House of Dynamite on Netflix is a realistic (at least it feels realistic) look at the modern day equivalent. It’s fundamentally an exciting film but I also enjoyed learning how large scale human/technical systems operate during a nuclear crisis.
I have to wonder what part of me has become jaded to the point that the movie did not feel that intense to me. I won't go into details on why I think this movie isn't intense, but it's too new to spoil anything for those yet to see it.
It's not the same as something like Threads (1984) to me.
This is easily the best, inadvertent advertisement ever for boosting the nation's missile defense capabilities, and it's ironic that it came out of progressive Netflix studios, given that progressives have insisted since the 80s that missile defense is a worthless, impossible ("like hitting a bullet with a bullet") MIC boondoggle. Thanks, Netflix!
It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. That's become feasible recently, for the same reasons SpaceX is able to land a spacecraft now; computers and sensors got better.
Unlike SpaceX's scenario, though, you've got an enemy involved, with a vested interest in defeating the system. SpaceX would have substantially more trouble landing if the landing ships had decoys and evasive maneuvers. It's probably viable against current North Korea, or "whoops we launched just one". It's probably not ever viable against Russia or China doing a full-on attack.
(In other words, it's like hitting a bullet capable of hiding and making evasive maneuvers with a bullet.)
Iran's attacks on Israel demonstrated this pretty well; some missiles still got through. Interceptors are expensive, often more so than the rounds they're intercepting.
Corporations don't have political leanings, they have market fit. The rest are your prejudices when encountering a product targeted at another consumer category than yours.
not at all realistic, awful movie. somehow even worse than annie jacobsen's book. they would not fire only 2 interceptors, and there is no urgency to retaliate when it is not a decapitation strike
Try Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. From the Wikipedia article [1]: “This therapy focuses on challenging unhelpful and irrational negative thoughts and beliefs, referred to as 'self-talk' and replacing them with more rational positive self-talk. This alteration in a person's thinking produces less anxiety and depression.”
You're misreading those stats. The Census doesn't define "city", it defines "urban" vs. "rural".
My "city" of 5K is considered "urban" according to the 2020 census. There are nearly zero services in this "city", only a couple of restaurants, the largest employer is the school district, and it's surrounded by farms and mountain forests. It takes 15 minutes by car to get to the next town over on a two lane highway.
If you want to get to any real city, you're looking at a 30-45 minute drive at highway/freeway speeds.
So yes, there may be more individuals in "urban" areas, but not all "urban" areas are functionally urban. My "urban city" per the 2020 census is no LA, Austin, or Portland.
I mean 200 million people in the US live in the top 50 metro areas. Sure there's a lot of small cities out there but they don't account for much population.
I see many comments along the lines of, "Good, this is how the market should work" as if displacement is a desirable outcome. Reasoning from first principles, the world we want is one in which we have fewer disaster-prone areas, not more. This would mean lower insurance rates, and fewer instances of displacement. This is a symptom of a deeper problem.
Well, very fair, but we're not solving climate change or reducing the exposure to disasters. Sorry about that, I really would have liked it to happen too.
Maybe we shouldn't treat housing this way. A house gives you shelter and somewhere to sleep at night. I'm not advocating for a chaotic system that forces you to move every year but rather something that gives you options in the case that something does go sideways (i.e. a much bigger housing supply)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Fix the News yet (https://fixthenews.com/). If you want a weekly boost of amazing news from around the world, sign up for this newsletter!
For example, did you know that in July 2025, 99.7% of new power capacity added in the US was from clean power (led by Texas)? The EU, US, and UK have committed to a $125 billion global fund to protect the Amazon? The US prison population is the lowest it's been since 1992? A new therapy has successfully cleared 100% of metastatic cancers in trial patients? 1 in 8 kids in Botswana were born with HIV in 2001, but that number has dropped to 1 in 100?
These headlines rarely make the mainstream, but they're the ones that bring me the most hope and joy. If you're looking for positive news, you will love Fix the News.
It think these "positive news" approaches are always falling prey to stated vs. revealed preference. People's revealed preference is that they want news about _actual_ events, which is why these positive news approaches always stay niche.
People stated reason for not liking news is the stress, attributing this to the negativity of the news. I think a larger issue is the frequency and transience of the updates, leading to oscillations in peoples understand of situations (similar to the car dealership example in the "Thinking in Systems" book).
