bobloblaw
-
Posts
1,051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bobloblaw
-
-
12 hours ago, Shak said:
Joe just charging the sheep head on and rugby tackling the wooly cunt to the ground would be immense to watch.
That making a comeback, is it?
-
-
22 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:
I do it for a living, so I can explain a bit. The original design isn't really a clear example of something that's massively inaccessible tbh, but there are some issues that I can spot.
- there's a lack of clarity on the seahorse's faces and especially the lion's face
- the Newcastle United font is too small and has serifs (difficult to read for dyslexia)
- the top banner edging makes it very busy
In general though, examples of demographics that could be excluded with design choices are:
- people who are blind* or have low vision- people with varying types of colour blindness
- people with dyslexia
- people with autism
- people with physical or motor disabilities (not too relevant in this case)
* the more complex a design the more difficult it is to explain in the 'image alternative text' that screen readers use to describe images
It might seem a bit PC gone mad or whatever, but combined all of the demographics make up 20% of the population. So like 13 million people in the UK alone, not including people who may have temporary accessibility issues due to an injury or something, so it's a huge amount of people to be excluding.
In 1992 no one really had their eyes on any of this and the internet wasn't really a popular thing then.
I have no doubt that the driver for companies to adhere to all of this is their bottom line. Avoiding penalties, being able to simplify designs and reduce costs, more potential customers etc. The fact it's actually a net benefit for society is just a lucky byproduct.
This really shouldn't be understated. As someone who uses a LMS daily, making these accommodations for blind students (I've had at least one each of the last 3 years) can be very difficult.
-
Just now, Lazarus said:
Yes - I thought he was sympathetic to the problems that Trump faced in trying to change things while acknowledging his flaws - at least thats how I read it.
I read it differently, but that's fair. -
12 hours ago, Lazarus said:
I took Mearsheimer to be pro trump from here: https://lobelog.com/bacevich-and-mearsheimer-on-year-one-of-the-trump-administration/
And I took Pilger to be pro trump from his comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger#Comments_about_Donald_Trump_and_Hillary_Clinton
Did you read the first article?
Quote: "I agree completely, and that’s why I was arguing that Trump’s incompetence, which reflects his inability to concentrate on substantive issues and to talk about those issues in rational, legal language, is a cause of great trouble. You have an individual who is pursuing policies that are fundamentally flawed, and he’s doing it in an incompetent way."
-
21 minutes ago, macphisto said:
For those asking what crimes has Ambramovich committed? Sanctions are not about identifying guilty parties responsible for certain actions.
Sanctions are a way to coerce a country into changing its actions. Often they will target the very rich as those are the people who have direct access to those in power. It also weakens the support base for those in power. If anything, in theory it is probably best to target innocent rich people as they would then have more cause to try to implement change.
You a big fan of civil forfeitures?
-
2 hours ago, ManDoon said:
I mean if you immediately call someone childish for believing in the “bad man theory” of history. I can see it as as theory of Law? Obvs no geopolitical event can be condensed into simple binary stuff and I never suggested it could be.
So you didn't know what it was, and just googled it and regurgitated the first result. It is an extension of the Great Man Theory. That theory has been eschewed for over 100 years.
Evidence: First google result is this - https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bad-man-theory/
EDIT: It is interesting that you would support that interpretation, instead of the "history from below" interpretation.
-
2 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:
TBF we are only a little past halfway, but yeah we need wins and draws in the next 17 games. Our recent form is enough to maintain an optimistic outlook. The past determines where you are, you determine where you will be.
Write a book and peddle it on facebook. You'll be worth more than the pet rock guy in a couple of weeks. Just need need to superimpose it over a girl in leggings doing squats.
-
7 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:
Yes, so the argument is only relevant to a situation far away in the future.
Well not too distant future, but like I said, just win and make it all irrelevant.
-
Just now, Happinesstan said:
That doesn't need explaining. But where we are now is irrelevant to where we need to be when the table is finalised. When the table is finalised if we have one point more than 18th we finish 17th. Ergo we don't need 40 points if 18th only have 28.
