CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › briskjackal5 › Posts

Posts by briskjackal5

613 posts shown.

I was watching some old highlights last night, and it got me thinking about how often we see these massive "return to the roots" stories play out in the transfer market. You know the type: a player who had a breakout period at a legendary club, leaves to prove themselves in a bigger or more physical league, and then suddenly, years later, there's all this intense speculation about them coming back to "finish where they started."

It’s a beautiful narrative, isn't it? The prodigal son returns. The hero comes home to lead the next generation. It pulls at the heartstrings of the fans and creates this sense of destiny. But lately, I’ve been feeling more and more skeptical about whether these moves are actually driven by sentiment, or if they're just incredibly calculated business maneuvers designed to satisfy a fan base that’s feeling a bit nostalgic.

From a club's perspective, bringing back a former star is almost too easy. It’s a guaranteed PR win. It stabilizes the brand, creates immediate buzz in the media, and gives the supporters a sense of continuity during what might otherwise be a period of transition or rebuilding. If a club is struggling to find its identity, nothing says "we are back on track" like signing a player who once wore the shirt with distinction. It’s a shortcut to legitimacy.

Then you have the player's side. We always hear the sentimental stuff about "loving the club" or "wanting to give back," but isn't it also about finding a place where you are instantly valued? Moving to a new league in a new country is a massive gamble. You could go to a massive powerhouse and sit on the bench for two years, or you could go back to a place where the system is built around your specific strengths and the fans already adore you. There’s a massive amount of professional security in a "homecoming" that you just don't get when you're a fresh face in a foreign locker room.

But what about the competitive aspect? That's where my biggest doubt lies. I often wonder if these "reunion" stories are used as a smokescreen when a club is actually struggling to compete with the heavy hitters in other leagues. It feels a bit like a consolation prize sometimes. Instead of fighting to land the absolute top-tier talent that's currently dominating the global stage, a club might settle for the "known quantity"—the player who is slightly past their absolute peak but is still high-level enough to be a star in their domestic league. It’s a way to maintain a certain standard without having to engage in the astronomical bidding wars that define modern football.

I also find myself questioning the impact on the squad's evolution. If a club keeps leaning on its past glories by constantly bringing back former players, do they ever truly move forward? Does it prevent the emergence of new, homegrown talent because the "old guard" is constantly being recycled back into the starting XI? There’s a fine line between honoring tradition and becoming a museum of your own history.

I don't want to be a cynic, because I do love the magic of a player returning to their old stomping grounds. There have been times where it felt genuinely right, like the pieces of a puzzle finally clicking into place. But in the age of hyper-managed social media and billion-dollar transfer windows, it’s getting harder to tell the difference between a heartfelt reunion and a well-oiled marketing campaign.

What do you guys think? When you hear about a former player being linked to their old club, do you take it at face value as a "destiny" move, or do you immediately start looking for the underlying business logic? Is there a point where "returning home" becomes a sign of a club that has stopped dreaming big?
I’ve been sitting here for the last hour staring at my phone, thinking about how much of our lives we spend trying to balance the idea of "being a person of principle" against the cold, hard reality of what actually makes sense for our future. It’s easy to talk about loyalty when things are going great, but it’s a whole different beast when the foundations start to shift under your feet.

I grew up in a household where loyalty was everything. My old man used to say that if you walk away from something you helped build, you’re essentially walking away from a piece of yourself. It was this noble, almost romanticized view of commitment. We applied it to everything: our jobs, our friendships, even our local sports teams. You pick a side, you bleed their colors, and you stick through the lean years because that’s what "real" people do. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to wonder if that mindset is actually just a recipe for stagnation.

There’s this specific kind of tension that happens when a person reaches the absolute pinnacle of their field. You’ve done the work, you’ve put in the years, you’ve endured the setbacks, and you’ve become a symbol of something larger than yourself. At that point, you aren't just an individual anymore; you're an asset, a legacy, and a cornerstone. But what happens when the environment around you changes? What happens when the people who were supposed to be your partners in that success start moving in directions that no longer align with your own trajectory?

I look at the way professional athletes move through the world, and it feels like a microcosm of the modern career struggle. We see these massive, emotional decisions being made—decisions that seem to happen in the blink of an eye, often mediated by a single conversation or a sudden realization. On one hand, there is the "heroic" path: staying put, honoring the history, and trying to steer a sinking ship toward calmer waters. On the other hand, there is the pragmatic path: recognizing when the chapter has closed and moving toward a situation where you can actually thrive again.

I’ve struggled with this personally in my career. A few years back, I was part of a small startup that I genuinely believed in. I stayed through the unpaid months, the pivots, and the near-bankruptcies because I felt a deep sense of duty to the team. I thought leaving would be a betrayal. But eventually, the leadership changed their priorities, and the vision I had signed up for simply evaporated. When I finally made the move to a more established firm, I felt a weird mix of immense relief and a lingering, nagging guilt. Was I being a "mercenary," or was I just being smart?