Modern news networks are always pushing shallow views of new events (i.e. "BREAKING"). Unless someone explicitly follows up on a story, they were only exposed to the crisis and not the resolution of it. I'd love a network that was "yesterdays news" which waited to publish any news until a broader picture of the situation was understood.
You should read Postman's Technopoly. He critiques "context-free" news as leading to a confused viewership and argues that it's an unexpected consequence of modern news media: trying to give the viewer a fully-coherent understanding of current news simply wouldn't play as well as shallow, quick stories.
This creates a skewed information-action ratio, where people are inundated with information about problems they have no power to influence. Consequently, news is reduced to a form of trivia, and the act of being "informed" becomes a passive— and ultimately meaningless— ritual.
This! I also wish the news would be charged to follow up on their lead stories. It's interesting to read that the US wants to sell TikTok but as soon as it leaves the headlines you have to actively search for any updates - and you're lucky if there are any.
This kind of reporting (breaking, tickers) generates more stress than any understanding and never enables you to form a more complete picture.
Subscribe to a periodical. I got a bit too busy recently but for two years I subscribed to Private Eye (if you're not from the UK you might need to find an alternative) it's fortnightly and they don't put much on their website. They follow up on stories sometimes going back to the 80s or more.
Surprised? An email subscription box with almost zero information, no example publication or past issues for perusal, unknown subscription or payment model, multiple multi-page privacy policies... I'm surprised any of the target audience of people burned out by the shit that most media has become would assume it is legit and not going to burn you in some way.
That's pretty neat. It sounds like a better version of Mark's idea from Peep Show:
Nancy: Bad news, bad news, bad news. Jesus, Jeremy, one bus crash. What about all the buses that made it safely to their destinations, huh?
Jeremy: Yeah! Yeah, this is such bullshit.
Mark: Yes, I suppose the news should just be a dispassionate list of all the events that have occurred the world over during the day. That would be good. Except of course, it would take forever!
The problem with this kind of initiative is that people don't agree on what positive news means. Your selection is very ideologically slanted. People on the right could interpret these news stories as negative. For example:
1. 99.7% of power capacity coming from "clean power" can be interpreted by people on the right as the grid getting more expensive and less reliable in order to solve a climate problem they don't think is real.
2. Countries committing to a global fund to protect the Amazon can be interpreted as using money critically needed at home to bribe South Americans into doing what they should already be doing themselves. If the people who actually live next to it don't care enough to protect it themselves then why should random people in Iowa or Ireland be forced to?
3. The US prison population being low is only a positive if crime is low. If people don't feel safe, then it can be interpreted as a result of not locking enough people up, and positive news would be hearing that the prison population is going up. This claim may not feel positive if you just saw the video of the murder of the Ukrainian lady on US public transport by a known-dangerous dude who just randomly stabbed her from behind for no reason.
A news feed that is only positive news for a conservative would obviously look very different to such a feed designed for liberals.
It's easy even for children and many animals to understand the Golden Rule: treat others like you'd want to be treated. It generally takes an adult to fail to understand it.
It’s all relative. You can share something slightly personal or controversial and see where it lands in the other person’s comfort zone. Then it’s up to you to decide what to do with that info.
Absolutely! AI coding is a communication lubricant. It enables non-technical people to express complex software ideas without the friction of asking a developer for help or even working with a no-code tool.
Software development doesn't occur in a vacuum -- it's part of a broader ecosystem consisting of tech writers, product managers, sales engineers, support engineers, evangelists, and others. AI coding enables each person in the org to participate more efficiently in the scoping, design, and planning phases of software development.
Instead of expecting anyone to raise their standards and learn the bare minimum about software development to have a conversation about it, we're lowering the bar
who says it's about lowering the bar. If someone can build a more concrete view of their ideas which in most cases are requirements, then the conversation can be about nuances and not trying to figure it out what this person wants. I would say, It makes the conversation of the software development process easier because now you can discuss exactly why or why not it cannot be possible or the challenges you'll have to implement it.
I do fear this framing though. It's going to be annoying with someone in a meeting using GPT on the side saying "No, it's totally possible to scale this way. Make it happen" because they're feeding what you say to a GPT to counter you with nonsense.
I'm using LLM a fair bit so i'm not doom and gloom entirely on it, but i do think our adjustment period is going to be rough. Especially if we can't find a way to make the LLMs actually reliable.
If you can prompt AI that well, couldn't you just explain it to another human?
Or is it the faster prototyping iterations that help them refine their ideas?
As in, I'm not sure what I want so I'll use AI to build a few prototypes and clarify my ideas?
