Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'we are going to win'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Sports
    • Football
    • Basketball
    • Baseball
    • Other Sports
    • 🤫$9.95🤫
    • Gambling
  • Entertainment
    • Movies and TV
    • Music
    • Hobbies
    • Lulz
    • Food and Travel
  • News & Business
    • Daily Texan
    • Cloak Room
    • 6th Street Journal
    • You Can't Sit With US
  • Other
    • Can You Help Me With This?
    • Best Buy Coupons
    • Please do this better?
    • Surly 1%
    • Purgatory

Product Groups

  • Big Donor Area
  • Buy TreeFiddy for a friend
  • Burnt Ends
    • Merch
  • Surly Horns NIL Slush Fund
  • Tailgate Donation + Payments

Categories

  • Firings
  • 2020 Hires
  • 2020 Season
  • 2021 Season
  • 2022 Season
  • 2023 Season

Categories

  • Movies and TV
  • Music
  • Hobbies
    • Video Games
  • Lulz

Categories

  • Basketball
  • Baseball
  • Other Sports
    • Futbol
  • Gambling

Categories

  • Daily Texan
  • 6th Street Journal

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


  1. Alright, Texas is playing for its 900th program win this Saturday at DKR against USC. Currently, Texas is 3rd on the list of all-time wins in college football, with Ohio State ahead of us at 900. We might not be competing for championships this year, but Texas sure as hell can solidify its position in the record books as one of the most successful programs in the history of college football. There is most definitely something to root for here on Saturday when the 'Horns take the field. Tom Herman is not bigger than the program (Mack thought he got close but destroyed any notion of that in his last 4 years) and we still need to win regardless of who's at the helm. We are going to win
  2. I sent in a ticket to MGM back in mid April, got the receipt that they had received it on the 17th I think, but still haven’t received the payment. Is this normal? Eight weeks seems like a pretty long time to send a check.
  3. Pretty sure that was the 200th Texas win vs prior & current SEC. Prior defined as wins during their SEC existence. GTech & Tulane being the priors. Overall 200-91 if my data sources are accurate. 68.7%. Texas needs to continue scheduling OOC with these clowns.
  4. I'm not a religious man. On the contrary, I hate religion. I think it does much more harm than it does good. Religion is made by man, governed by man, and judged by man. It's a set of codified rules set forth by old dudes, nothing more, nothing less. If I belong to any religion, it's a simple religion which has one tenet. Don't be a dick. Everything takes care of itself after that. Anyway, I see this as a good thing. Less religion, hopefully more spirituality. https://time.com/5951008/american-church-decline-religion-poll/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=u.s._religion&linkId=114879151&utm_source=reddit.com Poll: Fewer Than Half of American Adults Now Belong to a House of Worship BY MADELEINE CARLISLE MARCH 29, 2021 8:19 PM EDT For the first time in over 80 years of surveys on the subject, new Gallup data analysis released March 29 found that just 47% of American adults said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque in 2020—the first time that fewer than half of respondents reported membership at such houses of worship. Gallup has documented a decline for decades, with particularly steep drops apparent in recent years. When the analytics company first asked about church, synagogue or mosque membership in 1937, 73% of respondents said they belonged to one. (Gallup’s question does not explicitly include other faith centers, such as Buddhist, Sikh or Hindu temples or meeting houses.) That percentage stayed around the same until the turn of the century; in 1999, 70% of U.S. adults still said they belonged to one of the three. But, based on annual aggregated data from two surveys Gallup asks each year, by the mid-2000s it had dropped to around 60% and by 2018 it was 50%. GALLUP “A big part of this story is generational differences,” says Mark Chaves, a sociologist of religion at Duke Divinity School and the author of American Religion: Contemporary Trends, explaining that studies have found that “each generation is a little less religious than the generation before.” “It’s not like today’s young people are particularly unreligious,” he continues; Gallup’s latest findings are that 66% of adults born before 1946 say they belong to a church, while 58% of Baby Boomers, 50% of Generation X and just 36% of millennials said they belong to one. “Their parents were less religious than their grandparents… it’s a longer term generational replacement that’s driving these longer term trends.” Gallup found that the decline in membership is “primarily a function of the increasing number of Americans who express no religious preference.” Between 1998 and 2000, an average of 8% of Americans say they did not identify with any religion, per the company’s biannual surveys of U.S. religious attitudes and practices, according to a three-year aggregate of Gallup’s survey data. Just twenty years later, between 2018 and 2020, that figure had risen to 21%. But Gallup has also seen a decline in house of worship attendance among Americans who do identify with having a religious preference. Between 1998 and 2000, an average of 73% of Americans who identified as religious said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque. Between 2018 and 2020, an average of just 60% of religious Americans said the same. Read more: ‘It’s Like a Lifeline.’ How Religious Leaders Are Helping People Stay Connected in a Time of Isolation Many places of worship across the U.S. have been closed for over a year as the country contended—and continues to contend—with the COVID-19 pandemic. But Chaves says he thinks it’s “too early to tell” if the pandemic has played a role in the decline in house of worship participation. Jennifer Herdt, a professor of Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School, adds that she’s heard stories of the pandemic bringing some people back towards worship, either because of the ease of a virtual service or the need for a support system and a sense of community. Herdt adds that while the decline in particular religious affiliations could be viewed in some ways as younger people turning away from institutions, it could also suggest a greater openness towards other faiths and world views—and a curiosity towards others’ beliefs. “I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, even from the perspective of a religious person,” she continues. “That openness is what many of the world’s religions teach: that we should be caring and loving of all others regardless of their religious commitments.”
  5. Honest question and not trying to melt any snowflakes ... it feels like for the past 40 years football on the 40 Acres has underperformed given its tradition, financial resources, and natural advantages. Legendary program, great city, richest athletic department, finest facilities, and the flagship university in the nation's most football crazy state. Does't it feel like we should be in contention for a national championship every year? Take ousux ... yeah it does ... but every one of us would swap the past 40-year on-the field performance with those assclowns. I bang my head against the wall constantly trying to glean why we are not better year in and year out. Is it no cheating? Academic expectations? It is not like we have Jerry Jones running the show.
  6. You are here: Home / Learfield IMG College Directors' Cup News / The University of Texas Takes Home the Crown The University of Texas Takes Home the Crown July 2, 2021 by Jennifer Duncan Filed under Learfield IMG College Directors' Cup News Leave a Comment CLEVELAND (July 2, 2021) – For just the second time in Learfield IMG College Directors’ Cup history, an institution other than Stanford University sits atop the standings at the end of a season, with the 2020-21 Cup heading to Austin for The University of Texas. The Longhorns took home three national championships – men’s swimming and diving and both women’s rowing and women’s tennis – and a runner-up finish in women’s volleyball. Texas took home the title with 1252 total points. In the 28-year history of the Cup, Texas has finished second overall three times prior to its Cup win this year, including 19 top-10 finishes in the final standings. The Longhorns scored in all four mandatory sports – women’s volleyball and basketball and men’s basketball and baseball – and 13 out of the 15 additional sports. The Stanford Cardinal finished second overall with 1195.75 points with a pair of national championships in women’s basketball, and men’s gymnastics. The Cardinal tallied scores in 17 total sports, including two of the four mandatory sports, women’s basketball and baseball. Stanford finished second with 1195.75 points. Third and fourth place finishers, Michigan and North Carolina, were separated by just .25 points, 1126.50-1126.25. The Wolverines took home the women’s gymnastics national championship, along with 10 top-10 showings across the 18 sports that they scored in. North Carolina took home the field hockey national title and recorded five top-three finishes – men’s and women’s soccer, men’s and women’s lacrosse and women’s tennis. Rounding out the top five is Florida with 1121.75 points. The Gators won the men’s tennis title and had six additional top-five finishes – women’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics, men’s swimming and diving, men’s indoor and outdoor track & field and women’s lacrosse,
  7. No thread yet? Post your vids and gifs here. I'm sure this Eagles game could fill up the whole thread.
  8. Notice anything missing? Soon it will be more and more obvious, but Google has been doing the same data mining and censorship shit as facebook, blaming it on their algorithms. It's pretty clear from their one sided censorship at youtube that isn't the case. The algorithm demonetizes, requires age verification, or deletes videos that go against their views. While they may be a private company, they still have to follow their own rules and treat their customers fairly. Pretty interesting as the newer generations are increasingly programmed by these gadgets, they are just getting the one-sided version of reality instead of the whole picture. In my view this causes many to seek out the Truth, and drives them further away from the original message they were trying to push. I always thought the whole purpose of freedom of speech was to let all sides express their opinions, then let the best arguments win over the hearts and minds of the public. As soon as you begin restricting some, it has the Streisand effect, as well as escalation... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF7mkyd-Wm4 A video of the Google home, asking it about muhammed and jesus... Similar thing used to happen in search, it would have a breaddown of these religious leaders, but for Jesus it didn't. Anyway, the more you look into Google, you find out it is deeply intertwined with intelligence agencies and political figures, and has many testicles overseas as well. Will Google catch the same backlash for censorship as Facebook is catching for data mining?
