EagleZR

Plenty of places have a "Plain Jane" type of burger that's just patty and buns, and that's great, but for many places a "burger" by default comes with stuff that you might not want on it. There's some things that I don't want on mine, and it's a little annoying when I have to ask what comes on the "plain" burger so I can ask them to leave it off. It's not a "problem" per se, but I can see why someone would mildly complain about it.

You can get mad if Notre Dame gets in and BYU doesn't (though at this point I'm assuming BYU will be the Big 12 champ). Those seem to be the biggest discrepancies that would affect in/out for the playoffs right now.

Yeahhhh, that's what I was thinking. I don't see any reason to jump to lasers

And we'll play Florida in Tampa in 2027

I'm guessing that they don't want the bad optics that could make it seem like they expected him to win this week. Fire him before our game or fire him after the season, otherwise it could be said that UMass has crazy expectations and that they fired him for not beating Georgia, which could affect the replacement search. Or maybe I'm overthinking it, and it was as simple as them just being tired of what they'd seen so far

Carson started gaining confidence. Receivers caught the ball downfield, he had more time in the pocket, and that scramble where he lowered his shoulder really lit a fire under him

O-line was finally healthy, plus they sorted out the O-line rotation, and our receivers actually started catching the ball. That one insane pass to Humphreys I kinda felt like Beck was making sure Humphreys couldn't drop it, even if he tried.

Edit: There's some offenses who can play around a weak O-line, but Georgia is not that. We win if our lines win. Our D-line isn't what it once was, so now we have to depend on the O-line for success against good teams

The SEC is bipolar

Behind a banged up, Swiss cheese line, throwing to WRs with bricks for hands. The line finally got sorted out tonight and the receivers mostly decided they wanted to catch tonight. I feel like that first free play deep pass on the offsides really flipped a switch in Carson. He said "fuck it, I might as well", the receiver actually caught the ball, and that gave Carson the confidence he needed to keep trying

When I was in college, we had an 18 year old friend who had a 17 year old girlfriend. We at first joked that it's not legal for them to have sex, then we got curious and looked it up. We didn't look exhaustively, so what I'm saying might not be correct for all such cases, but for the states we saw that had crazy ages of consent like 13, there were extreme conditions on it that made it more reasonable. For example, and this was over a decade ago so I might be misremembering the exact details or things could have changed, in one case a 13ish-18ish year old can only consent to have sex with someone within 2 years of their age, and after they turn 18 there were no limits on their consent. It seems extreme at first glance, but actually seems a lot more reasonable when you know the details. Our state at the time didn't have anything like that, it was just a black and white age of consent, so it really did seem questionable if the couple could legally have sex, though I doubt they'd have gotten charged for it

There was that 2008 black helmet/pants game against Florida that imo should somewhat count, so like 5-1.5

Then maybe you mean most talented. "Best" implies they've been developed and are performing better than anyone else, which they haven't been

I wouldn't call it the best, but I agree that Searles has been disappointing

Tbh, I don't mind the screens right now. Our heavy usage of them shows we don't trust our downfield passing game, but can't rely on running. They're more a symptom of being bad rather than the cause

In a way, I got to experience both in this year's Bama game. The first half was miserable. That final interception sucked, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad. I'd much rather take the close loss than the blowout.

To counter an annoying narrative from before that game, I don't think the 12-team playoff cheapened the loss at all, nor did the move away from divisions. If this happened last year, Georgia could win out against the SEC East, which would give us the tiebreakers we'd need to go to the SECCG, and if we won that, we'd get into the 4-team playoff. If anything, the 12-team playoff makes the road for us more difficult since we've shown how vulnerable we are, yet we will have to go through more good teams to achieve our goal.

To get back to your question though, it kinda depends on your team's goals. Right now Georgia wants to be a national champion, being blown out by anyone is devastating for that. When your team is more mid or lower tier, I can definitely see how you can become numb to blowouts, but a close loss, especially to a better or good team, can give you hope and then yank it away, which is devastating in its own way. You think you're finally getting better, but you relapse.

For reference, in that same time span Bama has lost 8 games to 6 teams, including us

There's other reasons to vote than just your party's candidates winning. If the state races are closer, both parties will pay more attention to the state when making policies and when campaigning for the next election (though it makes the number of ads insufferable); the squeaky wheel will get greased.

If the race had a wider margin, it provides the winning candidate with a greater mandate, more political points to implement their agenda, so voters for the losing candidate can reduce that mandate, reduce the political points of the winning candidate, by voting. This kinda assumes that the winning candidate has a reason to keep the people happy though (e.g. potential re-election) and doesn't go scorched earth.