I’m a visual person so having something I can see and experience typically helps me understand someone’s idea better than if they’re describing something and I’m trying to imagine it. It also helps to have a concrete artifact because we can methodically catalogue its characteristics and define which ones are exactly what the person means, kind of what they mean but they still need help refining it, or completely up for grabs. This is why I find prototypes, wireframes, and sketches to be useful tools for defining the solution space.
Having children makes me feel vulnerable. They’re like extensions of myself — if they feel pain, I feel it too. To imagine one of them dying… this story broke my heart.
My wife had been pushing me to try for kids for, well, a couple of years, and I was finally getting there. I always knew I wanted kids, or figured I did, but then reality comes: can we afford it, shouldn't we enjoy what we have a little bit longer, are we sure we want to do this, etc.
Then, my friend messaged me one night and asked me to join him at the children's hospital to take a few photos as they were saying "goodbye." His 18 month old had been fighting cancer, and it was 1 in the morning and my melatonin-addled brain thought "oh, they must be taking him home."
It wasn't until I walked into the room with my DSLR that I realized what he meant. In fairness, he had prefaced the request with, "do you mind if I ruin your night?"
I am not even close to a professional photographer. But I tried to take as many pictures as respectfully as I could of the literal hardest moment any parents could ever hope not to have to go through. At a certain moment, it became time, and I found myself... stuck, in a sense. I was the only other one in the room aside from the parents, but I didn't feel like I could abandon them, and so I sat there as they disconnected the machines keeping their son alive. It was the most awful two minutes as the attending sat there with a stethoscope against this tiny chest.
I waited until an opportune moment, and then hugged them, quietly took my leave, went home, edited the photos as quickly as possible, uploaded and sent them, and then bawled for an hour or so.
Needless to say, this set back our efforts at even _trying_ for kids by about 2-3 years. Because I just was stuck by this all-encompassing thought: you can't lose what you don't have. You simply aren't open to that sort of vulnerability if you don't have children. It doesn't exist, until you form it into being. And that thought haunted me. Just like it haunts, well, every parent on some level.
And to clarify: this didn't even _happen to me_. It happened to _them_, and their son. But it was a defining moment for me that made it really tough to overcome.
Eventually, we did have two kids (after a miscarriage, of course, because isn't that how it goes), and they're sitting behind me watching a movie as I type this. But these sort of thoughts are always there in the background. And yeah, reading a story like this one about the flood just spears you in the soul.
Being there is a powerful and supportive thing. Yes, it is incredibly hard to deal with the loss of a child, we lost one, too. Having someone there is a help and a support, we didn't really get from others.
There were three deaths in my family over a 10 month period. Both my parents and my cousin.
I still felt like it was worse when, prior to this, I attended the funeral of a little girl from my kid's school. Tiny coffin, painted with horses. All the kids having their first experience with death. The impossibility of saying anything useful to the parents at the reception afterwards.
Sorry to hear that, no parent is unmoved deeply with such stories which just shouldn't be happening, but life is... life.
Its a mistake in general in life to get swayed and stunned by the negative aspects of it and be blocked to experience the positive aspects, even if some risk of harm is involved. Although some healing and reconciliation is required, no doubt there. You did allright based on your description. Trying to play the game of life as safe as possible ultimately means losing the game.
Life doesn't have to be always a positive experience, rather an intense one compared to keeping it always safe and ending up with meh story (and usually tons of regrets before dying). My philosophy only, but I really think it should be pretty much universal.
Also yes miscarriages are very common, we had one, and so did basically all couples in our circle in various phases. I take it as a defense mechanism of woman's body, figuring out it wouldn't work out later so aborting the mission (at least under normal circumstances). One was very brutal (in 37th week, basically a stillbirth and woman still had to go through whole birth process), a proper traumatic experience that leaves permanent scars on souls of parents. But still, after mourning one has to get up and keep moving even if feeling empty and powerless, thats life.
You want to hear empty phrases like typical 'thoughts and prayers' that help absolutely nothing and are overused to the point of losing any value, just so that writer feels for 5s better about themselves? Internet is chock full of those from all those me-participating-too people.
What I wrote is unfortunately true, and brutal. Don't think I didn't cry for those babies who never stood the chance, both ours and other's. But eventually you have to get up, the only other alternative to this is far worse. So I did, and so did my wife, and all the other parents affected. Life goes on and doesn't care about your personal woes.
