nobody

All I'm saying is I trust my evaluation over the draft pundits. Steve Smith and Chris Simms were the only people that seem to get it right on a regular basis.

You don't seem like the Jonsey I remember. The Jonsey I remember wouldn't try to hide. Style is off. You post more like oldmaid. Jonsey I remember was confident. You post like someone trying to look confident.

That's what I do too, but I didn't have 150% return since this thread started. Plus I have a self directed IRA that outperformed the S&P thanks to nvda.

The history of big men after age 34 isn't great, so I doubt AD will be a good return on investment, but based on all the overreactions by the media, I'm starting to think Luka won't be great for the Lakers either. Whenever the media gets like this where it's like they feed off each other with stronger and stronger reactions that come off as more emotional than quantitative, they usually are wrong, and no one wants to speak up on the other side for fear of being on the wrong side of the cool kids who's main point is, "omg, I can't believe how stupid this is!" Luka doesn't play defense. He doesn't stay in shape. He's not always a great teammate. The narrative that none of that matters and you should mortgage your franchise to have him on your roster at any and all costs isn't necessarily correct. He can easily turn into a James Harden where he's a great player and certainly a star, but the type of guy that you can't win a championship with and kind of holds your franchise hostage.

He didn't willingly overpay for twitter. He made an offer he tried to back out of but courts ruled was binding. Then he flooded the market with TSLA stock to recoup his twitter investment at the cost of TSLA shareholders. Then he used the Twitter platform to help get Trump elected and gain power for himself in the process.

I was curious about that, too, since I would love to have a larger retirement. I even start typing out questions. Then I remembered that this is the internet and that is probably complete horseshìt.

I will say the more I hear pundits trying to match and top each other's expressions of dismay and disgust, the more I think maybe this will work out for the Mavs. The media seems to be in a feedback cycle of more and more hyperbole around this thing.

I agree with this concern. Elon is a dangerous person. He's brilliant, but first and foremost Elon cares about Elon first. And he's also a player in the government contract space with SpaceX, so this information in his hands might constitute a conflict of interest.

The covidians want you to forget what they did because they "tried their best."

The history with Lebron suggests next year would be the great year. I'm going by the fact that it took a year for Wade, Bosh and Bron to win. Cleveland stint II and the Lakers. Always seems to fall short of expectations that first ride.

That's the problem with these types of players. If you're the Mavs, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they keep him and give him the super max, he never gets motivated to get in shape and wreak holy havoc, so they'll always have this guy who is 85% of what he could be and never quite be able to get over the hump. And then if they do trade him, now he's p¡ssed off and will be motivated to get in shape... for a year at least. That being said, the return on this trade is putrid. Even if he's a problem child with suspect motivation, the model for a trade like this should've been at least as good as what KD was fetching on the trade market a few years ago. The Mavs should've came away with pretty much every non-Lebron asset the Lakers had.

Also, if it comes to a tit-for-tat trade war, we would annihilate China, Mexico and Canada. Mexico especially would be focked. 42% of their GDP is exports. China and Canada around 25%. US exports as a percentage of GDP? 11%... mostly oil. oh noes... what are we going to do if they decide to retaliate. Grow some balls, people.

I think way too much hand wringing is happening over these tariffs. Even if they become a real problem, it's extremely fixable. They can get rid of them just as easily as they got put in place. This is no different than when OPEC manipulates oil prices and we all pay more for gas, and then when election season comes around, oil prices magically drop. By the way, get ready for gas prices to go nuts again this summer.

I called Nabers over Marvin Harrison around this time last year when all the pundits were calling MHJ a generational talent. Doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to be right. But I sure as hell wouldn't trust the draft touts either. Just saying.

I always thought they tariffed Canada and Mexico because they know companies will run Chinese goods through shell companies in those countries. Import it from China to Canada. Slap some new packing and paperwork on it and ship it the US.

The New Mexico game was fake separation. All on comeback routes and running through zones against accountants.

Friggin apple ... the finally started giving them credit for their web services.

Apple will go down. It almost always does. They'll beat on revenue and profit, but someone will find a 0.2% decline in sales in China or something, and it'll take the stock down 2-5%. I'm sure there will be words about how China is subsidizing Chinese made phones over Apple as well. And then, of course, the stock will make up what they lose and then some over the quarter. The only time they don't go down on earnings is when they announce huge buy backs and also beat on the top and bottom line like they always do.

NVDA is a bit of an interesting case. On one hand it's priced for exceptional growth, so any threat to that should be taken seriously, but I would make a case that the DeepSeek situation is a neutral and maybe even good thing for NVDA. The thesis is that DeepSeek has made training AI more efficient. Therefore, less high powered chips will be necessary. For our purposes, let's assume they aren't lying about the results, and let's ignore the fact that they trained their AI using models that were previously trained from large compute clusters, so there is a question on if that is always possible. If training AI models becomes more efficient, I would propose that it would lead to larger demand in chips not less. A large barrier to entry for AI development is the up front cost of compute clusters. Now most companies solve this by renting computing clusters from the big players, but if compute power becomes more efficient, more companies will start to invest in their own clusters as the cost to buy and setup infrastructure for 10,000 chips might be a reasonable ROI vs the same costs for 100,000 chips. It's a pretty standard economic phenomenon. Making something more efficient doesn't lower demand. It raises it.