On the final match day if the following is true, then finishing 1pt above the team currently in 18th won't matter.
A 17th - 17pts
B 18th - 13pts
C 19th - 11pts
D 20th - 10pts
Teams ABD lose, team C wins. BCD still get relegated, even though they passed the team in 18th by a point on the final day. Being in the relegation zone, you need to win enough to drag another team into the bottom three to escape.
Of course, just win some games, starting with Everton, so nobody has to talk about this tiresome stuff.
-
4 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:
Are you pissed?
We are in a group of four, if we finish above the team that finishes 3rd bottom, we finish top. Where we are right now is an irrelevance.
He's saying that in the current position, to gain safety you will need to overtake the team in 17th place, which is not the same as gaining 1 point more than the team in 18th place, because that won't necessarily put you in 17th. It will just rearrange the deck chairs of the teams in relegation.
-
13 hours ago, manorpark said:
He answered the first question clearly.
If he had also answered the second question, there would have been a second answer.
There was no second answer, so no ambiguity at all "asked and answered"!!
Maybe we just need to W A I T for it.
-
25% revenue sharing for club sponsorship deals.
-
18 minutes ago, Wullie said:
Interesting read, thanks.
This had me laughing though "The elite teams of western Europe are stocked with stars drawn from Africa, South America and all points in between. "Are there many stars from the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans?
-
1 minute ago, Consortium of one said:
don't know why I did either
Read through it twice and was trying to figure out if I made some crazy statement pages ago
-
13 minutes ago, Consortium of one said:
from The Athletic
The Premier League has asked executives from the ‘big six’ English clubs associated with the Super League to step down from committee positions.
The Athletic understands Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, approached executives from Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool following their involvement in the now-abandoned European Super League.
Tottenham Hotspur, the sixth club, are not represented on any of the Premier League committees.
Who has been asked to step down?
Manchester United executive vice chairman Ed Woodward, Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck, Arsenal CEO Vinai Venkatesham, Manchester City CEO Ferran Soriano and Liverpool chairman Tom Werner have all been asked to step down from their positions on Premier League committees.
It is believed the Premier League is also looking to remove Woodward and Liverpool executive Tom Werner from its Club Broadcast Advisory Group.
Why has Masters requested this?
This follows yesterday's angry meeting of the 14 Premier League clubs which are not involved in the Super League.
They believe these ‘big six’ executives —bar Tottenham who are not represented on any Premier League committees — have acted in bad faith by taking part in sensitive talks and negotiations whilst conspiring behind the other clubs' backs.
The other 14 clubs and the Premier League board believe these executives have breached two specific rules, namely B.16 which states that “in all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith" and L9 which says: "Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall not enter or play its senior men's first team in any competition other than: the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the FA Cup, the FA Community Shield, the Football League Cup or competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member."
What does this mean for the 'big six'?
As it stands, these are the only responses from the Premier League to the Super League crisis and they are directed at individuals as opposed to the clubs they represent.
Some of the other Premier League clubs would like to go further with more significant sanctions, including punishments for the Super League clubs themselves.
At the moment, however, there is no consensus on what they would be or even if they are justified, given the fact the Super League plan collapsed so quickly.
Whether these moves to remove key individuals will be the end of it, though, will depend on how quickly the other clubs move on and also how contrite the 'big six' are.
It is possible that calls for more serious sanctions may return if the Premier League's auction for TV rights, for example, were to go badly.
Not sure why you quoted me.
-
1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:
Was trying to be generous
-
5 minutes ago, Stifler said:
In the USA and Canada sports bars are common. Here in the U.K. they are not as much, because it costs a lot to show sports, with football in particular having TV blackouts. A sports bar over there will show multiple sports at once, and going to one is a common way of socialising.