We live in extremely safe times compared to how things looked even 150 years ago, 40-50% of kids didn't survive to age 5 and deaths during even normal pregnancies were very common. Go read a bit about that if you feel like I talk extreme or are an outlier.
This sentence in a HN article from a day ago caught my eye [1][2].
> Second, between the mid-1930s and mid-1950s, the US maternal death rate fell by 94 percent, according to Sarygulov and Arslanagic-Wakefield. Early antibiotics in the 1930s, followed by the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s, “drove down incidences of sepsis, [which were] responsible for 40 percent of maternal deaths at the time, and made caesarean sections safer,” they write.
No, I merely want people not to be unnecessarily and unhelpfully “brutal” (crass). The fact that vapid aphorisms don’t add utility to the commons doesn’t mean that their mirror image does.
The story was powerfully honest, but I think it also concludes that love is as powerful as death. Death will come for all of us, and instead of trying to fight against it, it might make sense to try and understand what it is, and what it also brings. If we fear death so much, it is often because that fear has stopped us from truly living while we are still alive.
I can't remember where, but somewhere I heard that before kids you live with your heart inside you, and after you have kids you live without heart out in the world.
Amazing! This is about the dolphin kick performed on its side, rechristened “the fish kick.” I couldn’t fathom (ha) why the same kick rotated 90 degrees could be faster but it turns out that the kicking motion is constrained by the motion of the water around it. In the dolphin kick, the water moves up and down and is limited by the water’s surface and pool’s bottom. The swimmer frees themself of these constraints by turning on their side.
Middle lanes are faster, and for some reason swimmer with the fastest record gets the middle in most events, which always seemed weird to me -- it's a positive feedback system. Seems like you should give the advantage to the people who are behind, not ahead... but that's common in sports and in modern society for some reason.
Giving advantages to the better participants is a practice common across a variety of racing sports. The idea being that, if you could earn an advantage by doing worse, then in a race where you know at a certain point that you can't medal anyway, it would be optimal to just intentionally slow down to try to come in last and secure an advantage in the next race.
I've heard this said before, and I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's good enough. We should be aiming for equality at the start of a race, not giving the better people a head start. If qualifying races are broken in the way, then just randomize the starting order. Literally do a random draw as people are walking/driving up to the start. It would make the events far more interesting as well.
As a counterpoint, think about the balancing act of trying to place as well as you can in the semifinals while not over-exhausting yourself to the point where you've got no energy left for the final.
I think this dynamic is way more interesting than what you'd get if semifinal rankings had no impact ; that latter scenario would basically result in a Dutch auction on effort, and likely suppress performance on the qualifying races.
Let’s consider auto sport. For most races, there are fixed starting positions that are determined by qualifying. Qualification is generally done by racing around the track as fast as you can without any other racer on the track or blocking you. The faster you qualify, the better your starting position. The better your starting position, the more advantage you have in the main race. If you are trying to figure out who the better racer is, it’s not a bad system. Everyone is incentivized to do as well as they can at each step.
But, I think there is another motivation to consider. I don’t think the point is necessarily to find the best racer (or swimmer in your case). Instead, I think the point may be to make it so that the best swimmers can swim their best race. The goal isn’t just to see who can win, but to see if the winners can beat a larger record. You want the best racers to have the best chance at performing their best. When the best swimmers are in the middle lanes, they have the best conditions for breaking other records.
It’s not the most fair system. Track is probably a little better, but even then, the lane you are in has certain advantages and disadvantages.
You could make it based on past performance at a given level. So your position in a qualifying race depends on your placement in last year's qualifying race. Your position at the final Olympic event depends on your placement at the same event in the last Olympics.
If it's your first time at a given event, I guess keep whatever we do now or make it random. The reason for this system would be to make surprise wins from less-known people more likely, which I'd think would be desirable.
It’s not strange at all. People want to see records broken. Levelling the playing field works against that goal.
Sports is an aspirational medium of entertainment. People want to see excellence. They want to see dynasties. Too much fairness and balance leads to loss of interest.
Look at the NBA. We’re in a period of unprecedented parity and balance. It seems like every year brings a different championship team. Ratings are way down and loads of people are complaining about the CBA which was written with the goal of bringing more parity to the league, a goal it’s quite obviously achieving!
On the other hand the NFL’s hard salary cap and consequent parity is what has made it the most popular US professional sporting league. People in the US don’t want to see big markets buy their way to championships.
as an adult the NFL is the most watchable professional sport for me, despite my city having no NFL team. every year I can just choose a playoff bound team to root for based on their style or storyline. And each game is meaningful whereas the other professional sports have regular seasons that just drag on and on. also love the one and done knockout playoff format.