The coaching even at the NFL level isn't overly impressive to me. I think that's why people who are competent look like geniuses because there are a lot of coaches out there who are just do-what-we-always-do guys. Think Jeff Fisher, Nagy when he was coaching the bears saying they didn't bring him in to run the ball which was bunk coaching. They brought you into win games however you need to. Hue Jackson who just has the most obvious and readable schemes ever. a lot of these genius moves are obvious to anyone who played video games. Belichick got credit for deferring receiving the kickoff to the second half like it was some genius idea. I was advocating for that for 20 years just from playing Madden. Take McVay for instance. He might actually be a genius for all I know, but what was his big innovation? He disguised his plays by not giving them away pre-snap from the formation. Seriously? We were doing that all the way back in Tecmo Bowl. Or using pre-snap motion to help diagnose the defense. I was doing that in NCAA football 2005. Or McDaniels in Miami getting credit for having his speedsters get a running start parallel to the line at the snap to free them from getting jammed. Wow, what an amazing innovation! They finally started getting rid of fade routes at the goal line which I've been saying for 25 years are stupid plays. They only work like 12% of the time. Or Shannihan taking time to understand what the keys are on the opposing defense so he can design plays to take advantage of their rules. When I heard that I was like, "wait, you mean they haven't already been doing that? WTF?" Tush push - oh, let's take our 240 pound qb and push him forward when we need a yard. Like yeah, no sh¡t. Why haven't people been doing that? And why aren't more teams doing it, and why are more teams not training a fullback or TE to do it to save the wear and tear on the QB? When they moved the kickoff up under the old rules, I always thought, "why aren't they kicking it high and making it land at the 1?" At least Belichick started doing it and they started getting better field position and he'd pull it out on special situations with great success. Announcers were amazed that someone could think of that. Belichick again did something that was obvious that everyone fell all over themselves for. I never understood why defenses used their number 1 CB in bracket coverage. You have two guys in bracket coverage. Do you really need one of them to be an elite cover guy when you have two guys? No. So bracket them with your 2nd corner and another DB. Belichick understood this obvious thing, and implemented it, and was labeled a gneius for it. Peyton Manning basically calling the offense at the line of scrimmage. What a novel concept. See what the defense is doing and call a play that exploits it. He did it extrememly well, but why is Manning one of the only QBs that has done that to the degree he did it over all these years. Wade Phillips was great at what I call linking the front seven to the coverage. This is obvious, but I never understnad why DBs give big cushions when a defense is bringing pressure unless it's 3rd and long and you have plenty of room to tackle short of the first down. The whole point of pressure is you're getting to the QB quickly, so your DBs need to understand that and play tighter. You don't have to worry about double moves or long developing routes because your pressure is going to make the QB have to throw quickly, but you'd be surprised at how many defenses sit back in soft coverage while blitzing giving away a free 6 yards on a slant when it's second and ten. We think of the NFL as the optimized league, but in reality, it's just a bunch of guys doing stuff, but it's not really as complex as folks would have you believe. And college? in college, it's leaps and bounds less sophisticated. I'd say the most innovative coaching I'm aware of (I say that because I'm sure there is plenty I haven't noticed): Belichick - "read the rulebook" game - in the super bowl run in the playoffs when he came up with the exotic formations in which Baltimore got confused on who were the eligible receivers. He saved it for when they needed it, and he pulled it out right when he needed it. That got them a Super Bowl they wouldn't have won if he was out sick that day. Lebeau - Zone blitz - I know it was probably invented in some high school somewhere, but I'm giving LeBeau credit for bringing it to the NFL. This to me was a real innovation. He saw that the caliber of athlete was getting better and adjusted the scheme to take advantage of it. It confused offenses for several years before they finally caught up, and I don't think it was obvious to drop linemen in coverage while bringing LBs in as the 4th rusher counting on them getting enough pressure quickly so the defensive end isn't out there for too long. Belichick again - scheming up a two tightend offense with two extremely versatile tightends allowing them to adjust the play in real time to be a spread look if the defense went heavy or they could squeeze in and pound it if the defense tried to play coverage. Then of course there are things like the read/option, run/pass option that I don't even know who pioneered, but it was at least clever.

It probably is a good time to get into NVDA. They got caught up in the sell-off, but guess what chips DeepSeek used? It's like selling the picks and shovels provider because someone found a new vein of gold somewhere.

I'm for having fair deals in place with South America. Fair deals. It made sense to tilt it in their favor when we were in the middle of hot and cold wars. The time for charity must end at some point, and there is plenty of room to suckle on the US tit before they decide to join China. We don't have to just open up and get shafted so they'll be our "ally," and we don't need them loving us in order for them not to run into the arms of China. We just need to give them a better deal than China, and unlike the US, China expects ROI, so we have plenty of room to renegotiate the relationship.

Yep. Everything a nation does should be to advance the prosperity of that nation. Every other country gets that. However, the United States seems to think that just giving away stuff for free and getting nothing in return but likes is good foreign policy. I get the concept. Have them rely on the US so they don't rely on China and Russia, but these countries are all double dealing jackballs that are going to shank us the first chance they get either way.

Aren't the Arabica beans what Starbucks use?

Trump should tell them we're going to put a tariff on all the coke they smuggle abroad.