Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon
0
  • It disincentives tanking because you'll be stuck in a harder conference by the time you get a new franchise player through the lottery

  • it solves the problem where the wcf are the real finals

  • it makes it harder to get repeat championships

Who says no?

0
14 comments

I don't see how it would be harder to repeat championships. Say the Warriors win it this year, now they're in the East with an easier road to the finals.

see more
Original Poster-1 points · 4 hours ago · edited 4 hours ago

It'd be more geared toward Lebron going to the finals 8 years in a row. I'd argue the warriors are an anomaly (2 MVPs, 5 current all stars). But even with the warriors they'd have to face match ups they'll be able to avoid their entire finals run (e.g. philly and boston).

Yeah but that wouldnt really be solving any problems. It would just create a flip flopping in power every season with the other league slowly growing in strength and then it repeats. And not like the Warriors are banking on avoiding matchups lol

see more
Original Poster0 points · 56 minutes ago

Yeah but that wouldnt really be solving any problems

It removes a bottleneck for a lot of teams that should be in the finals by alternating the top team each year. (e.g. Houston v. Warriors was the real finals last year)

It also makes the road to the finals for repeat championship contenders different each year. So the champion has to compete against teams with different personnel, which they may never get a chance to play a series against. For example, Warriors v. Philly. A versatile big like Embiid is exactly the kind of player that would prevent Warriors from going small with Dray at center. But the only dominant big man the warriors can get matched up against in the west is AD.

If you think tanking is a problem then this disincentivizes teams from playing below their capabilities. Would philly have continued to tank for Fultz if they risked being placed in the western conference?

If it disincentivizes tanking and makes the road to the finals new every year that sounds like it would be good for the league.

It would just create a flip flopping in power every season with the other league slowly growing in strength and then it repeats.

It helps the worst teams get the highest draft picks b/c if they're truly the worst they'll continue to bottom out, and if they're not the worst they'll rise through standings once switched to another conference. The turn over between conferences would improve competitive balance.

I don't see an issue with flip flopping if it's just playoff seeding and establishes competitive balance/reduces bottleneck teams.

And not like the Warriors are banking on avoiding matchups lol

Definitely not, but it gets old when you can predict Warriors v. Cavs Finals before the season starts. If it was Warriors vs. Western Conference Team that would have been more interesting last year. And it would have been a new path to the finals for the warriors as well. For example, last year the warriors would have played Milwaukee, then Philly, then Cleveland, then Houston.

It also would have been more fun/better basketball to watch the nuggets in the playoffs as an 8th seed in the west instead of the wizards as an 8th seed in the east. Moving the championship team to the other conference for the playoffs would produce better basketball for viewers.

Load more comments

He's trying to use their disproportionate financial means as leverage to dominate and control her. That doesn't mean he's cheating.

see more
-12 points · 14 days ago

How does keeping separate financials act as a means of controlling her?

Assuming this question is in good faith...

Because he has so much more money than her (and is kind of implied to be older than she is, or at least that the relationship started when she was quite young and she likely has never had any other adult romantic relationships), there's inherently a power imbalance. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and people from different economic standings, high sweethearts, and people with age gaps get married all the time.

However, with this pre-nup, what he's trying to do is say "this is my life, and I just allow you to live in it." Because, realistically speaking, everything is going to be purchased with his money. For example, a guy who is worth millions isn't going to want to live in the kind of places a teacher can afford. So when they buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood, it will be bought with his money, and it will therefore be his house. And since he's trying to specify that "all increases in value to his assets remain his," that includes the house, which screws her out of equity. If they break up, that leaves her homeless. They aren't going to want to decorate their mansion with Ikea furniture, so none of that will be hers, either. A guy with a 300k salary and a net worth in the tens of millions isn't going to want his wife to be seen driving a used Toyota Corolla and wearing Old Navy clothes, because that reflects badly on him. But when they break up, that means that her car and the literal clothes on her back are his.

Of course, she can do her best to contribute to this lifestyle, and then try to argue that some portion of it belongs to her. But if their finances are really completely separate, that means she likely won't have any savings of her own. So, if they break up, how is she going to afford a good enough divorce attorney to go up against the best attorneys that his millions can buy?

And, moving into speculation, a guy like this will probably want her to stay home with their kids, once they have kids. After all, her $50k/year means nothing compared to his millions, and they'd pay that much for "child of a millionaire-quality" childcare anyway. I'm speculating here, but that's not an unlikely outcome. LA has seen several cases just like that, where high-earning guys expected their lower-earning wives to stay home for their children, and then tried to screw them into poverty during a divorce.