I always thought that Americans just had the NFL on in the background or something and used it as an excuse to be social. But I'm realising I'm likely wrong about that reading comments like this.
I'm guessing you're just a vast amount more accepting of a high ad to content ratio than other cultures?
American football rules have the clock stop every time play stops, unlike association football which runs the clock continuously. This means that for 11 minutes of gameplay there is a lot of other stuff going on with a lot of commentary and replays as the players substitute on and off the field and move to get in position for the next snap.
So that means it's not 100 commercials per 11 minutes of content since much of the content happens while the clock is stopped.
I know that's the narrative about the NBA lately but it's just that - narrative.
It's far from proven that the short-lived "parity" that has emerged in the aftermath of the KD Warriors dynasty is the cause of down ratings.
I do personally dislike it though and find the parity via CBA to be artificial. It just causes continuity on a contender to be untenable.
And continuity is what makes for good basketball, hence why dynasties are so fun to watch. It's not just that they win, a lot. It's that they have a consistent style of play with a consistent cast of players (stars and role players) that fans get to know over the course of those dynastic years.
Not always. Some of the most prestigious horse races in the UK, US, and Australia ar handicap races. The horse that is most successful carries the most weight. The handicapper attempts to create a dead heat.
IIRC Ecclestone suggested getting rid of qualifiers and just putting the F1 cars n the inverse order of their last race. This idea was in order to get more overtakes (the best parts of F1 races). I think it would be great.
There was a period in World Rally Championship history when the top drivers would manipulate the starting order for the following day's stages by intentionally slowing down before the end of the stage. It was bizarre to watch teams intentionally give up 10+ second margins when stage wins can come down to half-second gaps.
In the BTCC, there was a similar situation for a while: in one of the races, the best-perfoming half of the pack would start at the back of the grid, and the worst-performing half at the front of the grid - but in-order within the two groups. However, since 2006 there has been some randomness added to the grid positioning, which makes attempting to manipulate it a risky business.
Just thinking if it's done F1 style it is fair. It's fresh at each competition.
If it's based on past times that creates possibly a feedback loop but depends on details. E.g. can a swimmer use a non competition record towards their qualification.
Reminds me of the final boss in Smash Bros. If you purposefully let him whip you at first, the adaptive play would nerf him enough to let you easily finish him.
Track & Field races stagger the starting positions, to compensate for the outer lanes of the track being longer. American football has the teams switch goals every quarter, to even out the advantages of having the wind at your team's back.
Your examples are about making circumstances equivalent, thus canceling out any advantage. There's no way to e.g. switch lanes in swimming so we're bound to have some contestants advantaged.
In cases where some contestants have to be advantaged, the conventional solution in sports is to advantage the ones who performed better according to some metric.
I think it's unfair to reward those who were lucky or already advantaged somehow, but my wife who has a background in track and field thinks anything else would be unfair.
> ... no way to e.g. switch lanes in swimming so ...
Why couldn't you shorten the pool, from a swimmer's PoV, by putting (say) a very shallow plywood box against the wall of the pool at one end of each "non-center" lane? Yes, you might need to do some math & stats to figure out just how shallow a box. Or, you could use a feedback loop - boxes start very shallow, leading swimmers get to pick a lane, boxes adjusted, repeat.
I believe the main reasoning why this is fair is that this advantage is earned.
Would it be fairer to use randomly assigned lane? Then you get almost equal competitors in advantageous and disadvantageous lanes?
Isn't the top result in a year also used for qualification purposes (and thus lane assignment) for top-level competitions? Basically, you earn a spot in the best lane throughout the calendar year.
When I hear of an advantage being earned, I imagine it would go to the one who has put in the most effort, or been most inventive. Here, it goes to the one with the best metric. Metrics are a proxy for effort/inventiveness, but far from perfect. (As any software developer in a large organisation can attest.)
It also focuses the race around the center of the pool which works from a visual standpoint. Favorites in the middle, dark horses surrounding at the edge
In US sports it is very common in the tournament for a single season, or in a single event to reward better performance earlier in that same season or same tournament. I like this because it incentivizes doing well early in a season.
On the other hand, the NFL and NBA give better draft odds for to teams who did badly in the previous season. I also like this because it allows teams who don't have the (comparatively) massive resources of a team based in a large market to compete. This is NEGATIVE feedback, and of course fans of teams in large markets don't like it. Even so, negative feedback is the core of making a stable system.