Here in the U.K. to show the likes of Sky Sports costs fortunes, often thousands of pounds a month, as we have already established, the majority of our games are blacked out on TV. We are also mostly a 1 sport nation. Football is bar far our number 1 sport. It is unusual for someone to follow a different sport as their number 1 sport, and more unusual for people to follow multiple sports. In the USA/Canada it is common for to follow multiple sports and to do so almost simultaneously. Someone in here said that one of the reasons why football is growing in popularity in the USA/Canada is because European games are shown early during the day, before their home sports are.
This reads like someone quoted a terrible vacation guide book.
Edit: this might be partially true, with games being shown in the AM before college football (saturday) and NFL (sunday) games.
-
I have to come back to this. If someone told Bills fans they had to spend $100 a month to watch their local team, Roger Goodell would be getting powerbombed through a folding table.
-
2 minutes ago, HTT II said:
We are indeed. I do wonder though, is it cheaper for the US TV companies because there is a bigger audience market and therefore the more that subscribe the costs can be lowered?
Probably that, and more ad revenue. Companies will pay more to advertise here. Part of the reason the tampa bay rays are worth 3x as much as NUFC.
Something that is getting lost in all of this is that selling targeted ads on a streaming service are worth more than generic ads on a larger broadcast. Also, the teams would be able to monetize the data they get from a team owned streaming service. That is where the big money would come.
-
1 minute ago, HTT II said:
OK, I’ll rephrase, it’s not easy to just do because of the costs involved. To televise just one game live, you’re looking at a production team of over 100, that’s not counting the infrastructure in camera technology, the editing suite (usually a lorry or a bus), satellites, sound, and so on.
Sure but it is easily worth it for the bigger clubs if they get to recoup all the revenue from it. There are colleges in the US with their own networks (Texas).
-
4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:
You mean to attend the stadium? £40-£60 a game (ish) in Newcastle, that’s probably one of the cheaper clubs Spurs tickets run to £100+
Before Covid there was no way to watch all the games live, the 3pm Saturday games aren’t allowed on TV.
To watch every PL game that was on you’d need a fairly premium Sky TV package plus additional BT Sport. I’ve never had it, but maybe £80+ per month? But that wouldn’t get you all of your own team’s games.
Edit: Oh, and £7.99 for Amazon Prime as they have games now.
Meant on tv, and holy shit at the bolded. You guys are getting taken for a ride.
-
2 minutes ago, HTT II said:
Producing games isn’t easy at all, and very costly, if it was, club’s would have done this a long time ago. Generating revenue is easy if you have a guaranteed audience, but the profitability from that revenue isn’t as big as you’d imagine it to be. If it was, Sky would have ditched the rest of their programming and concentrated solely on sport, and especially football.
It is pretty easy, the reason they haven't is that they (I assume) don't control their broadcast rights for PL games. NESN and YES are huge money makers for the red sox and yankees, and they were allowed to create those channels because of the way MLB broadcast rights were handled.
-
1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:
I don’t care about anything except the live games. Maybe £20 a month, or £200 a season?
MLB TV is something like $120 for the whole season, 160 games for every team including watching them all back on demand, highlights and abridged games. But local games are blacked out.
Biggest reason I haven't bought it. I'm a red sox fan, and every game against the cubs, white sox, brewers, twins, royals, and cards are blacked out for my region, even though we only get the white sox games locally.
Roman Abramovich
in Football
Posted · Edited by bobloblaw
Sure they are. The NBA is the most popular league in China, and more people watch the NBA finals in China than in the US.
Also, I'd like to see some citations on your dollar numbers, since it's been estimated that tencent is paying 300m per year just for the streaming rights in China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/10/14/tencent-resumes-streaming-nba-games-as-china-moves-to-cool-row/?sh=782d34956cb3
It has only been relatively recently that US sports have really tried to start expanding overseas markets, for obvious reasons (they don't really need to). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_sports_teams#2020
I'm not sure I follow the argument about playing games internationally either. Notre Dame plays college football games overseas... if you could "buy" their brand, it would be valued over $1b. I don't think they are hurting.