Overall, it leads to a situation where she basically can't leave him, or she loses everything. But since he can leave at any time with no consequences, which will still cost her everything, she feels like she has to go above and beyond to "please" him or convince him to stay. Even if it's not explicitly stated, that fear will always be in the back of her mind. If she doesn't want to have sex tonight, and he does, she might think "if I don't please him sexually, he'll leave me.," and do it anyway. If he did something fucked up and she's mad at him, she might thing, "if I start a fight, he might leave me," and never address it. He has a blank check to behave however he wants, do whatever he wants, and get whatever he wants in this marriage, and she just has to put up with it. And he can still just decide he doesn't want her anymore and leave her with almost nothing.

And sure, he's offering $50k/yr for every year they were married as "compensation for her work around the house," which means she wouldn't necessarily be left with literally nothing. But, to me, that's the sketchiest part. That's the part that proves that he really does just see it as his life that she's allowed to be part of. Furthermore, that part suggests to me that he will want her to stay home with the kids, because it's about equivalent to what teachers make. And if she's not working, what are they doing about her retirement? Maybe she has an IRA or something, but any money being paid into it is also his money. Is he going to expect that back? What about student loan payments? If he made those payments for her, is he going to deduct that from the $50k/yr he is so generously offering?

Even if he doesn't intend to take her for everything, what he has done here is create a situation where not leaving her destitute is a kindness, a concession, something he can choose to do or not do, based on whether or not he feels like she deserves it. If the divorce is amicable, fine. It's still a screwy situation, but she still comes out of it better than a lot of people who didn't marry millionaires. If it isn't, it could be really bad for her.

see more

It was in good faith. Thanks for the reply!

He was also fucking exhausted by the fourth. Credit to Curry, but let's be real.

adding that a longer waiting period would strain the amount of limited bed space at the government’s detention centers and cost taxpayers $319 per day for each detained family member.

Uhm, how about not throwing people into detention centers for a misdemeanor? That would save taxpayers a lot more money. It seems when it comes to being cruel, the GOP has no problems with wasting money.

see more

What's your solution?

Let's be real. He wanted to go to the Warriors. So he took less than what NOLA was offering (2 years $40 million).

It's not like other teams wouldn't have picked him up for the mid-level. He just wasn't entertaining offers for the mid-level from teams other than the warriors. If he wasn't coming off an injury with a terrible track record and was a known problematic personality there certainly would have been more aggressive free agency offers.

You guys have the benefit of being able to handle the regular season without him. He probably won't be back until February. And you guys are guaranteed lock to go deep into the playoffs, which he is known to be sensitive about not being able to do on his own. So he took a pay cut to come play with you all.

I commend you all for making the warriors such an attractive team in free agency, but this wasn't the result of an oversight from other teams. Draymond going in the second round is an oversight. This is a willful desire to play for the Warriors.

Those damn Hollywood liberals who pulled this interview shit on democrats as well, except none of them pulled their pants down and screamed the N word.

What the fuck happened to personal responsibility? It was a cornerstone of the conservative movement?

see more

what democrats has he pulled this on?

Not sure if you'd count him as a Democrat, but he tried to prank Bernie, and Bernie handled it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-gjf4WnkiI

see more

This was really funny. I'm glad he's giving it to both sides. I would consider him a democrat. I'm a bit skeptical as to how they got a sit down with bernie without him knowing it was SBC, but it was entertaining none the less.

He tells me this is a normal part of being in an adult relationship

Ask him to find one other married couple where one spouse sleeps at their ex's house regularly.

Score hidden · 26 days ago

Doesn't NY have a one-party consent law when it comes to taping conversations? Assuming Cohen, who was making the taping, consented at the time and the taping took place in NY, where is the illegal act?

see more
Score hidden · 25 days ago · edited 24 days ago

He recorded a conversation between himself (lawyer) and Trump (client) in his professional capacity. Only client's can break attorney client privilege. This will likely be inadmissible in court.

If this were admissible in court, then attorney client privilege is pretty much nonexistent so long as you can secretly record your client. To demonstrate how absurd that is let's do an example. If I murder someone then go to a lawyer who records our meeting, then the police can raid the lawyers office and use the recording to lock me up.

By preventing me from being able to freely discuss the circumstances of my case with my lawyer I'm denied adequate representation. I'm essentially denied my right to plead the fifth because I had an honest discussion with my lawyer.

E: So I'll just reply here since the four replies are essentially saying the same thing. Discussing plans of an ongoing crime are illegal and Cohen would be allowed to break privilege in that instance. From what I understand the tape is just discussing mediums of payment to the playboy mistress. Infidelity isn't a crime from my perspective. It just makes Trump a shitty person/partner.