To summarize, in a single season or in a single tournament, doing well is rewarded. Across seasons, some sports have mechanisms to help poor teams become better.
Is it fair if we get the objectively fastest swimmers to go slower so competition is closer?
Note that the advantaged swimmers in middle lanes are really objectively faster: they earn their spot through year long competitions and in-event qualifications. Sure, they will be an odd case or two.
Spectators don’t seem to mind it in rally race car driving, downhill skiing, bobsledding, and other timed events where multiple competitors cannot share the track.
Spectators also don’t seem to mind for diving, gymnastics, figure skating, equestrian and other events which are points defined and competitors are also performing sequentially.
Your first list of sports are all single participant because of safety. Every one of those has a significant risk of injury or death that is unavoidable for the sport and nobody wants to die because the competitor next to you makes a mistake. Spectators would absolutely pay to watch it, however (see MMA, boxing, etc).
The second list are not judged by racing against the clock and therefore pointless to compete simultaneously.
> Your first list of sports are all single participant because of safety.
That’s irrelevant in terms of spectators. Which was the GPs point.
If the spectators can watch solo runs in X then they can watch it in Y.
> The second list are not judged by racing against the clock
I know, I said that already.
> and therefore pointless to compete simultaneously.
There are plenty of point-based competitions which are still competed simultaneously. Like Paralympic races. Darts. Shooting. Dancing competitions. I could list plenty more.
You’re conflating requirements with tradition.
———
The real crux of the matter isn’t any arbitrarily defined condition. It’s just what people are conditioned to expect.
Certain sports and even specific competitions within certain sports are structured a certain why because that’s how the organisers have decided. Yeah ticket sales will always be a factor in the decision making, but that doesn’t mean that one format is inherently incompatible with spectators than another format.
The real reason I think swimming is unlikely to ever be swam solo is for the same reasons Paralympic swimming races combine people with different disabilities: there just isn’t enough time in the calendar to fit every swimming event in if everyone swam solo. There are a multitude of different strokes and distances that get competed. It’s not like mountain biking where there’s only one way down the hill.
It's not just a tradition or conditioning out of nothing: it was also feasibility to do so. Eg. you don't get that gymnastics podium seven times over, you only get one. Whereas for bowling and darts, adding one extra spot is not that much extra space. You also completely ignored one reason GP brought up: safety (in rally driving). To save on time, they still usually start with a few minutes delay on the same track.
Where it is feasible to compare side-by-side, we do (swimming, running but not eg. discus throw or high jump), and we award medals on direct result. Where it isn't, we use other independently tracked scores (time, points...).
Rally driving is less to do with safety and more to do with the complexity of adding more cars. There are also plenty of motor racing sports where multiple vehicle are on the track at any one time. But those courses are wider. Why aren’t Rally tracks wider? Well there’s no reason they couldn’t be, but the sport was never intended to operate that way. Whereas other motor sports was intended to be head to head.
But that aside, you’re building a strawman argument here (eg I was never arguing against safety elements) doing so actually agreeing with the point I was making:
Spectators are not the only, or even in many cases, primary, reason that events are structured the way they are.
I agree there are a plethora of other reasons and made that point myself. Safety being just one of them. Feasibility being another. But a lot of the time these problems can be solved by one means or another if event organisers truly wanted ways to run their event differently.
All of those sports are far more niche than sports where the competitors compete directly against each other.
I can give you an example from my own sport: triathlon. It has two broad categories: short and long course. Short course is generally draft legal, and was developed specifically to get into the Olympics. Plenty of people can name the Brownlee brothers, Alex Yee (place Olympic athlete of your own home nation here). Most of my own damn triathlon club have no idea who Lucy Charles-Barclay is (the UK’s best long course triathlete and Ironman and 70.3 world champion)!
> They might not be your field of expertise but calling (for example) Rally as “niche” is insanely off the mark.
I say this as someone who’s uncle was a rally driver: it’s niche.
> Except you didn’t give an example that had anything to do with our conversation.
Half correct: long course is, in theory, a race between people. In practice, it’s a bunch of time trials that sometimes sees a pass, but there’s not much interaction by the time you get to the run.
If we wanted to talk within a sport: cycling has time trialling and road racing. I can tell you the difference in spectator numbers is stark. Like, time trialling has 0 spectators and road racing gets plenty. I love it but it’s really not that interesting to watch compared to road racing.
> I say this as someone who’s uncle was a rally driver: it’s niche.
