767
Kliff Kingsbury AZ 2019 93.14 758
Joe Judge NYG 2020 92.75 993
Bill Belichick NE 2000 92.2 898
Mike Tomlin PIT 2007 91.65 882
Sean McVay LAR 2017 91.62 871
Jon Gruden LV 2018 91.23 718
Pete Carroll SEA 2010 90.32 1229
Anthony Lynn LAC 2017 87.96 756
Zac Taylor CIN 2019 84.77 663
Matt Rhule CAR 2020 80.9 110
Matt LaFleur GB 2019 80.65 124
Matt Nagy CHI 2018 72.41 1341
Doug Marrone JAX 2017 57.45 47
Dan Quinn ATL 2015 51.79 616
Matt Patricia DET 2018 49.35 1376
Bill O'Brien HOU 2014 34.88 648
Adam Gase NYJ 2019 26.16 822
No surprise that the Super Bowl champ is the highest rated coach, but I was surprised that some of these guys got a relatively high rating, we'll see if that changes as the year goes on. Thanks to everyone who helped! I got more than 27 thousand votes and an overwhelmingly positive response to these polls! Again, I'll be asking again midseason to see how the results change over time, so make sure you're on the lookout for that.
submitted by legalrancher to nfl [link] [comments]

2020.04.28 16:20 Killtec7 2020 Rookie Ranking Capstone

Author’s Note: I just wrote 3500 words of gibberish. I’m washed boys. I’ll bold some of the highlights; but don’t punish yourself too much or expect a ton out of it. Reads more like a recap into decision making without a ton of time taken to walk through the individual pieces of that process.

2020 Rookie Process to Date:

Small side note, I have stepped down as Moderator. When I get passionate about something—well, I tend to go overboard...take a brief look at my post history. Either way summer is fast approaching, and it is just a good time to reprioritize things in life.
Big note. This is not a traditional ranking of players. If that is your expectation, this will not be your cup of tea. This is my cathartic debrief and recap from my rookie draft season; I’ll throw out a few trains of thoughts on a few players, hopefully some interesting nuggets that’ll help people, but I understand if most are displeased.


Another year in the books of discussing and allowing data & historical precedence to carry us through the months. Mentally I am already onto 2021 and will probably put out a “Notes on” soon. But for now, let us work through my final rankings of the 2020 class. Things obviously change, more data is pouring out of teams, the off-season will be unique due to COVID-19 and more information will come as our takes metastasize to our brain.
This post is going to bring most people far less utility. Just the way I’ve written it, for that I am sorry. But I wanted to dig at my mindset while I was drafting less every potential hypothetical that we twist ourselves into knots over with these exercises.
In order to deliver my usual posts it requires more nuance than I am willing to produce currently. Some may think, “why bother?” Well, my rookie drafts are done for the season and I thought it would be nice to have a conversation, and hopefully pull people into a broader conversation. Please bear with me, while I used data to assign tiers, much of the decisions making done within the tiers was done on feelings that emerged from digesting that data.

Quarterback Rankings

I have Burrow and Tua far closer than most people, they are tiered for me. Especially when there is a major discrepancy in draft value required to secure them, I will prioritize taking Tua.
There is a good argument for Justin Herbert in the conversation, but I have never been high on his tools, and collegiate production. Love enters the conversation as the true definition of a “dynasty investment.”
I would be willing to roster a few other guys; Hurts, Fromm, Eason, Gordon but I would not consider them any sooner than the third or fourth round of rookie drafts.
  1. Joe Burrow, Cincinnati Bengals [-]
  2. Tua Tagovailoa, Miami Dolphins [-]
  3. Justin Herbert, Los Angeles Chargers [-]
  4. Jordan Love, Green Bay Packers [-]

Running Back Rankings

Look at the last 20 years of bell-cow running backs with successful rushing QBs and almost all of them average 100+ scrimmage yards/game. Dobbins will be ranked higher than Taylor by the consensus sooner rather than later.
Taylor is still a safe talent on a very good running team with limited competition (sorry Mack & Hines); but I’m not certain how anyone right now can ignore CEH or Dobbins. Below I’ll rank them in the order that’ll piss off the most people, but I would take the guy you can get for the best value in your draft. Today that might be Dobbins, tomorrow it might be Taylor.
If you’re picking at 1, it’s a tough choice. Kansas City and Baltimore are well run programs. CEH collegiate profile was incomplete, only one year of stud production, but does that mean anything in Kansas City? Dobbins was special at Ohio State, but does that lack of preparation in year 2 seep back in now that he’s in the NFL? Is Taylor more concerned with owning Toppers’ Pizza locations in Madison WI than playing football? We all find our reasons to take our guys.
Cam Akers and D’Andre Swift will share a tier, again take the guy you believe in or the guy you can get for the best value.
Everyone else ranked is in a grab bag tier, grab them where-ever is most prudent, I’ve assigned rough values based on where I’ve seen them go and where I start considering taking them. Anyone not listed is considered a round 3/round 4 guy that I’m not concerning myself with. I may love the Anthony McFarland fit/pick but I am not going to waste more words on it.
Rank change [-] speaks to the change of tiering in this case, not a change in position rank.
  1. JK Dobbins, Baltimore Ravens [+1]
  2. Jonathan Taylor, Indianapolis Colts [-]
  3. Clyde Edwards-Helaire, Kansas City Chiefs [+1]
  4. Cam Akers, Los Angeles Rams [+1]
  5. D’Andre Swift, Detroit Lions [-]
  6. AJ Dillon. Green Bay Packers [mid to late Round 2 of your rookie draft]
  7. Ke’Shawn Vaughn, Tampa Bay Buccaneers [mid to late Round 2]
  8. Antonio Gibson, Washington Redskins [Round 2/3 turn]
  9. Joshua Kelley, Los Angeles Chargers [Round 3]

Popcorn time!

Wide Receiver Rankings

  1. CeeDee Lamb, Dallas Cowboys [-]
  2. Justin Jefferson, Minnesota Vikings [-]
  3. Jalen Reagor, Philadelphia Eagles [+2]
  4. Laviska Shenault, Jacksonville Jaguars [+6]
  5. Bryan Edwards, Las Vegas Raiders [-2]
  6. Michael Pittman, Indianapolis Colts [+1]
  7. Denzel Mims, New York Jets [-1]
  8. Devin Duvernay, Baltimore Ravens [UR]
  9. Van Jefferson, Los Angeles Rams [UR]

Am I missing a few guys? Absolutely I am. These are the guys, for the most part that I am targeting. In theory, Jerry Jeudy is my 2nd ranked wide receiver; Henry Ruggs is my 5th ranked receiver. When it comes down to molding a draft board; where I’m seeing Jeudy go I NEED one of my top 3 RBs; hell I’ll move up 1 or 2 spots to make sure it happens. Beyond that I am in the strong lean Akers > Jeudy camp.
To further highlight this, I do like Jeudy. But in this moment..I want, CEH-Dobbins-Taylor-Akers, Burrow-Tua, and CeeDee over him. That means the earliest I am drafting Jeudy is 8 and the board has to fall that way. I'd have to be the Dallas Cowboys to have a pick in that range and also have the board fall that way. I'm just not getting Jeudy.
I want Akers-Swift-Tua-Reagor-Jefferson where Ruggs commonly comes off the board. You should absolutely be considering Aiyuk when he slips into the second, or Claypool anywhere from the mid second on. You’ll figure that out—you’ll have your preferences. I have mine.

So here is the crux of all of this, three, real, live drafts and the results for them.


Teams are color-coated (no color alignment between drafts, bright red in Draft A is not the guy that is bright red in Draft C); my selections, the player’s name is highlighted in orange. Two of the drafts went to 4 rounds, a third to 6; at the time of this screen capture Draft C had just gotten through the third round.