  9. Mega Vegas thread for all tips, advice, updates, stories, gambling wins/losses, pics . . . 1- Always double down on 11
  10. Simple question. Poll is public and closes at the end of the regular season. Top five betting favorites are listed in the poll. This year feels as wide open as any I can remember in the past. Who you got?
  11. It has it all. Arkansas, a superhero and epic farks Little Rock has a serial killer
  12. Let's play the "what if" game: what is the range of outcomes we will see here in the US should Trump win and the Senate retain a majority? One thing is clear: SCOTUS will surely gain another conservative justice, as there is no reason to believe RBG will hang on until 2024. So, given that, what else? How far can we slide and still stand a chance of slowing or stopping course in 2022/2024? I'd like to see more than pure doomsday scenarios. I'd like to see predictions on actions taken by the 3 branches and how they might be contested, etc. Thoughts?
  13. I found a leftover chicken soft taco in the break room fridge and ate it. Made be a bit "loose" but no problem. Glad I have the story to tell.
  14. https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-state-lawmaker-wins-re-election-from-his-jail-cell SIAP
  15. Would he be allowed to cheat like he needs to in order to win, and would he even be able to bring his dirty brand to Texas?
  16. I stayed away this weekend, assuming the board would be loaded with doom and gloom and then a bunch of rationalization. After clicking around, it looks like things held together here somewhat nicely. That considered, now I'm worried about things here in the opposite direction. The general optimism towards the rest of the season across numerous threads creates the impression that a whole herd of you guys aren't prepared for what's actually going to unfold. That could lead to utter catastrophe when the inevitable happens, leading to numerous psychotic breaks for stunned denizens of this board and I'd hate to see it/hear about it. The reality is, Steve Sarklostagain still hasn't done a fucking thing in his career to merit receiving the benefit of the doubt from the fanbase and posters on this board. He's never won more than 9 games, he's been outcoached on numerous occasions, and he's a born loser at heart, reflected repeatedly in a career of inexplicable losses. Seven Loss Steve's entire head coaching history reflects a penchant for winning games that surprise people and then following that soon enough with an inexplicable loss or seven. 2009 - UW plays LSU close to open the season, then pulls a wild upset of USC in week 3 before going 5-7 with headscratching losses to a failing Weis-led ND program that went 6-6 and ended up firing their fat idiot head coach to end the year and then a loss to an eventual 4-8 ASU team that lost all 5 games they played after beating UW. "but closetojumping, UW was 0-11 in 2008! he can't be dinged for the turnaround in that season!" - wait, there's more. 2010 - After upsetting 18th ranked USC on the road in the Colesseum, Seven Win turns around the next week at home and shits the bed against an ASU that had lost 3 straight and went 6-6. 2011 - No real surprising wins this season, but ol'Seven Loss did find a way to climb into the dumpster and light his team on fire by losing to an Oregon State that was 2-8 at the time and finished 3-9. 2012 - a 3rd straight 7 win season. Steve Sarkloseian took some early losses against good teams and brought his team roaring back to a 7-4 record and 4 game winning streak before bending his Washington team over and letting a 3-9 Washington State team just buttfuck it into oblivion in the annual rivalry game. He had some big time "we're back!" wins this season, beating #7 Stanford and #Oregon State. 2013 - Finally, a retooled roster with all of Seven Loss' own players! UW marches out to a 4-0 record before getting buzzsawed by the #5 and then #2 teams in the country, the latter in blowout fashion. Not the end of the world. Then, they headed to Tempe, still ranked, and were beaten by 4 touchdowns via a Todd Graham-led ASU team on no one's radar. At 8-4, and showing an obvious trajectory towards titles, USC calls Seven Win Steve home! 2014 - Seven Win's best year to date, he takes a USC team, ranked 15th to open the year, and they finish ranked #20 with underdog wins against two ranked opponents while also inexplicably losing a slap fight to a Boston College team that would finish 7-6. 2015 - Uneven Steven had USC open at #8 and then plummet out of the top 25 at 3-2 when he was seen visibly drunk on the sidelines during a loss to an unranked UW team and eventually fired for repeating the behavior the following week at practices. 2021 - No valued win in this 5-7 season of rebuilding! a 7-3 roster, but Texas did have standout losses to eventual 7-6 Iowa State, 2-10 Kansas, and 6-7 West Virginia. 2022 - We can argue about Texas Tech but Texas should have won that fucking game. Seven Win Steve freezing up with his playcalling against Tech, TCU, and Okie State played critical roles in the eventual 8-5 season. 2023 - If you can't find the next headscratching loss, you're not alone. No one else seems to be able to on this board either. I'll help you out though. It is likely going to be among one of these opponents, and will likely be at least two of them, given history: @UH BYU KSU @TCU @ISU Tech I've bolded my best bets, but it could happen with any of them. Stop talking about the playoffs or rematching against OU. Texas doesn't have the coach for that. We're staring down the barrel of a 9-3 regular season. Sarkisian has said privately that he views bowl games as prep for the next season and the outcome doesn't concern him one way or the other. I'm assuming a banner year is in order here, and we see another career high 9 win season at 9-4. You can keep all of the receipts on this that you'd like, but you're not going to need them.