Funny enough, mine too. That’s a hell of a coincidence for something that’s “niche” ;)
I don’t think you know half as much about this motorsport than you think you do. That or you have a really distorted opinion of what constitutes as “niche”
It’s multimillion dollar industry for starters.
Car manufacturers specifically make models for professional rally circuits.
There’s video games sponsorships and all sorts.
We aren’t talking about Redbull Soapbox racing here. It’s up there with other popular forms of motorsports like NASCAR.
Granted Rally isn’t as big as F1. But F1s success doesn’t automatically make another sport niche either.
Anything that is a multi-million dollar industry is clearly well beyond the realm of “niche”.
Skiing is another massive industry. It’s definitely well beyond what any normal person would define as “niche”.
You have more of an argument with bobsled but it still gets its spectators come the Winter Olympics. So even if it were niche, it’s still evidence to my point regarding spectators of timed events.
> If we wanted to talk within a sport: cycling has time trialling and road racing. I can tell you the difference in spectator numbers is stark. Like, time trialling has 0 spectators and road racing gets plenty. I love it but it’s really not that interesting to watch compared to road racing
I don’t know enough about cycling to comment on TT vs road racing but plenty of other sports have a mixture of TT and head to head racing and still see high numbers of spectators for the TTs. So I suspect there’s other variables at play in cycling to explain the lower turnout. Possibly because spectators are low to begin with and TT are such early stages that people would prefer to see the final stages instead, which are not TTs?
Literally nothing you said stops it being niche. I love triathlon but my sport is niche. I love time trialling, bike manufacturers produce bikes worth up to £20,000 and amateur participants spend hundreds of pounds in a wind tunnel to eke out a few seconds to win their regional championship. It's still incredibly fucking niche.
> It’s multimillion dollar industry for starters.
Most niche hobbies are
> Car manufacturers specifically make models for professional rally circuits.
See above, most niche hobbies have this.
> There’s video games sponsorships and all sorts.
Yeah... so?
> It’s up there with other popular forms of motorsports like NASCAR.
NASCAR is a single country and still outstrips all of rally viewership globally.
> Anything that is a multi-million dollar industry is clearly well beyond the realm of “niche”.
Nope, it's still niche.
> Skiing is another massive industry. It’s definitely well beyond what any normal person would define as “niche”.
Almost nobody takes part in skiing, it's niche.
> it still gets its spectators come the Winter Olympics.
So does track & field but most of those sports are incredibly niche.
> Possibly because spectators are low to begin with and TT are such early stages that people would prefer to see the final stages instead, which are not TTs?
TdF gets high numbers for the TT because it affects the grand tour but TTs on their own get far fewer spectators. The Tour of Britain will have loads of people along the route cheering it. When our region hosted the National 10 Mile TT championship, the only spectators were the families of the competitors and those of us marshalling it.
To be clear: not all TT format sports are niche, I just point out that, in general, head-to-head races get far more viewership than time-trial format sports. In fact, the examples you gave pretty much proved that point. F1 annihilates WRC for viewership. As does NASCAR (even from the UK I know of its cultural impact!)
For some reason, this part of my message didn't get sent
> Almost nobody takes part in skiing, it's niche.
You are aware that there are hundreds of ski resorts? Particularly in Europe. It's a massive pastime in the mountains around here.
In fact it's actually a rather mainstream hobby.
> So does track & field but most of those sports are incredibly niche.
It's on TV multiple times a year in the UK. And I'm talking about the main terrestrial TV channels (of which we only have 5). Not satellite nor cable.
Track and Field athletes are big name celebrities here too. Which does not happen with niche sports.
And that literally every school from infants to secondary school teaches T&F and even devotes an entire day each year for track and field events. They call it "Sports Day".
In fact almost all UK schools, even small village primary schools/kindergartens, also have facilities for T&F.
It's not niche.
---
If you want to talk about niche sports, then talk about handball, polo, croquet, shuffleboard, bar billiards, etc. Not stuff that is on TV regularly and taught at every school.
This might be a cultural thing and you just don't see much of these sports where you are. But you could at least research these sports before claiming they're niche.
WRC isn’t niche. Period. It might not be as big as F1 but that doesn’t make it niche. And your arguments about how it’s “niche” only demonstrate that you don’t know what a niche sport is.
I partake in plenty of niche sports. And compared to them, WRC is massive. Some might even say it’s mainstream in comparison to some of the sports I’ve competed in.