Draft A

A freshly booted devy superflex league, TE premium, PP1D, draconian QB scoring (+6 touchdowns, -4 turnovers), QB/SF/1RB/1W1TE/5FLEX, 10 teams. Going into it the startup, I went stud-only early and then poured capital into Devy and Rookie picks. My baseline roster of note was Wentz-Wilson-Saquon-Nuk. Devy picks yielded Pickens, Garrett Wilson, Najee Harris.
At 1.05, the pick was always CeeDee Lamb. My flair is Lamb Brigade, I’ve been on Lamb since before the season. The Cowboys’ having Lamb as their 6th rated player, and Jerry requesting that he wears Irvin and Dez’s #88 only solidifies it for me. This is dynasty. Cooper is on a team friendly deal after the 2021 season, Gallup is due for resigning after 2021, I trust Lamb to hit his markers (500+ yards year 1, better year 2). My expectation is a Marvin Harrison-Reggie Wayne or Andre Johnson-DeAndre Hopkins type come up. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t give JK Dobbins a thought—but it was CeeDee ForMe. Let’s be clear, Dobbins is the safer play here. I just have a favorite.
Reading through this I want to further clarify this pick. It was a numbers game for me. I have Lamb >> Jeudy whereas I have Dobbins only > Akers. By counting the picks I liked my chances of getting Akers at 8. Didn't work out that way.
At 1.08, I was originally hoping I might get my first share of Akers. That wasn’t to be and this particularly decision point wasn’t difficult either. I counted out the players I liked, Jefferson, Swift, Reagor, Tua; and asked myself who was going to be there at 2.01. Least likely to be there was Tua because of superflex and positional scarcity. There are absolutely some worlds I take one of the other 3; but not this one.
At 2.01, best of the rest. Reagor was the easy choice for me. Let’s be clear here I am a huge fan of Reagor, had him as my WR2 coming into the 2019 season. Do not get caught expecting him to be a year 1 dynamo. Nothing would surprise me, in the same vein Ertz/Goedert will get there 200 targets and I suspect Alshon and DeSean will be in the gameplan to some degree (over under around 200 targets if healthy). Cap restraints make me reluctant to believe either player gets shipped before the season. There is room to consider Ruggs here instead of Reagor.
At 2.03, this was my first Laviska share. It was perplexing to be honest. If you’ve read any of my work to this point—I think you’re surprised I have two shares of Laviska. Part of it was the post-draft interviews, Jacksonville talking about ‘Viska getting a good medical eval and that they believe his surgeries with good rehabilitation habits have corrected all of his nagging issues; probably a pipedream. There is an air of upside to this guy that I can’t shrug off, he has sink in his routes that are second to none in this class. When I looked around at Mims, Aiyuk, Love, Pittman, Hamler, Higgins, I simply do not feel the same about their profiles. Let’s highlight that, “I did not feel the same.” Toss in Fournette on his way out, myself being a bit of a Jay Gruden-stan, and Jacksonville and Viska hooking up that night to discuss their plans for him. I can’t shake the upside. This is a high-risk pick—but I LOVE this value in the early to mid-second. Even if he is a stud, I promise you I will joke until the end of the time that I expect him to be on my IR at any moment.
At 2.10, my boy, Bryan Edwards. It’s been a long time. Two years of work and we finally made it. My first share of Bryan Edwards. I am led to believe that he was going to put up a great combine at 6-3, 215; he immediately slots in as their iso-X; and Mayock sang so many praises I had to catch my breath. This draft has been all heart for me and the statistical profiles of every one of these guys have my back. I was uneasy with letting Dillon go here. I frantically tried to trade up for him before and after the Edwards pick. Just such a good value for Dillon. I later found out that the 3.02 was insta-drafting either Edwards or Dillon so I was screwed either way and in my heart of hearts I’m glad I have Edwards.
The one problem with this draft, no immediate starters to fill into those FLEX spots for this draft. I was so busy chasing my guys that I am criminally thin at RB on this roster (although I would have gone Akers at 8 to remedy this in the moment—probably not the best choice in hindsight); thankfully I had a good late draft, while people were scooping up third and fourth round rookie picks I was grab DeSean Jackson’s, Marvin Jones types that by week 4 or 5 of the coming season I should be more comfortable with my lineup.

Draft B

A newly acquired league that might be a little softcore for my tastes. I constantly have to remind myself that it’s only 4PT passing TD, 1QB and fairly small starting lineups for 12 teams (QB/2RB/2W1TE/2FLEX). The roster is pretty shallow for my tastes, but I do like the starting lineup, the most notable assets include Wentz-Elliott-Adams-Odell-Andrews.
At 2.06, the board was already light. There were guys there we can convince ourselves of, but I was pretty much down to Edwards-Dillon-Tua-Burrow. The ground swell in the league suggested that a QB was likely going to be there at 2.12, even if I was just stashing Love for the next half decade; who cares it’s 2.12. Knowing that most of the league was aware of my online presence, I decided to go Edwards. Looking back at the move, I probably should have gone with the upside presented in AJ Dillon’s profile—but you’re trying to make the best out of a crap sandwich at this point in the draft, regardless of what anyone is trying to pump you full of.
At 2.08, I lucked out and Dillon was there, easy insta-draft.
At 2.12, I probably played myself. It’s 1QB, I don’t expect to have to start Tua year one, I have a general affinity for him—and let’s be honest; do you really want to bet significant money on who will have a better career? As you can tell—at this point I went full “screw it.” Will I come to regret the pick? Probably. Will it undermine my team in this league—in 1QB, 4pt passing TD, nah.
At 3.10, I traded for this pick. Honestly, I had 3 concurrent rookie drafts running and I was patently sick of them. Waay too many people were running most of their 8 hour clocks and I was tired of waiting. I traded 2, 2020 4ths (became Quez Watkins and James Proche) and a 2021 4th to get up to 3.10 and end my draft. What if I told you the Saints traded not 1, not 2, but 4 picks to move up to get Trautman, and then after that came out and said that he was a top 40 rated player on their board. What if then, after that I told you their only tight end of note is 33 years old. Hi, one Adam Trautman please.

Draft C

This is the coup de grace. This is my Mona Lisa, so much went right, I don’t even know how to react. This league is superflex, ppr, 1QB/1SF/2RB/3W1TE/2FLEX/1DST, 12 teams, 6pt passing touchdowns.
Tua went 1.01 because the 1.01-owner’s team (newly adopted orphan) is legitimately bad, full rebuild, he’s aiming Lawrence next year. He has Tua-Burrow evenly ranked, his hope is that Tua gets redshirted this year and does his team no good.
The owner that selected both CEH and Jonathan Taylor considered Burrow over Taylor but is pretty solid at QB. The 2/3 owner tried literally everything to get 4/5 to acquire CeeDee. At one point he was offering Evans straight up. No dice. He had quite the run of attempts to trade, and they were clear overpays by most people’s standards, no one wanted to budge; he did it all throughout the first and second rounds.
We all assumed Burrow at 4, it’s the only reason an overpay won’t work, right? BOOM, Jeudy. At this point I don’t know what to do with my hands. The #5 owner was planning Dobbins 100% of the way and never expected Burrow to be right there. He’s trying everything to get out of the #5 pick and turn it into gold. The 2/3 owner is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at him—not good enough. I’m sweating bullets for my Lamb share..and finally the #5 relents and takes Burrow.
Examples like this, is why I tell people not to just draft a guy and assume they'll get a kings-ransom elsewhere. Sure 1-3 teams in that superflex league might be interested, but in the moment, at likely his cheapest price no one expressed interest in Burrow. Don't expect that to change suddenly over night. To further that example, If Ruggs some how falls to you at 2.06 and you don't like him, don't suddenly expect that'll you'll be able to turn him for a profit later--the league, or at least the people on the board and active on that day are telling you they really aren't that interested.
At 1.06, I take Lamb. The Draft A and C were running pretty close to one another so when I was on the clock (many shared owners between A & C) in A, I was waiting for my pick in C so that I could ensure I didn’t get sniped for Lamb. Reasons above described why I’m all in on Lamb—past post history just furthers it. Why listen to me when you can listen to the mountains of pundits.
At 1.07, this was the beauty. This was the death blow, I can’t believe I got Dobbins here. Just a stupid bit of luck that the 1.01 owner is getting cute (who knows it may work), the 1.04 owner was glued to Jeudy, and the 1.05 owner felt he couldn’t pass on Burrow.
I attempt to make plays for Reagor and Akers as they fell, no dice anywhere.
At 2.04, at this point I had my first share of Viska in Draft A, this being Draft C; I just followed through on my convictions. I did consider Aiyuk but felt no loyalty to that pick. Taking perceived upside.
At 2.08, again I went heart. In this draft I was quite afraid there were 2 people that would snipe me on Edwards just to mess with me. We are a pretty good bunch and atleast 1 of them is fully aware of my interest in Edwards, the other 1 should have had an inkling after we facetimed through day 1 and day 2. Both picked between 2.04 and 3.04 so I wasn’t going to take the risk. Part of me wishes I would have taken Dillon and risked Edwards for 3.04, but it is what it is.
I did put out offers to try to get Dillon, in hindsight I could have gotten something done at 2.10 if I was a little more forthcoming and persistent, so that kind of sucks.
At 3.04, the original plan was Gibson with the way the board was falling. Didn’t happen that way. I had already taken Trautman in Draft A and was well aware of the boons assigned to his profile, 3.04 was my last pick of note in this draft so while closing my eyes to the availability of Moss-Kelley-Hamler; I see the upside and might regret it again—fatigue of the process and a need in that league for TE drove me back to Trautman.


