It was only mandatory so that teams wouldn’t feel like they were disadvantaged if a rival got breaks during games that crossed a set temperature limit and they did not. League game fixtures are so random that this would not be an advantage, but for a short cup tournament like this it could be a big tactical/performance advantage, especially in the knockout phase.
Yes that was the reason put forward, which is absolutely ridiculous if you think about it.
Some teams within the same group had to travel far more than others. Some played at noon in a California stadium shaped like a oven while others played later in cooler climates or in climate controlled stadiums. Some games had to be interrupted because of thunderstorms.
Yet the only measure they took for "fairness" happened to be the one that incidentally allowed them to make more money. Let's be honest for a second, a three minutes break amounts to a somewhat lengthy VAR or offside check, a slow corner kick, or an injured player getting escorted off the field.
If anything, it makes it _more_ unfair to make it mandatory everywhere. It's not an advantage, it's supposed to make up for a particularly hot/humid weather. Now your next opponent will have had the benefit of an extra 6 minutes break, without the disadvantage of having exerted themselves in a very hot weather.
Any talk of fairness when out of the window when FIFA decided to put their thumb on the scale and rescind Balogun's red card anyway.
That was merely the excuse given. Teams are already hugely disadvantaged by having to play in 30+°C when a rival gets to play in 20°C instead. Giving the team playing in better conditions a commercial break as well only adds to that unfairness.
Thanks for sharing. Didn’t know about this project. Have you used it yourself? I’ve only experimented with Scrypted for fun, but Frigate sounds like I could operate birdsong analysis without a separate BirdNET container.
I have Bird Classification enabled in the settings, but so far haven't seen any labelled (it's only been a few days). Similarly with Face Recognition, I've only seen false positives. It does reliably detect people though (300 tracked so far). I'll have to experiment with settings such as confidence score.
What do you mean specifically? These birdsong analyzers are sensitive enough that they do not rely on setting up a feeder. It’s obviously dependent on where you live, but in the Nordics, living outside city centres is good enough for both background noise and birdsong from nearby trees/parks/forests. Privacy matters aside, setting a mic up on a balcony or window is enough. Another solution is feeding data from a cheap security camera with a mic through wifi. This way the camera can stay outside in different weather, it’s not super close to you actual living area and splitting audio from the RTSP stream should be relatively easy to be analyzed by BirdNET.
Well I specifically meant having a bird feeder on a window or glass door for a chance to watch them live closely. That's why I put it as a side note ;)
You gave me few ideas for the analyzer setup too - thanks!
Yeah that’s definitely going to be messy. Based on your region, there should hopefully be generic security cams that can even work with a batter and solar. That combined with wifi if it can reach your house can hopefully steer the blast zone way further :D There’s a few TP-Link cameras on discount around 100€ that have 2k res. Feels a lot easier this way rather than taping together a weatherproof box for various components like the Pi and a mic. So far I’ve only used a plug-powered one since I have a IP-rated socket outside and the TP-link cam has a magnet for my wall. Hope you find a nice solution!
The easiest way to tell in Europe is that a woman who has never visited USA speaks in phrases or uses slang words that an African-American woman from Atlanta would use. African-American men and women probably have the largest global cultural effect based on the relative size of the community to the population of the world.
It’s quite infuriating that all those sites you mention have gone with the race to the bottom to just hook in users with garbage content.
Just last week, Youtube took even more steps in hiding your subscriptions homepage on iOS, and on desktop the shorts (content made for phones in portrait mode) is front and centre.
I think it is extremely simplistic to blame the nuclear transition's failed potential solely on them.
1. The fact that nuclear power has been quite safe so far does not mean that it would have been just as safe if its deployment would have rapidly spread.
2. Nuclear energy is unfortunately tightly coupled with nuclear weapons, as well as the treaties and geopolitics that were designed to keep them only in the hands of the few. Quite many late 1900s crises in Europe could have looked different if nuclear material was even more widespread than it was. I don't even wanna think about nations outside Europe that have been extremely unstable in the past and in recent history.
3. Seeing how intensely fossil fuel companies spread misinformation and disinformation about green technology and climate science, it's hardly a far-fetched idea that that same industry had a hand in helping policymakers steer away from an energy source that would unseat it from the throne.
I don't know Lessig's work, but that chain of thought sounds like a more narrowed down version of Langdon Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" (1) The way in which technology shapes our world varies greatly, and I like his writing concerning how nuclear technology shapes politics towards centralization of power.
There's probably nothing powerful in society than the wealthy elite. They have the power to slow down or stop technological change if it threatens their sources of continued wealth.
I’m worried that we will spend precious resources like oil on useless transport. I strongly believe that all of us who care deeply about the future of our civilization’s technological progress need to push for stronger limits on short fistance and low occupancy travel for air, land and sea.
Even if you are not alarmed about the environmental impact of flights as a share of global emissions, it’s no reason to spend our global oil reserves for useless travel. Airlines already optimize flights and routes, but the gap can be closed even further if we simply let go of the immediate convenience of booking flights.
reply