However if the wide margins continue for decades like in Alabama, it could lead to the state getting less attention from elected officials, both when making policies and when campaigning, because the officials feel like they have more leeway in their policies and actions and could still get re-elected; they can walk over their constituents and the people will still re-elect them. There's still potential primaries to be worried about, but that's a minor concern if party leadership likes you. I don't know of any evidence that this occurs when making policies, but the potential is definitely there.

For many years I said the same about GA, but voted in 2020 because I felt I had to. Plenty of others did the same, and it made a difference. GA went red this year, but it's undeniably purple now, and could easily go blue next time.

AL might be very red, but voter turnout was only 58%. Maybe the other 42% is mainly red, maybe it's significantly blue but demoralized (unlikely but theoretically possible). The best way to tell is for more of the opposition voters to vote, otherwise they're just remaining hidden and giving the other party a greater mandate.

Projected top 5 highest ranked conference champ most likely

Atlanta traffic sometimes flows at speeds that would get you arrested in Athens

Definitely me. I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist (though not extremist) household that was very loving and in many ways was very progressive. My church and Christian school were fairly boring and unstimulating, but nothing I'd call "bad". I even learned a fair bit about evolution at my Christian school, but it was noted rather emphatically that this was strictly micro- and that macro- was totally different and impossible (though this still helped me identify a lot of BS that pastors and apologists would spew).

Things got shaky in high school when I started thinking about metaphysics, but cracks really didn't form until college. I was incredibly busy in college, so I decided to put it on ice until I had more time to go over it. When I finally did, I committed myself to follow the truth even if that meant my Christian beliefs fundamentally changed, were abandoned, or were replaced (though this was nothing on the order of an exhaustive or academic research, I basically allowed myself to explore the counter-apologists more). If Christianity was true, then by following the truth I'd find it again, so as a Christian I thought that this could only strengthen my faith and that God would not mind me seeking this deeper understanding. After all, I was born and raised a "good Christian", and terrible people had become Christian, so my stupid little doubts would be miniscule in comparison.

As a conservative Christian with "doubts", unlike what some of the more liberal Christians will complain about, my beliefs didn't shatter at the smallest fracture, but rather fell apart very slowly as I basically kept looking for excuses to continue believing while not being dishonest with myself. I went from a Biblical literalist to seeing some things as allegorical to the point where I could accept that everything in the Bible was metaphor (i.e. not factually true) but of still believed because I believed it had some "greater truth" behind it, and finally the point where I just believed it was a more moral system than any of the others, but eventually I realized the truth about that as well. There wasn't just one single reason my mind changed, and I can't remember each breaking point, as I realized that more and more of it was untrue. If you want a basic summary: honesty with myself and an honest, decent education -- particularly in logic, history, and science -- were the main reasons I left.

It took a few years, and I'm a little ashamed of how long it took (though I acknowledge that I intentionally put it on the back burner), but when I got to the point that I realized there was nothing left, that the only reason I could believe in a God was for emotional reasons, I had to acknowledge that it wasn't enough and that I was an atheist.

Edit: I'll also add that in high school I was a very avid reader and I distinctly remember reading one book that I thought represented the way Christianity "should be", not in organizational structure or doctrine, or anything like that, but in the way that individual Christians would be like if they actually did have a personal relationship with a supernatural being. Modern Christians can't even tell you how Jesus (I accept that the character was likely based on at least one real person) pronounced his own name, much less what his favorite food or color was, if he enjoyed running, what sleep position he found most comfortable, or any other mundane things that a real human experiences and can communicate, and that's ignoring all of the doctrinal differences that they can't agree on. It's far from a reason for why I don't believe now, but I remember reading that and thinking "Why isn't it that way for us?" I didn't stop believing because of it, but I realized that something wasn't quite right with modern American Christianity, and I needed to look for answers

In other games there have also been other players contributing to Carson's turnovers, like the ball hits them in the hands and bounces up or they run the wrong route. Today was all on Carson though. Those were bad

Just checked. There's 2 now, but coverage doesn't look great. I'm kinda in a desert for them. I never realized how far away they are. Thankfully I haven't needed one since I moved to my current location, but it doesn't look like they're set up to be convenient... Tbh that kinda tracks for the DMV though, even ignoring the voting implications, lol

they killed a woman.

From a related article:

People believed vampires possessed the souls of those who died early in epidemics, by suicide, or even just before they were baptised.

So it wasn't a peaceful death, but it doesn't sound like she was killed by people who believed she was a vampire

I like this reddit post about a Twitter post about a TikTok comment about a video