How did I come to my decisions? A lot of it was based on profile and statistical modeling. Even the best prospects by any modeled outcome have a 50-50 chance of succeeding. Most of your top prospects in any given year it’s about 20%. Try to make good value decisions, try to value more complete profiles, consider all of the intel out there on prospects but at the end of the day; who am I? Who am I to say CeeDee is going to succeed and do it big? I’m not, and I won’t; I just believe based on every piece of data out there that I like my odds of the coin flipping what I call. Same goes with Dobbins, Taylor, Clyde Edwards-Helaire. They just scream “I have a role and I’m going to give you fantasy points.”
We aren’t honest enough with ourselves when we draft these guys. I can speak glowingly of each and everyone one of my guys—hell I can speak negatively about the guys I drafted (Hi Laviska) but none of that matters, what matters is what the board looks like when it is your turn to draft, what it will look like after you draft, and whether any of it matters.

Tips to Help You with Your Upcoming Draft

  1. Go watch post-draft coach/GM interviews. They are fluff, they’ll say things that you’ll wrongly assign value to; there is a good argument that I’ve done that above. But some of them are going to tease to you just how highly they valued a guy (Diontae Johnson, round 1, Bruce Arians miffed that the Steelers sniped him), like Trautman, like Lamb. Will it eventually make these guys more successful? Nah, but it may just tell us how much rope a prospect has..
  2. Statistical models aren’t the end all be all—but dismissing them entirely is foolhardy at best, they are built to give you better odds. Problem is people like to make all their decisions on those odds. Does it matter if a model assigns a 22% probability to player A and a 19% probability of success to player B? Generally no, models based on football data do not have that level of viability. As a rule of thumb say a range of predicted success is 1% to 50%. I would consider the margins probably about 10 percentage points, so generally buckets guys between 40-50, 30-40, etc etc. But if one guy is 41% and another guy is 39% I'd say the decision point is muddled and unclear, but if one guys is 41% and the other guy is 29%, then I'd consider it; even then it's roughly 2:5 and 1:3 odds, are they really all that discernible in practice?
  3. Understand a players role, watch for yourself, and listen to others. I’d say my evaluation process is about 30% defining for myself, 20% listening to others, 30% statistical models, and 10% bias developed from learning about the player as a person, 10% hype baby.
  4. Nothing is the end all be all. I think I’ve highlighted that at every turn. We are going to pin ourselves to X means they’ll be successful. It could be a key/a tell at a player's potential, it likely is not.
submitted by Killtec7 to DynastyFF [link] [comments]

2020.04.20 21:22 Lightning-The-Lamp [OC] Matt Gay and His Big Leg: A Deeper Look At Matt Gay's Rookie Season

[OC] Matt Gay and His Big Leg: A Deeper Look At Matt Gay's Rookie Season
Okay, this is like the one millionth post about Matt Gay on this subreddit and we don't really need another one, but I am bored in quarantine and wanted to look at Matt Gay's 2019 season from a different perspective.

To say Matt Gay had an up and down rookie season would be an understatement. There were times when he flexed the booming leg power he was noted for in college and times when he looked like Aguayo 2.0. His final season stat line showed that he may have been closer to Aguayo 2.0 then the Thick-Legged God of field goals we all had hopped for. Both his field goal conversion percentage and extra-point conversation percentage were well below the league average and median.

Matt Gay was Below the League Average and Median in 2019
Just to reinforce this notion here is a bar chart of how Matt Gay's Field Goal Percentage stacked up against all other NFL Kickers (min. 4 attempts).
Clearly below league average and not good for the first kicker selected in the 2019 draft. However, the Bucs could have done worse as 11 qualifying kickers had FG% lower than Gay.

My inspiration for this post was a chart form this reddit post over on /nfl. The chart shows that while Gay had a lower than average field goal percentage, he was almost exactly on the league average trend line when you considered the average distance of his kicks. That got me thinking. How much did distance impact Gay's 2019 numbers? so I decided to do a little digging into his stats to find out.

The first thing I wanted to determine was if Gay attempted more long-range kicks than normal, as the previous reddit post suggested?
Yes. Yes he did.
As you can see, Matt Gay attempted more field goals from farther than 40 yards than any other NFL kicker. Only Joey Syle of Carolina attempted as many long ranged bombs as Gay. To put in perspective just how many long ranged kicks Gay attempted, he took 22 field goals from > 40 yards while the league average was just 12 such attempts. If anything, this shows just how much faith Bruce Arians has/had in Gay. I will cautiously take this as a good sign for Gay's future with the team and in Arians trust in Licht to get him good players.
The next question is how did all these long range kicks impact Gay's total FG%? For this I decided to compare FG% to the % of a kickers work load that was comprised of long range (40+ yards) field goals. To find this is number is simply divided Field Goal Attempts of 40+ yards by Total Field Goal Attempts for each kicker in the league. I graphed the relationship between these to variables below.
A couple of points to make in this graph. You can, once again see that Matt Gay was slightly below the league average for his total FG%, however he was well above league average with how much of his work load was long range field goals. Nearly 63% of Gay's field goal attempts were from 40 yards or farther! That's insane when the league average was below 50%.
Another thing to note the downward sloping trendline. Meaning the greater portion of long range attempts in a kicker's portfolio, the lower his FG% is likely to be. This is because kickers are just less accurate from longer range. The league average FG% from under 40 yards is 95%. From beyond 40 yards that number plummets to just 67%.
Just as I had hypothesized. Matt Gay's FG% is being held down by attempting a lot of long range field goals.
The biggest thing to take away from this graph is that Gay is on the right side of the trend line. Showing he out performed expectations for his long range workload. We would have expected an "average" NFL kicker to make less than 40% of his field goals if they were forced to attempt Gay's workload. (i.e. 63% kicks above 40 yards and 37% kicks below 40 yards). However, the reality is a coach would never send your "average" NFL kicker out to attempt so many long range field goal, because your "average" NFL kicker does not have the range of Matt Gay. This suggests Matt Gay's range is a beneficial weapon for the Buccaneers. He extends our field goal range.
But is it good to send Matt Gay out to attempt field goals if he is less accurate than your average kicker? Well it turned out Matt Gay was actually more accurate than your average kicker from long distance.
Gay hit 73% of his long range field goals last season. Not spectacular, but certainly much better than what we, as Bucs fans are accustomed too. Something else I want to note with this data. Gay attempted 8 field goals from 50+ yards going 5/8. Only Joey Slye had more 50+ yard attempts. Gay hit 63% of his shots from this distance. Again this above the league average at this distance of 58%. Just further confirmation that an intense long distance workload sunk Gay's 2019 stats.

However, it's not all roses for Gay. Some of his poor stats are his doing. He was below league average when attempting field goals inside of 40 yards, which is the opposite of what you would expect from someone who can hit kicks from a distance.
It looks even worse for Gay when you graph the data. However, there are three things I want to point out from the data.
  1. Gay only missed twice from inside of 40 all year and they were both 34 yard shots. He never missed a "Gimme" <30 yards, all year.
  2. Matt Gay had very few "gimme" kicks to puff his stats. Only attempting 6 kicks under 30 yards all year.
  3. Nearly half the league made all of their kicks from inside of 40 yards. In the NFL you CAN NOT miss kicks inside of 40 yards. It simply can't happen.
Another big worry, and the biggest concern for me is Matt Gay's extra points. He missed 5 last season, which was tied for the most in the league. He has to be better around 35 yards.