  17. Who will the wildcard game between LAD and STL?
  18. If so, does anyone know the unlimited money exploit? .... For real though, is this a super elaborate April fools joke? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/ Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation We must never doubt Elon Musk again By Fouad Khan on April 1, 2021 Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality. Such public intellectuals as Tesla leader and prolific Twitter gadfly Elon Musk have opined about the statistical inevitability of our world being little more than cascading green code. Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50. The claims have been afforded some credence by repetition by luminaries no less esteemed than Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of Hayden Planetarium and America’s favorite science popularizer. Yet there have been skeptics. Physicist Frank Wilczek has argued that there’s too much wasted complexity in our universe for it to be simulated. Building complexity requires energy and time. Why would a conscious, intelligent designer of realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be? It's a hypothetical question, but still may be needed.: Others, such as physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder, have argued that the question is not scientific anyway. Since the simulation hypothesis does not arrive at a falsifiable prediction, we can’t really test or disprove it, and hence it’s not worth seriously investigating. However, all these discussions and studies of the simulation hypothesis have, I believe, missed a key element of scientific inquiry: plain old empirical assessment and data collection. To understand if we live in a simulation we need to start by looking at the fact that we already have computers running all kinds of simulations for lower level “intelligences” or algorithms. For easy visualization, we can imagine these intelligences as any nonperson characters in any video game that we play, but in essence any algorithm operating on any computing machine would qualify for our thought experiment. We don’t need the intelligence to be conscious, and we don’t need it to even be very complex, because the evidence we are looking for is “experienced” by all computer programs, simple or complex, running on all machines, slow or fast. All computing hardware leaves an artifact of its existence within the world of the simulation it is running. This artifact is the processor speed. If for a moment we imagine that we are a software program running on a computing machine, the only and inevitable artifact of the hardware supporting us, within our world, would be the processor speed. All other laws we would experience would be the laws of the simulation or the software we are a part of. If we were a Sim or a Grand Theft Auto character these would be the laws of the game. But anything we do would also be constrained by the processor speed no matter the laws of the game. No matter how complete the simulation is, the processor speed would intervene in the operations of the simulation. In computing systems, of course, this intervention of the processing speed into the world of the algorithm being executed happens even at the most fundamental level. Even at the most fundamental level of simple operations such as addition or subtraction, the processing speed dictates a physical reality onto the operation that is detached from the simulated reality of the operation itself. Here’s a simple example. A 64-bit processor would perform a subtraction between say 7,862,345 and 6,347,111 in the same amount of time as it would take to perform a subtraction between two and one (granted all numbers are defined as the same variable type). In the simulated reality, seven million is a very large number, and one is a comparatively very small number. In the physical world of the processor, the difference in scale between these two numbers is irrelevant. Both subtractions in our example constitute one operation and would take the same time. Here we can clearly now see the difference between a “simulated” or abstract world of programmed mathematics and a “real” or physical world of microprocessor operations. Within the abstract world of programmed mathematics, the processing speed of operations per second will be observed, felt, experienced, noted as an artifact of underlying physical computing machinery. This artifact will appear as an additional component of any operation that is unaffected by the operation in the simulated reality. The value of this additional component of the operation would simply be defined as the time taken to perform one operation on variables up to a maximum limit that is the memory container size for the variable. So, in an eight-bit computer, for instance to oversimplify, this would be 256. The