Anyway, to the point at hand:
Speedway racing is niche in comparison and that’s head to head. Thus by your logical fallacy, TT should be more popular than head to head. Clearly that’s not a correct deduction of the statistics though.
Ping n Ford races are head to head and they have extremely small view figures.
In fact I could list dozens of obscure sports that are head to head and get smaller viewing figures than other TT events.
All your arguments prove is that some sports are more popular than some other sports for a variety of reasons which are far too broad to distil down to a single variable.
And this is the point I’ve repeatedly made. To argue that one format exist because of one singular reason is overly simplistic to the point of being stupid.
You'd make that trade off? Do you swim competively or how many events do you watch per year?
I mean I'd make the tradeoff that there be no forward passes in the NFL but I'm not a follower of that sport so I'd likely not put that opinion out there because frankly I don't care.
If slower qualifiers got better position, then what you'd get would be qualifiers deliberately trying to sandbag themselves for that. Such an incentive is never a good look for sports.
It is most likely because we are bad at pattern matching. By default we reward anything we perceive as positive, regardless of who we think is causing it or what the long-term consequences might be.
It takes some education to recognize the long-term effects of rewarding the wrong things, and then it takes even more education to not worry about the very long-term effects at all.
Does this effect taper off as you get further away from the edges of the pool? Wondering if you could eliminate the unfairness by just leaving a few lanes empty on each edge of the pool.
The original comment is likely accurate regarding the benefit to ditectly trailing swimmers, but probably not trailing swimmers where shed vortices are stable in adjacent lanes where shed vortices interact chaotically.
Alright, so we're agreed: the only solution is to build every swim-racing pool of individual lanes with solid walls between each!8-)) All lanes are then equivalent.
Any turbulence created by waves and vortices smashing into hard surfaces is going to slow the swimmer down. To paraphrase an old adage, smooth is fast.
I'm inclined to concur with onlypassingthrough. If the resulting wake is similar to fish locomotion (e.g. thunniform or similar) vortices will shed off in a Karmen Vortex Street that spreads laterally with distance behind the swimmer (potentially into other lanes, and propulsive efficiency of propulsors are generally less efficient in turbulant vice laminar open-water flow... but not always, it can depend on the 'structure' [how chaotic] the flow is).
The magnitude of the energy in that turbulent wake will depend on how efficiently the oscillating fin interacts with water over time to produce forward thrust. The cool thing about oscillating foils as opposed to rotating thrusters, is that when the fin 'swoops' once it creates Vortex 'A' spinning clockwise, and when it 'swoops' back the result would be a Vortex 'B' spinning counterclockwise, and the two vortices will partially cancel out. That cancellation serves to recover energy from Vortex 'A' and the energy is transferred back into forward thrust.
In other words, fish tails create trails of contrarotating vortices and continually push off of them. It's like walking up a springy staircase, where each step you make, a little energy is recovered to bounce you up to the next step.
In theory, if you had a swimmer in front of you, generating a Karmen Vortex Street and not effectively canceling out those vortices, but instead just shedding vortices, you can use the energy from the swimmer in front of you to 'spring' yourself forward - barely using any energy yourself. Those complex hyrdodynamic relationships could be why some swimmers/flyers tend to fly in specific formations with other animals in their school/flock.
Bottom line, I would bet that any residual vortices that spread into adjacent swimming lanes will tend to interact chaotically and result in unstructured turbulance, which should yield less optimal swimming conditions for swimmers in those lanes.
> you can use the energy from the swimmer in front of you to 'spring' yourself forward
When I swam competitively in the early 1980s, we did this during workouts; we'd all swim in a line with very close spacing, and switch off who was in front after every lap (two lengths--this was in a 25 meter pool). Being in front you could feel the extra work you were doing.
>you can use the energy from the swimmer in front of you to 'spring' yourself forward
This bears out in the real world. Much like a peloton in cycling, swimming directly behind another swimmer can be far more energy efficient than swimming by yourself and feel like you are getting pulled along for the ride.
Even swimming slightly offset another swimmer saves significant energy. It also reduces the chance of getting kicked in the face. We do this when possible during triathlon open water swims.
You can't reward failure in competition. You will get people purposely going slower to get the middle lanes. What they could swim in a pool in which they aren't using the outer lanes, so bigger pools, or less swimmers.
I was born in ‘83 and a good chunk of my formative years were spent imagining the world through dithered pixels — playing games, creating art, writing, and exploring. Seeing these images evokes a rush of nostalgia, simply because they’re dithered.