The last stat I want to point out is Gay's field goal percentage in wins vs. loses.
A small sample size, but it does appear Gay's performance is a huge part of this teams success. I'm a fan of his and I'm still supporting him as our kicker of the future, however his poor performance in two games this season lost us the game. Most notably the loss against the Giants and the loss against the Falcons where he went 0-3. These are the two games where Gay missed his only 34 yard field goals and in both instances it cost a win. I know you can't blame a win/loss on one player, but if Gay had hit the Game winner against the Giants, or if he had made just one of his 3 attempts against Atlanta the Bucs would have been 9-7. Still out of the playoffs, but damn 9-7 feels so much better than 7-9.
submitted by Lightning-The-Lamp to buccaneers [link] [comments]

2020.04.10 08:01 Reportscheckbiz Worldwide Ceramic Tableware Market 2020-2026 Players, Revenue, Size, Forecast, SWOT, Demand Analysis Research Report has presented a detailed study on “Global Ceramic Tableware Market Research Report” for a period of 2015-2026. The growth trends, development aspects, sales, revenue, and Ceramic Tableware industry size is provided. The significant insights on Ceramic Tableware Industry SWOT analysis, regional diversification, competitive landscape, and profit margin are covered at depth. The Ceramic Tableware industry demand, opportunities for existing and new market players, and feasibility study. The report begins with an introduction, classification, applications, market prospect for regions namely the United States, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Russia, Spain, Italy, China, India, Japan, Singapore, Korea, Australia, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Also, complete analysis of the Middle East, Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Central America, Chile, Peru, Colombia and the rest of the world.
Check Complete Coverage Or Request A Free Sample Report (company Email address will be given priority):
The next significant and most important Ceramic Tableware Industry segment is Key manufacturers analysis. In this part, complete company profiles, product specifications, capacity, revenue, sale, price, gross margin and contact information of every top Ceramic Tableware Industry aspirant are offered. The sales, price, revenue analysis of Ceramic Tableware Market on a global, regional level for every product type, application, and manufacturers are offered from 2014-2019.
The top manufacturers analysis is as follows: Crown Ceramics NIKKO Noritake Steelite Songfa Weiye Ceramics Co., Ltd. Serax Villeroy & Boch Ariane Sitong Group Portmeirion Group PLC CAC China HuaGuang HF Coors Dudson Fiskars Group Miya Inc. Schönwald Royal Doulton RAK CERAMICS Rosenthal GmbH Luzerne Bonna Vertex China Jingdezhen Redleaf Ceramics Co., LTD STM CERAMIC Meissen ZEN Tableware Hunan Hualian China Industry Co., Ltd. Sanhuan Group Surrey Ceramics
The Key Product Types Are As Follows: Porcelain Bone China Stoneware (Ceramic) Others
The Key Applications Are As Follows: Commercial Use Home Use
The sales and revenue forecast, upstream major raw material and equipment suppliers, Ceramic Tableware downstream major consumer analysis is provided from 2020-2026. The investment feasibility in Ceramic Tableware Market, new entrants SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces analysis, and supply chain structure is presented. The market drivers, restraints, development status, import-export details, industry chain structure and growth projections are offered.
Know More About This Report Or Ask Any Queries
Table of Contents:
Market Overview and Introduction
The Ceramic Tableware competition is presented based on business strategies of Ceramic Tableware players, product offerings, development factors, market share, positioning structure, SWOT analysis, and latest trends. The Ceramic Tableware industry demand in different regions, acceptance, demand, prospects, consumption and supply statistics are offered. The concentration ratio, raw materials, upstream raw material suppliers, downstream buyers, target audience are studied deeply.
Reasons for Buying Global Ceramic Tableware Market Research Report 2020-2026:
• The report offers complete entry-level as well as deep research to study the growth rate, size, top players, products and application analysis
• It highlights the crucial Ceramic Tableware market driving forces, growth opportunities as well as constraints which can hamper the industry growth
• Our report will highlight the key Ceramic Tableware marketing strategies and business tactics followed by leading market players
• The investment feasibility, new entrants SWOT analysis, regional level analysis as well as growth trajectory with import-export details are presented
• The expansion, development plans, mergers & acquisitions, trends, and Ceramic Tableware business outlook is offered
• Sales, revenue, growth rate, investment strategy, business policies, and plans are presented
If you have any queries pertaining to the current report scope, please email us and we will provide you the best assistance. We also offer custom reports as per the requirements mentioned by our client. Regional and country-level reports are also available.
Contact Us
Olivia Martin
Marketing Manager
Call: +1 831 679 3317
Email: [email protected]
submitted by Reportscheckbiz to u/Reportscheckbiz [link] [comments]

2020.04.08 14:51 S-Vineyard Rocket design for beginners using the "Starship" as an example (Another B. Leitenberger Blog translation)

As said in the title, Bernd Leitenberger has done another Blog today with some numberchrunching.
Rocket design for beginners using the "Starship" as an exampleOriginally posted on April 8th by Bernd Leitenberger on his blog.
First of all an explanation:By rocket design I mean the determination of essential data of a rocket, which are needed for calculations, if they are not known or should not be known.
Most of this has nothing to do with mathematics, but experience and a good library: Since physics and chemistry are the same everywhere, a new rocket will not differ that much from existing or once existing ones. The same is true for other technical devices. In other words, you draw comparisons. For example, if I estimate the mass of a step to 100 t and it is a fuel combination with an average density of about 1, then I can estimate the dry mass to be 5 to 8 t.
At the bottom are constructions with tanks stabilized by internal pressure, light alloys and an integral tank, at the top are constructions with stainless steel, without internal pressure stabilization and two separate tanks. If you know some details, you can circle this further. The Stage ratios, i.e. how the starting mass is divided between the steps, can be estimated so as well.
If you have pictures, you can measure the stages and estimate how much volume the tanks have and thus how much fuel is available.
I used this for the first time in the eighties and reconstructed relatively accurately Russian rockets of which hardly anything was known at that time. Then I didn't need this for a long time, until a few years ago with the new "commercial" developments it became common to publish almost nothing. This is also true for launches by NASA, ESA and Co, who used to issue press releases full of data.
On 1.4. the "Users Manual" for the "Starship" was published online. When I read the 6 pages thin pamphlet I thought it was an April fool's joke, because there is nothing about the rocket in it.
Okay, this is also getting rarer somewhere else. In the Ariane 6 User Manual you won't find any level data anymore, but for the users there is still some data included as well as some essential data and even these are stripped down to the minimum.
What you actually learn about the rocket is that the payload fairing is 17.24 m long with a diameter of 8 m and it transports 100 t in LEO and 21 t in the GTO. At last I want to hook on and show how with a little mathematics at least one value can be determined - the dry mass of the "Starship".
To simplify the problem, I will assume in the following that we leave the first stage out and have two cases:
The 79 t of fuel are needed to bring the Starship with payload of the speed of an LEO into the GTO.
So the first thing to do is to determine the difference in speed between LEO and GTO. This is a mundane application of the Vis-Viva equation, which I am not going to go into now. We calculate:

Orbit Speed at 200 km altitude Difference to 200 km circular orbit
200 km high circular orbit 7,784 m/s 0 m/s
200 x 35.790 km GTO Orbit 10.239 m/s 2.455 m/s
For this 2455 m/s speed change, 79 tons of fuel are consumed. According to the basic rocket equation one can use for a change of velocity:
v = Vspez * ln (start mass / final mass)
The specific impulse of the Raptor is not known. I've been going over the 3,700 meters per second that Wikipedia gives us. So final and launch mass are still unknown. But at least we know that in the GTO case the final mass is 79 tons smaller than the launch mass. So if we name the unknown final mass with x, then we can start:
2455 m/s = 3,700 m/s * ln (x+79 / x )
Now you only have to resolve to x. First we drag all constants to the left:
2455 / 3700 = ln (x + 79 / x)
then the logarithm has to go. To do that, we expose both sides:
e(2455 / 3700) = (x + 79 / x)
Then we calculate the left side:
1,941 = (x+79/x)
We can also express the right side differently:
x+79 / x = (79 / x) +1
And then we can calculate x directly and arrive at ~ 84 t.
Cross check:
3700 * ln (84+79 / 79) results in 2453 m/s - the small difference is due to rounding of masses and factors.
So with 21 t payload the "Starship" weighs 84 t, without 21 t payload it should weigh 63 t.

