Salem wasn’t ergot, it was a genocide. Historians only used that as an excuse to justify the atrocities that went down but anyone whose done even a little bit of looking at the situation will know that all the witchcraft stuff was a cover for the red scare purges they were doing.
Of course the american education system isn’t going to teach you that because they ultimately side with the Christian fascists.
I use trig every few years when buying a tv. Tv specs always list diagonal but rarely horizontal and vertical which is needed for knowing how a TV will fit in a space.
Ratios can be used in trig – if it’s 1.5 times as long as it is tall, tan(\theta) = \frac{2}{3}, which then allows you to find the lengths of the other two sides easily so long as you have a calculator.
Right, but why bring theta into it at all? TV screens are as a hypotenuse (a²+b²) with a fixed ratio (a/b=16/9), so you just need to solve for a and b.
You don’t have to, but it seems perfectly easy since you don’t have to write anything down to solve it. csin(arctan(b/a)) gives b, and ccos(arctan(b/a)) gives a. I’m not disputing that you can do it without, but I don’t think it’s necessarily any quicker or easier.
I think the concept of a sports coach at an university is inteeresting in general. At Europe and the colleges here it doesn’t really matter which sports team your institution has as long as it offers good education. It is always interesting to see that for whatever reason it can be different.
Trig is honestly the math I’ve used the most since finishing school. But to be fair, that is mostly because it’s useful as hell when doing game development as a hobby.
Or building some stairs or really a ton of shit. Basic trig is such a useful thing that it tells me people who complain about it have never built anything, virtual or physical.
as I’ve said in a different comment , it sucks how little space school gives to recreational usage of the skills we learn . I deeply enjoy recreational linguistics , writing , yet school seldom gave me the tools I find useful , having to find them on my own , despite being thought them previously .
It’s annoying that you can either choose between having a weedy shit burger that’s mostly lettuce and has to be held together with a stick, or eating a really expensive one and have to look at a load of wanker tat on the walls.
Also, you can stick your brioche buns up your arse. A brioche bun is not a load bearing bun. It dissolves in contact with moisture.
Hold on, a brioche bun can totally work! Toast the bun, put a little mayo on it, put the veggies on the bottom (at least the lettuce), and a regular-sized burger will hold up just fine.
Not saying it can’t go wrong, especially in a place that just wants the decor and the food to look good on Instagram even if it’s disappointing when you bite into it. But for burgers I’ve made, a brioche bun can be a nice option. :P
Also why do Americans like mixing sweet and salty. Here in Australia they have brioche buns everywhere now. I hate that crap, if you don’t have normal buns give me two slices of bread instead
The idea though is that a good sports team will draw eyes to the university as a whole. Texas, California, Tennessee, Florida… All these programs have vastly overpaid coaches it’s true. But as a result you get free advertising as fans wear the team colors all over town.
Also shameless plug for our college football community !cfb
And how do you propose to pay for this world class research in a world where federal university funding is constantly hamstrung by conservatives and skyrocketing tuition costs still can’t cover it? If I had the ability to charge 100,000 people 20 bucks (actually way more) a week, that’ll certainly create a dent (not to mention apparel revenue and TV contracts). Sports departments are net positive revenue for an institution, and when they aren’t they get cut. Again I fully believe that coaches are overpaid, but it’s not for no reason.
Here’s an article showing that only 25/65 Division I schools had a net positive revenue from sports: bestcolleges.com/…/do-college-sports-make-money/, with those losing money losing a lot more than the ones making money.
Here is the referenced list where you can check all D1 universities for this year.
Edit: And with TV deals being restructured I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC/B1G start bringing in even more.
Double Edit: And regardless, alumni donations for academics increase relative to that teams performance (specifically championship appearances/wins) gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/…/162rosen.pdf
Yeah, the few at the top bring in revenue, but most don’t. Speculating on future revenue is not helpful.
If you’d read the links I shared, you’d see the revenue figures include alumni donations, and they’re still a net negative for the majority of schools.
Yeah, the few at the top bring in revenue, but most don’t. Speculating on future revenue is not helpful.
Not true? Even schools as low as 220 in that list are bringing in a profit, admittedly not as much, but if we only look at the schools that have the vastly overpaid coaches then we start only looking at the schools that are bringing in multiple millions of dollars a year. The usatoday numbers include contributions as well, and as the Princeton paper shows those donations increase with high performing teams (again the teams with overpaid coaches).
As for your articles, in your first link look at the schools that are actually taking money for athletics. These are all tiny schools, without a major cfb or m/wbb program to subsidize the rest of athletics. So again the schools with crazy overpaid coaches aren’t taking much tuition money (searching for the cfb bluebloods in that list shows most charge no money or somewhere in the range of 30 to 50 dollars annually, so covering your costs at the student rec center effectively).
For your second article, we’re only looking at P5 schools, not D1. This is good as it gives us a better look at the schools with overpaid coahces. But the number in the article is cherry picked. They are using generated revenue for that figure, not total revenue. If you follow their own link (ncaa.org/…/finances-of-intercollegiate-athletics-…) and look at the numbers for total net you’ll see P5 is bringing in on average 4.9 million and this is from the NCAA’s numbers themselves. Admittedly looking at the range you’ll find a P5 school losing 34 million last year. What’s important to note with these figures is that often P5 programs are jumping back and forth from red to black year over year as they continually expand facilities. And with there being only one football stadium per university, this mostly means upgrades to student athletic facilities/equipment or non revenue sport facilities/equipment.
Your last article seems to mostly be a pro NIL piece laying out why college athletes deserve to be paid. And for what it’s worth I think that you’re right here. Especially revenue earning teams should see some of that revenue go towards their athletes. Those young men and women are putting their bodies on the line for their respective universities and deserve compensation for that.
At the end of the day, I think it’s no coincidence that the schools with the overpaid coaches are bringing in more money than the schools that don’t put as much emphasis on athletics. And I totally believe that the presidents of these huge universities know better than either of us when it comes to running and funding their schools. Even if I believe that the money coaches earn is ridiculous. Also if you want to get really upset, look up how much Jimbo Fisher is getting paid to NOT coach at Texas A&M.
Title 9 is the definition of great idea but terrible execution. It has caused tons of men’s non revenue programs to fold in the past few decades. Notably, as a swimmer, the University of Iowa no longer has a men’s swim team, and they literally invented butterfly.
There’s really not a good solution. Non-revenue sports are always going to be facing cuts. If you limited to having similar sport offerings, then it’s probably only basketball, baseball/softball, and football/something that are offered, and even baseball is limited to a handful of universities.
If you limit scholarships like the current system, because football has so many scholarships, there needs to be 4-5 women’s sports to be balanced. If you add some rules to force offering a men’s team for each women’s team, then it’s a huge benefit for the men even if there aren’t scholarships available.
For the people who really value or benifit from the research like masters and Ph.D students the research is is the primary advertising. They are not mutually exclusive. Let the people who care about the team/sports have their thing. For a lot of people it could be their motivation for going there and getting an education.
I suspect it’s also so the rich assholes can pretend to be in touch with society by occasionally “getting the poor people eating experience” (at a premium of course). They emulate classic burger joints and diners while being ten times more expensive with none of the charm.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.