Why can't I watch the chris rock show on hbogo? Who has the rights to this?

If people want to get a sex change surgery to feel more comfortable with their gender identity good on them. I wish them the best of luck.

I think it's wrong to not tell potential partners you're transgender though. The reason for this is that the person they want to sleep with has a gender identity/sexual orientation of their own and for you to make them unwittingly violate their own sexual identity to validate yours is wrong to me.

I shouldn't disrespect your self designation and you shouldn't disrespect mine. If they are in conflict, then I think it's better to give all available information so everyone can decide what is best for themselves. Besides, why would you want to sleep with someone who doesn't accept you for your authentic self?

104 points · 1 month ago

What would be the equivalent of JR forgot the score in Fortnite

see more

Shooting out a build off base that has 3 of your teammates on it.

4

It's not even people I'm playing with. I'm just getting entirely one way audio transmitted into my lobby and it's continuing into games. I can't hear my teammates in squad because random people's audio is getting piped in. I'm not in a party. I'm very confused.

4
2 comments
15 points · 1 month ago

in terms of rhetoric he is harder on european allies

in terms of actual policy is he is harder on russia

-3 points · 1 month ago

Could a young child effectively represent themself?

probably not.

What benefit would be derived from providing all minors legal representation throughout immigration proceedings, and what would the likely cost be?

Benefit/Cost from whose perspective? From the US, the benefit is we possibly speed up the court process, and the cost is increasing the financial costs of putting illegal immigrants through the court process.

How many children are likely incorrectly deported due to an incorrectly presented case?

Zero US citizens have been incorrectly deported. We don't have an obligation to let foreign citizens into the country. It's possible some children could have avoided deportation with better representation, but they're not entitled to a lawyer.

Are there any laws or protocols this policy could be breaking?

I don't think so. Maybe internationally, but no US law that I know of.

The second source mentions a couple of lawsuits that have been rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Do these have any merit?

Do the rejections have merit? Or does the initial lawsuit which was said to not have jursidiction have merit?

Zero US citizens have been incorrectly deported

This is objectively untrue They literally had to pay a settlement for running a goddamn 4 year old through immigration court and deporting her.

see more

Thanks for the article. Some interesting take aways...

"Palma is a citizen through his maternal grandfather"

The claim to citizenship, which kept him in the country was that his mother's father was a citizen, which he wasn't even aware of until the lawyer tracked his family history.

"you can be a US citizen and not even know you're a US citizen, and abandon claims to be in the United States"

I think it's ridiculous that people are unwittingly following the law (as citizens) when they think they're illegals. Palma is considered a citizen if he can find any ancestor who was a US citizen because of citizenship through "acquisition". If the 4000 people referenced had a claim similar to Palma their citizenship is speculative. Without proof they're not citizens, and Palma was not deported once his lawyer was able to find a direct ancestor who was a US citizen.

Load more comments

i dont get it, what do they mean payroll? they (dennis and mom) got paid for what?

see more

To circumvent the salary cap. It's just a ploy to extract more money from the organization because they know the Spurs want to keep Kawhi.

AD for Klay+Dray

  1. search google/yelp for local dentists
  2. call to schedule an appointment.
  3. Say..."hi [receptionist's name], my name is Jordan. I'm calling to schedule a cleaning and get a cavity checked out. I'd be a new patient, and would be paying out of pocket. Would you have any availability to come in this week?"
  4. show up like 15 minutes early for your appointment to fill out paperwork.

Hope your tooth feels better soon!

[deleted]
0 points · 1 month ago

Lol reality is that providers are overpaid, which is why their reimbursements drop substantially when private or public payers have market power in the areas they serve; this is basic economics, which normally don't apply in health care, so you should appreciate it when it does.

No one is legally obligated to see you.

lol, legally obligated to pay back the debts on their MRI machines and labor-training.

That's the beauty-- we don't need govt to interfere here. Providers have been cultivating their monopolies for years, so it's just a matter of consolidating covered lives under one payer that docs now need to negotiate with.

see more

That's when doctors shift to cash only practices. We're not going to agree on this. Think what you want.

[deleted]
0 points · 1 month ago

Hey, dumb ass,

What prices do you think physicians in private practices will be able to charge patients who don't receive care financing?

Congrats, mate. Your solutions lowers provider reimbursements way more than aggressive network strategies would.

see more

Yes doctors will work for your pocket change. Your logic is flawless. Providers will bend to your pricing model because you can't afford to pay theirs.

Load more comments

u/sbaker93
Karma
7,027
Cake day
August 7, 2012
Moderator of these communities
r/thibullwolves

1 subscriber

Trophy Case (2)
Six-Year Club

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.