Experience and knowledge
So far I assumed that the difference to 100 tons is only fuel. But this is not the case.
In fact, the "Starship" weighs 79 tons less right from the start. So the first stage has to accelerate 79 t less and therefore has a higher speed at the end of the burn. This also applies to the second stage.
The gain in payload is similar to the above case, except that we do not load 79 t more fuel, but have a 79 t smaller take-off mass, which is not the same because of the logarithm in the above equation. It is known from other launchers how much more payload is achieved by the first stage when the upper stage combination becomes x kg lighter.
This should be 25% for the Super Heavy, so if the upper stage becomes 79 t lighter, the first stage can absorb a quarter of it. The payload loss would therefore now be 80 % * 79 t. On the other hand, the above approach of more fuel in the tanks is not real either. They are only 100 % fillable. That costs payload again and that has to be estimated. For 1200 t takeoff mass of the starship I come to 7 % too much payload.
So now it gets really complicated, because we have two opposing factors, which depend on each other. So you would have to iteratively approach the true masses in a loop starting from 84 t. But I think you can give the gift. If you take the difference between 25 and 7% as about 18%, then the starting mass of the starship should be 18% higher, so instead of 163 t it would be 192 t. This would make the starship weigh 92 tons without payload.
- and reality
I have already taken the trouble to simulate the combination and I have come up with about 140 t mass for the Starship.
One month later Musk confirmed this: He writes "Mk1 ship is around 200 tons dry & 1400 tons wet, but aiming for 120 by Mk4 or Mk5. Total stack mass with max payload is 5000 tons." So you aim for 120 t dry matter, which is pretty close to the 140 t I calculated, but much more than the above 92 or even 63 t.
The problem is: if you put a rocket with the above limits (5.000 t launch mass, 1200 t second stage alone and add the information from Wikipedia, there is no solution that has 21 t in the GTO and 100 t in the LEO at the same time at this stage mass.
If a modelled rocket transports 21 t into the GTO, then it has significantly more than 100 t in the LEO and if it has 100 t in the LEO, then it does not reach a GTO or with almost no payload. With the Wikipedia key data (3 active engines in the "Starship") I come to 14 t GTO and 130 t LEO.
So in GTO much less and in LEO much higher. That's not surprising, because as I said before, the physics also apply to SpaceX, and if we calculate 63 t for the Starship, the other factors I left out in the first step can still change that, but not so much, that a Starship twice as heavy still has this high GTO payload. This is simply because the 79 t fuel and energy content are fixed and they only allow a certain change in speed.
submitted by S-Vineyard to SpaceXFactCheck [link] [comments]

2020.03.05 05:50 jw_mentions /r/Christians - "Is KJV Only True?"

I am a bot! Please send NotListeningItsABook a private message with any comments or feedback on how I work.
EDIT: As of Sat Mar 07 02:10:22 UTC 2020, the post is at [6pts2c]

About Post:

--- --- Notes
Submission Is KJV Only True?
Comments Is KJV Only True?
Author Read_My_Name123
Subreddit /Christians
Posted On Thu Mar 05 02:13:53 UTC 2020
Score 6 as of Sat Mar 07 02:10:22 UTC 2020
Total Comments 24

Post Body:

