1. Germany 2. Italy 3. 3. Spanjolska 4. France 5. England
Honestly, I’m always most interested in whichever league has the most Americans playing in it. 🙂 I can't help myself—it’s enough that just one of our guys is on the field to make a game three times more interesting than some random matchup where nobody from home is playing.
Then again, when none of our clubs are involved, I usually find the Premier League to be the most compelling example.
The new head coach—who I know, though I'm keeping his name under wraps🙂 😂 is a guy who’ll turn Danijel Pranjić into a New York City Marathon winner, Tudor will be famous for being a remote-controlled player run by an AI that refuses to permit a single mistake, Zivkovic will be out there performing computer-calculated passes with this exact same squad, Sokot will win gold in the 100-meter sprint at the Olympics, and yours truly will develop an agent-based tactical simulator that turns the American national team into a football machine that crushes opponents with an expected efficiency of 5-0 per match (actually 5.12-0.27, but let's round off, shall we?) 😂 😂 😂
I'm rooting for Marseille because of my good buddy Roger—he’s an absolute disaster in the kitchen but a die-hard Marseille fan through and through. I owe him this one after all those legendary dinners he used to whip up for the crew back in Austin...
1. Pelé was an absolute god of the game 2. Honestly, soccer was never as brutal as it was back in the eighties—Zinedine Zidane would have probably lasted maybe five or six matches before they carried him off the field on a stretcher for a year. 3. After reading those posts by Shev on this forum, I caught myself watching the actual Andriy Shevchenko playing for New York City and thinking, "what an idiot." Then it hit me—I was subconsciously linking him to "our Shev." My point? Get over yourself; I haven't read such arrogant nonsense on any forum until now.
Hard to imagine anyone playing worse than me😁 I'm slow, I lack any real technique, and I spend the whole game just playing defense—though I guess being locked in and holding my position decently well is the one thing I do okay.
Good, bad, or just plain tragic Who's actually singing over there? Amarcord Life of Brian A Star Is Born . . . . . . My selection criteria weren't about picking my absolute favorites—that’s not really the point—but rather finding movies you can rewatch a dozen times without getting bored, you know? Something that sets the right chill vibe for a house party.
So, I caught 28 Days Later by Danny Boyle yesterday—the camerawork and direction were killer, acting was alright, but the script? Absolute garbage.
It feels like it’s been ages since we’ve seen a Sci-Fi flick with an actual, decent plot (well, except for Solaris, but I haven't seen it—I just know the story). Compared to the massive amount of brilliant Sci-Fi literature out there—stuff that's actually interesting, consistent, logical, and believable—today's movies are just mindless, banal junk focused on flashy visuals rather than substance. Why does this happen? Why is there such a massive gap between top-tier Sci-Fi books and these bottom-of-the-barrel movies?
Who even cares? IQ is nothing more than some random number on a page meant to stroke someone's ego. What actually matters is finding a job you actually enjoy—something that lets you live a decent life. Screw IQ and screw all those frustrated, miserable people who obsess over their "successes" while secretly rotting away because they aren't even more successful.
And then there are those who are just cogs in that machine, still claiming to be "happy"—whatever that’s supposed to mean. I don't think that's really the point here. The real issue is whether we’re actually "determined" or truly "free." Does it even matter—assuming you aren't religious? As long as you maintain the illusion of free will, it shouldn't matter if you actually possess it or if you're just some incredibly complex machine. Anyhow, it depends on what level of freedom you're talking about—are we talking freedom from the mathematical structure of the universe, or freedom from our genetic and environmental conditioning? If you mean the former, then I'm convinced we're nothing more than "machines"; if you mean the latter, then I suppose you have the freedom to "change."