value of this additional component will be the same for all numbers up to the maximum limit. The additional hardware component will thus be irrelevant for any operations within the simulated reality except when it is discovered as the maximum container size. The observer within the simulation has no frame for quantifying the processor speed except when it presents itself as an upper limit. If we live in a simulation, then our universe should also have such an artifact. We can now begin to articulate some properties of this artifact that would help us in our search for such an artifact in our universe. The artifact is as an additional component of every operation that is unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and is irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed. The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit. The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe. The effect of the artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions. Now that we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The artifact is manifested as the speed of light. Space is to our universe what numbers are to the simulated reality in any computer. Matter moving through space can simply be seen as operations happening on the variable space. If matter is moving at say 1,000 miles per second, then 1,000 miles worth of space is being transformed by a function, or operated upon every second. If there were some hardware running the simulation called “space” of which matter, energy, you, me, everything is a part, then one telltale sign of the artifact of the hardware within the simulated reality “space” would be a maximum limit on the container size for space on which one operation can be performed. Such a limit would appear in our universe as a maximum speed. This maximum speed is the speed of light. We don’t know what hardware is running the simulation of our universe or what properties it has, but one thing we can say now is that the memory container size for the variable space would be about 300,000 kilometers if the processor performed one operation per second. This helps us arrive at an interesting observation about the nature of space in our universe. If we are in a simulation, as it appears, then space is an abstract property written in code. It is not real. It is analogous to the numbers seven million and one in our example, just different abstract representations on the same size memory block. Up, down, forward, backward, 10 miles, a million miles, these are just symbols. The speed of anything moving through space (and therefore changing space or performing an operation on space) represents the extent of the causal impact of any operation on the variable “space.” This causal impact cannot extend beyond about 300,000 km given the universe computer performs one operation per second. We can see now that the speed of light meets all the criteria of a hardware artifact identified in our observation of our own computer builds. It remains the same irrespective of observer (simulated) speed, it is observed as a maximum limit, it is unexplainable by the physics of the universe, and it is absolute. The speed of light is a hardware artifact showing we live in a simulated universe. But this is not the only indication that we live in a simulation. Perhaps the most pertinent indication has been hiding right in front of our eyes. Or rather behind them. To understand what this critical indication is, we need to go back to our empirical study of simulations we know of. Imagine a character in a role-playing game (RPG), say a Sim or the player character in Grand Theft Auto. The algorithm that represents the character and the algorithm that represents the game environment in which the character operates are intertwined at many levels. But even if we assume that the character and the environment are separate, the character does not need a visual projection of its point of view in order to interact with the environment. The algorithms take into account some of the environmental variables and some of the character’s state variables to project and determine the behavior of both the environment and the character. The visual projection or what we see on the screen is for our benefit. It is a subjective projection of some of the variables within the program so that we can experience the sensation of being in the game. The audiovisual projection of the game is an integrated subjective interface for the benefit of us, essentially someone controlling the simulation. The integrated subjective interface has no other reason to exist except to serve us. A similar thought experiment can be run with movies. Movies often go into the point of view of characters and try to show us things from their perspective. Whether or not a particular movie scene does that or not, what’s projected on the screen and the speakers—the integrated experience of the film—has no purpose for the characters in the film. It is entirely for our benefit. Pretty much since the dawn of philosophy we have been asking the question: Why do we need consciousness? What purpose does it serve? Well, the purpose is easy to extrapolate once we concede the simulation hypothesis. Consciousness is an integrated (combining five senses) subjective interface between the self and the rest of the universe. The only reasonable explanation for its existence is that it is there to be an “experience.” That’s its primary raison d’être. Parts of it may or may not provide any kind of evolutionary