I got hushed by some moderators on TrueChristian (comment got removed) when I tried to tell this guy that the rosary is definitely not okay and tried to use the KJV to prove my point, along with attempting to show why many of the other practices that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches spew are heretical/pagan (it was the latter defending the former's practice of the rosary, mind you. I just find that interesting). This exchange has inspired me to prove KJV once and for all. I will say some things I said to the fellow that disregarded everything I had to say quite flippantly.
The KJV doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have available and thus has errors and scribe additions.
This is the typical response I get when I say I'm KJV Only. However, older doesn't always mean better. And I'll show you why.
Logically speaking, God is perfect and should very easily be able to preserve His word. Thus, there must be a perfect Bible out there without the need to delve into "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" or cross reference other fallible "Bibles." I've come to the conclusion that that perfect, inerrant, authoritative word of God (Bible) is the KJV. My logic is supported by and filtered through Scripture first and foremost:
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."-Psalm 12:6-7
God promised He would preserve His word forever. This promise of preservation goes beyond just the general message of the Scriptures to the very words themselves. God did not promise He will preserve His word (singular), but His words (plural). If not every word God breathed-out is preserved, then we cannot say with certainty that the Scriptures are pure and inerrant.
Let's look at how God feels when we try to put words in His mouth or intentionally leave out what He says, as well as a commandment He gives in regards to this:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."-Deuteronomy 4:2
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."-Proverbs 30:5-6
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."-Revelation 22:18-19
The KJV translators used the 1525 Daniel Bomberg, 2nd edition of the Jacob Ben-Chayyim Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Received Text (otherwise known as Textus Receptus), originally published by Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus, for the New Testament. These are considered the best original language texts for the following reasons:
1). They represent the majority of ancient, manuscript witnesses.
2). These manuscripts were used consistently and without interruption by God’s believing people.
3). These manuscripts were never lost to the “sea of time” or ever laid aside by God’s people. They were continually copied and re-copied and show signs of being worn out from use, thus indicating the confidence God’s people placed in them as being God’s holy Word.
Yet, on the other hand, the original language texts used to translate modern versions must be rejected for the following reasons:
1). The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are few and represent the minority of witnesses.
2). Those manuscripts have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt, an area infamously known for false teaching. With even Origen, (an early Church father), himself admitting this.
4).The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are in pristine condition (comparatively to the ones used for the KJV), indicating they were never used by God’s people.
5). Those manuscripts give the appearance they were altered or corrupted by heretical men who desired to undermine Christian doctrine.
People like to depend on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they're "older" than the Masoretic and Textus Receptus manuscripts. Newsflash: older doesn't always mean better. Again, God is easily able to preserve His word. Why would He have any trouble keeping His word by administrating Godly men in history to preserve, re-copy, and translate the manuscripts they had in their appropriate times, despite them seemingly being further ahead compared to the "older," yet, fallible Papyrus/Alexandrian manuscripts? It's simple to reconcile these facts when you realize the manuscripts for the KJV were used quite often and that the Alexandrian/Papyrus texts weren't. Hence why we don't seemingly have any "older" texts that are used for the KJV (and why they had to be copied and re-copied) in comparison to newemodern "Bibles" due to worn out use for the former and little to no use for the latter (with "wear and tear" for "older" texts being due most notably to the passage of time, not use).
When confronted with the reality of these things, I get told "Well it's not like any important doctrine is being affected here, it's fine. You're just being silly and overzealous." Actually, core doctrine IS indeed being put in danger by all these modern "Bibles." Don't believe me? Look at the staggering number of "Bibles" that strip a key verse in Acts. Specifically, Acts 8:37. Want to know what that verse is? I'll give the verses right before and after it as to give it some context:
"[36]And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37]And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38]And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."-Acts 36-38
Just look at what this looks like when you strip this passage of verse 37. This is where you get all your Catholics believing that baptism comes before salvation, effectively making your salvation dependent on works. The crazy thing is, these Alexandrian manuscripts aren't even consistent in their heretical theology! They not only strip and add to God's word flippantly, but they make doctrinal statements that contradict each other all over the place and support a wide variety of heretical beliefs which include (but are not limited to) Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's witness theology, Eastern Orthodox, arianism, annihilationism, universalism, gnosticism, humanism, and so much more.
Another example would be even the most popular verse of the entire Bible not being immune to this treatment. John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."-John 3:16
Go and look for yourself how many modern "Bibles" strip this verse of the word "begotten," effectively making Jesus look like a son (small s) of God (as if a created being like an angel or human) and not the only begotten Son (big S) of God (who is, obviously, not created)...
With all that being said, there is one halfway decent point raised by critics of the KJV. The point in reference being:
"If the 1611 AV is the preserved word of God, why do contemporary re-printings of it omit the apocryphal texts it first included?"
However, this is quite easily explained.
Apocrypha are a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. While Catholic tradition considers some of these texts to be deuterocanonical, Protestants consider them, well, apocryphal. The main reason as to why Roman Catholics receive the apocryphal books as Scripture is because the Roman Catholic Church says so. Since they believe that the church is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice whatever it says is final. Therefore the matter is not up for debate. There are other reasons why they regard apocrypha as canon but I am not going to cover all of them for 1. Already establishing that the KJV is the perfect and authoritative Word of God and 2. The KJV does not include the apocrypha. Yes I know the 1611 KJV did, but I'm getting to that.
The apocrypha include added books and texts such as:
Tobit, Judith, Baruch including the "Letter of Jeremiah" as the 6th chapter or standalone book, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Additional verses to Esther, Additional verses to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90) Susanna and the Elders (Vulgate Daniel 13) Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
In these books is essentially the doctrines of purgatory and salvation by works (through the practices of praying for the dead and tithes/almsgiving for both). I'm sure I don't have to explain to you guys why this is wrong. However, for the sake of the argument, I'm going to establish some of the reasons why we as protestants do not include the apocrypha within our Bibles:
1). The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance occurred during this time.
2). The apocrypha has always been rejected by the Jews as scripture and, therefore, could not have been part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ's life. The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. They explicitly denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that there were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.
The common argument I hear against this line of reasoning would be "Why would the Jews, who denied Christ, know anything about what should be in the old testament anyway?" Another argument against my position (my position being that the KJV doesn't include the apocrypha and, therefore, the apocrypha should not be considered as inspired), would be "Well the original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha. It wasn't removed until much later in 1885. If the original KJV is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, removing the apocrypha negates that statement and begs the question: 'Is the current KJV sans the apocrypha the Holy Word of God?'"
Well here's the kicker. Lo and behold, the apocrypha are found within the Septuagint which was made for a Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. I've already established in my previous defenses for KJV Only why you shouldn't trust any of the Coptic, Alexandrian, and Papyrus manuscripts. So, the Septuagint translation proves nothing. The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything in the slightest. In fact, all it does is merely testify that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
The apocrypha were even labeled as noncanonical by Saint Jerome, a 4th century monk and scholar who made the original translation from the original languages in Latin that is still, to this day even, used by the Roman Catholic church. Even at the time of Saint Jerome's translation, (the only scholar around his time who knew Hebrew), the apocrypha could only be found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Canon finished during the silent years, which, we've already established as a problem considering both Jewish and new testament sources agreeing that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance occurred during this time. Because of these reasons, (along with the fact that the Hebrews themselves didn't regard the apocrypha as inspired), Jerome felt the apocrypha didn't belong and held no value (the meaning of apocryphal is "these don't belong"). He only kept them at the behest of his friend Saint Augustine.
Another typical argument against what's been said here, (and one in support of the validity of the Septuagint), would be the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which, are Papyrus manuscripts that included some of the apocrypha and are dated to being written at around 3 B.C. to first century A.D. Again, this argument already falls flat on its face considering I have already shown you just how "dependable" these manuscripts are in my defense for the KJV as well as the impossibility of anything coming from the silent years.
Furthermore, I want to finally address the argument that suggests the KJV is fallible due to firstly including the apocrypha and later removing it. Let's go to 1560 where the Reformation was, by this time, in full swing.
By this time, there are already several available translations of the Bible in English (the Wycliffe's Bible from the 14th century, William Tyndale's work from the early 1520's, the Coverdale Bible which used Tyndale's translations of translations of the Vulgate [the Vulgate being Jerome's translation, mind you], the Matthew's Bible which was the first from the original languages, and the Great Bible which was a rework of Matthew's). The reformers in Geneva decided to translate their own Bible as better texts became available (both for translation and instruction/reference) and they created the Geneva Bible. The first Bible with verse markings (the chapters we still use today were invented in 1412 at the University of Paris), the first with comprehensive text notes, translational notes, and chapter headings. This was a joint venture by some of the best scholars and translators of the Reformation and is still recognized in academic and theological circles as one of the best translations ever done as far as accuracy and readability. The 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, but it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not even contain the Apocrypha. Fast forward to 1611 and we've got a retranslation based on the Geneva Bible.
This is the King James Bible.
The apocrypha were still included in the KJV at this time for historical reference, not doctrine. Seeing the treatment of the apocrypha by the creators of the Geneva Bible only attests to that fact even further. It was neither holy nor inspired and its translators understood this. It just wasted space in the Bible. Not only this, but it too was separated from the rest of Scripture, just like in the Geneva Bible. This is in contrast to Catholic "Bibles" today that not only include but also integrate the apocrypha with the rest of Scripture.
Fast forward even further to 1885 and we see the removal of the apocrypha in the KJV. The reasons are as follows:
1). It was around 1885 when the masses learned how to read instead of a privileged few (wealthy and educated).
2). The printing press made everything easier making the KJV available to everyone versus the few copies handwritten by scribes.
3). More people started seeing the contradictions within Scripture. Namely in the apocrypha versus the rest of Scripture. Considering the treatment of the apocrypha by those who created the Geneva Bible and those, at this time, being made aware of the history and origins of it, it's unsurprising why there's a removal of the fallible texts in the KJV. The absolute best argument against this act of "heretical removal" (as the Catholics like to say) was the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls which includes some, (not even all) the apocrypha. That, however, no longer works after having already revealed to you as to why.
The reason we see this removal of the apocrypha in the King James Bible is because God never wanted it there in the first place. The only reason the apocrypha was even included in the original 1611 KJV was for historical reference purposes. Not doctrinal. People saw it somewhat valuable for the former but disregarded it when it came to the latter. When, as I said, the masses began to learn how to read instead of only a very privileged few, everyone saw it a waste of space in their Bibles and recognized its uninspired nature due to not only the history and origins behind it, (despite not yet knowing about the corrupted Dead Sea scrolls at this time), but also its wealth of stark contradictions to the rest of Scripture. The only reason it was easy for people to pick and point out the contradictions was because it was separated from the rest of scripture by being placed smack in the middle between the Old testament and the New. If it weren't for this, you'd have an incredibly corrupted KJV as well as every other protestant Bible probably including and integrating the apocrypha as well.
Knowing everyone and everything the Bible had to go through just for this to happen, this removal should be considered a miracle. Just as every Christian understands, (according to science), the utterly ridiculous chances of there ever being creation, (an organized creation no less), without the existence of God or how every Bible believer recognizes the mountain of empirical data proving the eyewitness accounts of the gospel, this is another one of those “God had to be at play here" moments. I know this to be the case due to what I'm about to say. The final nail in the coffin:
God’s Word(s), based upon Psalm 12:6-7, has gone through a SEVEN-FOLD purification process in the English language. Beginning with Wycliffe's Lollard translations, then Tyndale's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and then the King James Bible, or Authorized Version.
This providentially guided process certified the purity of God’s Word as He divinely guided the translators to burn off any dross by their continual translation. Therefore, the King James Bible represents the culmination of purity.
This is the hand of God.

Related Comments (2):

--- --- Notes
Author DizzySaxophone
Posted On Thu Mar 05 03:26:47 UTC 2020
Score 1 as of Sat Mar 07 02:10:22 UTC 2020
Conversation Size 3
Body link
Mockers of KJV Only Bible believers will always say something along the lines of "Any Bible would do just fine" 
I never said that. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to use the New World Translation, or Passion. I don't think there is an issue with most of the mainstream translations.
I'm sorry the argument about KJV being great because of kings is just silly.
Do you drink wine?
--- --- Notes
Author whizzball1
Posted On Thu Mar 05 04:40:42 UTC 2020
Score 11 as of Sat Mar 07 02:10:22 UTC 2020
Conversation Size 0
Body link
I think the idea of searching for a "perfect translation" is defeating the idea of God's Word. The very word "translation" implies, in and of itself, imperfection. Can anybody's words in their own language ever be perfectly communicated to somebody in another language, who doesn't deeply understand the former's language? Surely, God, who is far beyond any of us in mind and knowledge, has understanding and truth that we can never, with our fallible human knowledge, perfectly accurately grasp in the way He intended it—except by his working in our minds and hearts.
That's the important part: his working. Who is it that will teach us all things? The Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Who, better than any well-written word, well-translated passage, or well-dispositioned preacher, can translate God's Words to our unique understandings? The Holy Spirit. Does God, therefore, need a "perfect translation" in order to do this? Not at all. Can a "perfect translation" exist in any written language? By no means!
How, then, can we best get to God's Word? Certainly, by reading it. But what shall we read? Are God's Words the English KJV? The ESV? Are they the Greek copies? Are they the Septuagint? The oldest, lost manuscripts wherein were first written the words of God? Not one of these is the sure, perfect, infallible Word of God. Some can be said to communicate that Word better than others, but the Word that is communicated is that which lies in the Trinity, that which is flesh and divine spirit. No Bible has any power in and of itself—not the KJV, the Textus Receptus, the ESV, or the Alexandrian texts.
You may argue that the KJV is still the best text for studying the Word, but you may not take divine will as the reason, and you may not mandate the study of the KJV to all believers. If a believer wants to study the Word best, he should go to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, find dictionaries and grammars, and study that way. Should all believers do this? Maybe! When I do it, I am greatly blessed. Do believers need to do this for all their Bible study? By no means. If a believer wants doctrinal enrichment, he cannot rely on himself alone but on the learned, who help us in our faith, and who should already be doing this Greek study. If a believer simply wants to be edified by the Holy Spirit without the time to conduct special study, he can go anywhere where the Word of God has been translated well—but he need not look for an English perfect translation to get the Holy Spirit's perfect translation.
submitted by jw_mentions to jw_mentions [link] [comments]

2020.03.01 01:36 MillpondMayhem Does a heavy usage year (400+ touches) hurt a RB's career afterwards?