advantage or other utility. But the sum total of it exists as an experience and hence must have the primary function of being an experience. An experience by itself as a whole is too energy-expensive and information-restrictive to have evolved as an evolutionary advantage. The simplest explanation for the existence of an experience or qualia is that it exists for the purpose of being an experience. There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages. There can only be two explanations for its existence. First is that there are evolutionary forces at work that we don’t know of or haven’t theorized yet that select for the emergence of the experience called consciousness. The second is that the experience is a function we serve, a product that we create, an experience we generate as human beings. Who do we create this product for? How do they receive the output of the qualia generating algorithms that we are? We don’t know. But one thing’s for sure, we do create it. We know it exists. That’s the only thing we can be certain about. And that we don’t have a dominant theory to explain why we need it. So here we are generating this product called consciousness that we apparently don’t have a use for, that is an experience and hence must serve as an experience. The only logical next step is to surmise that this product serves someone else. Now, one criticism that can be raised of this line of thinking is that unlike the RPG characters in, say. Grand Theft Auto, we actually experience the qualia ourselves. If this is a product for someone else than why are we experiencing it? Well, the fact is the characters in Grand Theft Auto also experience some part of the qualia of their existence. The experience of the characters is very different from the experience of the player of the game, but between the empty character and the player there is a gray area where parts of the player and parts of the character combine to some type of consciousness. The players feel some of the disappointments and joys that are designed for the character to feel. The character experiences the consequences of the player’s behavior. This is a very rudimentary connection between the player and the character, but already with virtual reality devices we are seeing the boundaries blur. When we are riding a roller coaster as a character in say the Oculus VR device, we feel the gravity. Where is that gravity coming from? It exists somewhere in the space between the character that is riding the roller coaster and our minds occupying the “mind” of the character. It can certainly be imagined that in the future this in-between space would be wider. It is certainly possible that as we experience the world and generate qualia, we are experiencing some teeny tiny part of the qualia ourselves while maybe a more information-rich version of the qualia is being projected to some other mind for whose benefit the experience of consciousness first came into existence. So, there you have it. The simplest explanation for the existence of consciousness is that it is an experience being created, by our bodies, but not for us. We are qualia-generating machines. Like characters in Grand Theft Auto, we exist to create integrated audiovisual outputs. Also, as with characters in Grand Theft Auto, our product mostly likely is for the benefit of someone experiencing our lives through us. What are the implications of this monumental find? Well, first of all we can’t question Elon Musk again. Ever. Secondly, we must not forget what the simulation hypothesis really is. It is the ultimate conspiracy theory. The mother of all conspiracy theories, the one that says that everything, with the exception of nothing, is fake and a conspiracy designed to fool our senses. All our worst fears about powerful forces at play controlling our lives unbeknownst to us, have now come true. And yet this absolute powerlessness, this perfect deceit offers us no way out in its reveal. All we can do is come to terms with the reality of the simulation and make of it what we can. Here, on earth. In this life.
  19. To refuse service if you don't wear a fucking mask! Just because Gov. Hot Wheels doesn't mandate it does not mean individual business can't. And to be clear you're not getting arrested for not wearing a mask, you're getting arrested for criminal trespass and resisting arrest. I wonder who she voted for? Hmm...
  20. When it comes to social justice reform. Scoreboard. Game planning? Technique? Execution against a shit opponent? Not.
  21. Sort of a CSB, but it struck me as odd.... flew to San Antonio this week for a meeting to sign a new deal. Ended up deciding to eat dinner with my vendor at Signature in La Cantera. Couple of their team wanted to order a featured cocktail that was spicy and had a jalapeño component.... waiter tells them they can’t make it as shown on the menu because the restaurant has no jalapeños. Vendor is from Minnesota so they kind of brushed it off but I was dumbfounded. How in the hell does a San Antonio restaurant with something like that on the menu not have any peppers? You could swing a dead cat from there and hit 3 HEB’s. Pointless post is pointless other than I can’t fathom how they couldn’t figure out to give some bus boy a $10 and send him down the hill to HEB and grab some. Signature was otherwise great and the service impeccable- other than their pantry management.
  22. We are tougher than everyone in the Big 12. Win or lose, we are there now. Let's go.
×
×
  • Create New...