PART 2 is here.
So under another post, there was a comment with some concern over Derrick Henry's major workload last year, and how it might hinder him the rest of his playing days. It intrigued me, so I spent my morning looking up stats.
I just went through the list of most carries per season, and looked at careeseason-by-season stats for each player. I even added in playoff carries, and receptions for RS/PO.
Henry had 303 carries and 18 receptions in the regular season, and 83 carries and 8 receptions in the playoffs. 386 carries, 422 total touches for the year. That IS a big number.
I went through the numbers on about 50 players before I got burned out. Might have missed a few guys, but once I got down to the carries in the 330's, I noticed a major trend...
I paid little attention to the years prior to 350+ touches, some were close enough to include. All data after their BIG usage years is what is discussed.
THE 1 YEAR WONDERS (1 big season of 400+ touches, 1 more good year, or meh)
Larry Johnson (2006, age 27) 416 car, 13 rec RS. 41 car, 5 rec PO. 457 car, 18 rec, 473 total touches. No more years of 1k.
Jamaal Anderson (1998, age 26) 410 car, 70 rec RS. 27 car, 10 rec PO. 437 car, 80 rec, 517 total. Hurt the next year, 1 more 1k year.
DeMarco Murray (2014, age 26) 392 car, 44 rec RS. 57 car, 4 rec PO. 455 car, 48 rec, 497 total. 1 more year of 1K rushing, 2 years of 1k YScm.
Barry Foster (1992, age 24) 390 car, 20 rec RS. 36 car, 3 rec PO. 426 car, 23 rec, 449 total. No more 1k seasons, played 2 more years.
Natrone Means (1994, age 22) 344 car, 39 rec RS. 57 car, 6 rec PO. 401 car, 45 rec, 446 total. 2 more seasons with 900+ YScm. Played through age 28.
THE ALMOST 1 YEAR "ALMOST" WONDERS (1 year of 300+ carries and 350+ touches, not much after)
Christian Okoye(1989, age 28) 370 car, 2 rec. 372 total. 1 more season of 1k rushing.
Dalton Hilliard (1989, age 25) 344 car, 52 rec. 396 total. 1 year with 900+ YScm after ('92) on 163 touches. Played through age 29.
James Stewart (2000, age 29) 339 car, 32 rec. 371 total. 927 and 1,341 YScm next two seasons. Retired at 31.
THE 1 BIG YEAR OK/GOOD CAREER (1 big year of ~400 touches+, decent career after)
Hershel Walker (1988, age 26) 361 car, 53 rec. 414 total touches. 6 straight years of 1k+ YScm through age 32.
Jamal Lewis (2003, age 24) 387 carries, 14 rec RS. 26 car, 2 rec PO. 429 total touches. 4 more 1k+ rushing seasons, 5 straight 1k+ YScm seasons through age 29.
George Rogers (1981, age 23 rookie) 378 car, 16 rec. 394 total touches. Hurt the next year. 3 more 1k rushing seasons, 1 more over 900. Just missed 4 straight 1k YScm by 10 yards.
Marcus Allen (1985, age 25) 380 car, 22 rec. 402 total touches. Zero 1k rushing seasons, but 7 more seasons of 1k+ YScm. Played until he was 37!
Michael Turner (2008, age 26) 376 car, 6 rec RS. 18 car, 1 rec PO. 401 total touches. Missed 5 games the next year, still had 871 yds. Over 1.3K rushing each of the next 2 seasons, 800 his final year at age 30.
THE 2-3 BIG YEAR CLUB (2-3 years of 350+ touches)
Priest Holmes
2001 (28) 327 car, 62 rec. 389 total
2002 (29) 313 car, 70 rec. 383 total
2003 (30) 320 car, 74 rec RS. 24 car, 5 rec PO. 344 car, 79 rec, 423 total
Next two years at 31-32 years old only managed 15 games. Hurt spine in 2006. Came back for 1 more season in '07 at age 34.
Terrell Davis
1996 (24) 345 car, 36 rec RS. 14 car, 7 rec PO. 359 car, 43 rec, 402 total
1997 (25) 369 car, 42 rec RS. 112 car, 8 rec PO. 481 car, 50 rec, 531 total
1998 (26) 392 car, 25 rec RS. 78 car, 4 rec PO. 470 car, 29 rec, 499 total
Then not much rest of his career, 3 years.
Ricky Williams
2001 (24) 313 car, 60 rec. 373 total
2002 (25) 383 car, 47 rec. 430 total
2003 (26) 392 car, 50 rec. 442 total
Retired in 2004, came back in 2005, suspended for 2006 season, 1 more season with 1.2k rushing at age 32.
Rudi Johnson
2004 (25) 361 car, 15 rec. 374 total
2005 (26) 337 car, 23 rec RS. 13 car, 2 rec PO 350 car, 15 rec, 375 total
2006 (27) 341 car, 23 rec. 364 total
Played 2 more years, not much production.
Gerald Riggs
1984 (24) 353 car, 42 rec. 395 total
1985 (25) 397 car, 33 rec. 430 total
1986 (26) 343 car, 24 rec. 367 total
Over 1k rushing next season, played through age 32.
John Riggins
1983 (34) 375 car, 5 rec RS. 87 car, 1 rec PO. 456 car, 6 rec, 462 total
1984 (35) 327 car, 7 rec RS. 21 car PO. 348 car, 7 rec, 355 total
Played one more year.
Arian Foster
2010 (24) 327 car, 66 rec. 393 total
2011 (25) 278 car, 53 rec RS. 51 car, 8 rec PO. 329 car, 61 rec, 390 total
2012 (26) 351 car, 40 rec RS. 54 car, 15 rec PO. 405 car, 55 rec, 460 total
Missed half the next season, over 1.2k rushing, 1.5 YScm in 2014 (28). That was about that, played 2 more years afterwards.
Corey Dillon
2001 (27) 340 car, 34 rec. 374 total
2002 (28) 314 car, 43 rec. 357 total
2004 (30) 345 car, 15 rec RS. 65 car, 9 rec PO. 410 car, 24 rec, 434 total
Played 2 more years with NE with over 900+ YScm.
Amahn Green
2001 (24) 304 car, 62 rec RS. 37 car, 10 rec PO. 341 car, 72 rec, 413 total
2002 (25) 286 car, 57 rec RS. 11 car, 1 rec PO. 297 car, 58 rec, 355 total
2003 (26) 355 car, 50 rec RS. 48 car, 8 rec PO. 403 car, 58 rec, 461 total
2 more 1k+ rushing, 1.4k YScm seasons in the next 3 years. Played through age 32.
Chris Johnson
2009 (24) 358 car, 50 rec. 408 total
2010 (25) 316 car, 44 rec. 360 total
3 more straight seasons with 1k+ rushing, 1.4k YScm. Played through age 32.
Deuce McAllister
2002 (24) 325 car, 47 rec. 372 total
2003 (25) 351 car, 69 rec. 418 total
2 more seasons with 1k+ rushing, 1.2k YScm in the next 3 years. Played though age 30.
Stephen Davis
1999 (25) 290 car, 23 rec RS. 32 car, 3 rec PO. 348 total
2000 (26) 332 car, 33 rec. 365 total
2001 (27) 356 car, 28 rec. 384 total
2003 (29) 318 car, 14 rec RS. 64 car, 2 rec PO. 382 car, 16 rec, 406 total
Not much in the next 3 years, played through age 32.
James Wilder
1984 (26) 407 car, 85 rec. 492 total
1985 (27) 365 car, 53 rec. 418 total
1k+ YScm the next year, played through age 32.
Terry Allen
1995 (27) 338 car, 31 rec. 369 total
1996 (28) 347 car, 32 rec. 379 total
3 straight years of 800+ YScm after, 1 year of 1k+ YScm. Played until age 33.
Joe Morris
1985 (25) 294 car, 22 rec RS. 40 car, 1 rec PO. 334 car, 23 rec, 357 total
1986 (26) 341 car, 21 rec RS. 73 car, 5 rec PO. 414 car, 26 rec, 440 total
1988 (28) 307 car, 22 rec. 329 total
Missed 5 games in '87. Missed all of '89 with a foot injury. Out of league in '90, played a bit in '91 at age 31.
Wilbert Montgomery
1978 (24) 259 car, 34 rec RS. 16 car, 1 rec PO. 275 car, 35 rec, 310 total
1979 (25) 338 car, 41 rec RS. 39 car, 6 rec PO. 375 car, 47 rec, 422 total
1981 (27) 286 car, 49 rec RS. 18 car, 3 rec PO. 304 car, 52 rec, 356 total
1 more season of 1.2k+ YScm ('84). Played through age 31.
Willie Parker
2005 (25) 255 car, 18 rec RS. 57 car, 10 rec PO. 302 car, 28 rec, 330 total
2006 (26) 337 car, 31 rec. 368 total
2007 (27) 321 car, 23 rec. 344 total
Not quite 350 touches for each year, but damn close. almost 300 touches in 2008. Played 1 more year after, age 29.
Curt Warner
1983 (22, rookie) 335 car, 42 rec RS. 63 car, 10 rec PO 398 car, 52 rec, 450 total
1985 (24) 291 car, 47 rec. 338 total
1986 (25) 319 car, 41 rec. 360 total
Averaged 250 touches the next 3 seasons. Played through age 29.
Chris Warren
1994 (26) 333 car, 41 rec. 374 total
1995 (27) 310 car, 35 rec. 345 total
Again, close enough, I guess. Averaged 244 touches and 1.15k YScm the next 2 seasons. Played through age 32.
IRON MEN (4+ years of 350+ touches)
Emmitt Smith 8 HUGE seasons with 335+ car, 372+ total touches. 6 straight seasons (1990-95) with 419+ touches (507 in 1994). 4 seasons in total with 395 car. Played until he was 35.
LaDanian Tomlinson 8 straight seasons with 297+ car, 349+ touches. Played until he was 32.
Curtis Martin Had 10 straight seasons with 315+ touches. 9/10 of those years with 346+ touches. 6 seasons with 349+ car, 5 seasons with 400+ touches. 457 total touches in 2004 at the age of 31. 853 YScm his final year (32).
Eddie George 8 straight seasons of 315+ car and 352+ touches. B2B years (99/00) with 428+ car and 485+ touches. 373 car and 410 touches in 2002. Over 1k rushing in 2003, played one more season at age 31.
Eric Dickerson 7 straight seasons (1983-89) with 323+ touches. 3 seasons with 400+ car, 4 seasons of 423+ touches. Played 4 more years after '89, the next 3 with 769+ YScm, retired at 33.
Edgerrin James 9 seasons with 348+ touches. 5 seasons with 366+ car and 422+ touches. 389 car and 452 touches his rookie year, 408 car, 474 touches the next year. Lost his mojo at 30, played through age 31.
Walter Payton GOAT. 10 seasons with 311+ car and 326 touches. 3 seasons with 358+ car. 6 seasons with 380+ touches. 4 straight seasons (1983-86) with 314 car and 367 touches near the end of his career (age 29-32). Played one more season at age 33, with 750 YScm.
Barry Sanders 10 straight seasons (his ENTIRE CAREER) with 291+ touches. 7 seasons with 307+ car and 331+ touches. Only crossed the 400+ touch threshold once. Last 2 seasons ('97-98) were each 343+ car and 380+ touches at ages 29 and 30. Could've played longer, retired on top and in good health.
Thurman Thomas 8 straight seasons with 324+ touches. 5 straight seasons (89-93) with 381+ touches. 4 straight seasons (90-93) with 343+ car and 405+ touches. Played through age 34.
Adrian Peterson 4 seasons with 350+ car and 382+ touches. 3 years with 365+ car and 400+ touches. Still playing, will be 35 this season.
Earl Campbell 4 straight seasons with 300+ car and 392+ touches to start his career. 3 straight seasons of 361+ car and 397+ touches after rookie year. B2B years of 400+ car (79-80, 2nd/3rd yr). Hurt in '82, 322 car and 341 touches in '83. Played 2 more years though age 30.
Tony Dorsett Aside from the strike season (1982 - still had 245 car, 276 touches in 9 games and PO), he had 7 straight seasons (1978-81, 83-85) with 314+ touches. 6 seasons with 302+ car and 350+ touches. 380 car and 416 touches in 1981 (27). Played through age 34.
Clinton Portis 5 seasons with 307+ car and 346+ touches. 4 seasons with 342+ car, 381+ touches. 2 seasons with 405+ touches. Played though age 29.
Tiki Barber 5 straight seasons (2002-06) with 347+ touches. 4 seasons with 322+ car and 374+ touches. 3 seasons with 404+ touches. All of these were AFTER he turned 27. Final 2 seasons (05-06) 353+ car and 413+ touches at ages 30 and 31.
Ricky Waters 7 straight seasons (1994-2000) with 278+ car and 341+ touches (age 25-31). 4 seasons with 319+ car and 371+ touches. B2B years ('95-96) with 368+ car and 429+ touches. Played one more year (2001) at age 32.
Shaun Alexander 6 straight seasons (2001-06) with 295+ car, 315+ touches. 3 straight seasons ('03-05) with 356 car and 392+ touches. 430 car, 18 rec for 448 total touches in 2005 (28). 302 car, 13 rec in 2006 (29). Played 2 more years.
Jerome Bettis 5 seasons with 299+ car and 350+ touches. 3 seasons with 355+ car and 468+ touches. 423 car and 440 touches in 1997. 4 straight seasons of 1k+ rushing after '97. 296 car and 303 touches in 2004 at the age of 32. Played through age 33.
There were 5 "busts" who had 1 year of 400+ touches, although a few you could argue had decent careers overall, and were actually somewhat relevant after they blew their load on a single season of HEAVY usage.
There were 3 guys who hit 350+ touches and did not do much after, I consider them an anomaly.
There were 5 more who had a pretty decent career after their one heavy usage year. 2 of them are in the HOF.
Nearly 80% of the players who reached the 350+ threshold (that I got to, might be some more below 330 carries in a season that made it) had 2 or more seasons with 340+ touches. Very few flamed out. A few had 2-3 years and didn't do much, but more of them had decent careers afterwards, or at least played for 4-5 more years.
34% of the players had at 4 or more years of sustained high level usage and production. Many are in the HOF, the rest just missed it, or will be voted in soon.
If a player hits the 400+ touch mark or the the 350+ threshold early in their career, it doesn't seem to cut their playing days short. If they don't start getting used heavily until later on in their career, it does seem to be the end of them, but at 20 or later, that seems to be normal time to retire anyway.
TLDR: You gotta be good to get used that much. and a majority of the RB's who do get such usage usually get a few years or more of HEAVY touches.
*I've been at this on and off for HOURS. Use the data as you will. My curiosity has overwhelmed itself...
submitted by MillpondMayhem to DynastyFF [link] [comments]