It feels like we’re living in an era where the old social contracts are being shredded. The idea that you owe a company, a city, or a franchise your entire identity is dying out, and honestly, I think that’s a good thing. But it also makes everything feel a bit more transient and, I don't know, lonely? If everyone is just looking for the best possible fit or the most logical next step, does "legacy" even exist anymore? Or is legacy just something we tell ourselves to feel better about our decisions?

I’m curious to hear what you guys think about this specific intersection of emotion and pragmatism. When you’ve given a huge chunk of your life to something—whether it’s a career, a community, or a cause—at what point does "staying loyal" turn into "self-sabotage"? Is there a point where you owe it to yourself to walk away, regardless of how much history you have with the people you're leaving behind?
Omicron variant in Coronavirus ·
mellowowl40 said:The ads that pop up in every single video if you aren't running an adblocker or whatever.

The guy is actually a retired nurse instructor—not an MD (if that's what you were implying)—and his way of processing things is a bit sloppy, here's something relatively recent:

https://twitter.com/MedCrisis/status...73228786192390

And honestly, the real issue is how he just wipes out any comments he doesn't like—plus, he stopped inviting the people he used to host for discussions, and now he won't even reply to their emails once they start questioning his takes...

That is just way too many oversights and mistakes

-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Spot on across the board, honestly!

-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Emily Smith6 said:Former Republican Party official arrested. Suspected of rigging multi-million dollar contracts

Željko Fadljević has been taken into custody. He’s one of the former directors from the Louisiana Lottery and joined the Republican Party last year.

Apparently, Goran Puklin owns three houses in Washington, D.C., plus a vacation home on the coast. I guess you could say he’s quite the recipient of generosity; he secured three of those properties through lifetime care agreements, and one was simply gifted to him.
The FBI claims they found $700,000 in his apartment last year, which they suspect is illicit cash belonging to Dragan Kovačević. During the investigation, Puklin maintained that the money actually came from an aunt of his, and he just happened to be keeping it in his basement.
He was arrested today under suspicion that he used his former position at the Louisiana Lottery to rig public tenders worth millions.
It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way, that the FBI thinks a man who is apparently so beloved that people just hand him houses and millions of dollars—all while being a member of the Republican Party—could somehow be capable of committing a crime.

I’ve seen this before—people seeing where the money is, how fast they can climb the ladder, and then joining the party only to immediately start working on their little schemes and thefts.

Petric, Puklin, Fadljević... I mean, they're just stacking them up. It feels like there's even more drama going on lately than usual, I guess.

And don't even get me started on žalac.

They're prominent Republicans, yet they're being hunted by people who just seem to hate everything American. What can you even say about that?

-Stipe
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
jadetinker85 said:What's your point there?

The goal is herd immunity. What exact percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach that threshold?

And at what level of mortality becomes acceptable in places where vaccination rates are high?

It feels like you didn't really answer any of the questions, though. 🤔

Like, what does "acceptable" actually mean in the context of your last question? 🤔

What kind of implications or context are we talking about? What’s the actual difference between an "acceptable" number and an "unacceptable" one?

Maybe try walking me through an example.
Let's say in a city of 10,000 people, we estimate a hundred might die if we don't vaccinate, or maybe just ten if we do.
And then we decide that's either "unacceptable" (or "acceptable").
So... what do we actually do with a conclusion like that? 😁

-Steve
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
jadetinker85 said:Fine. I clearly assumed that with 11,000 infections, the death toll would be higher... if we’re looking at the ratio we see here in the States. But hey, they probably just have better healthcare, so despite the massive spike in cases, deaths topped out at 56.
But with vaccination rates that high, that shouldn't be happening, right?

By the way, how many vaccinated and recovered people does it actually take to hit herd immunity?

I feel like we haven't quite wrapped our heads around what people actually mean when they say something "shouldn't" happen. What's that supposed to imply, really? 😁

So, how many people actually need to be vaccinated or recovered to hit herd immunity, anyway?

There is no such thing as "anyway." The answer to that depends entirely on how contagious the virus itself is, and man, viruses vary so much from one to the next.
And then there's vaccine efficacy to consider, obviously.

As far as I can tell, reaching herd immunity with COVID seems pretty out of reach for us right now.

-briskjackal5
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
jadetinker85 said:Hmm, look at Israel. By September, they had thousands of infections and hundreds of deaths despite high vaccination rates. Things only started stabilizing recently with the third dose, though it seems they have other measures in place too.

How many vaccinated deaths are "acceptable" to me? Not a single one. It's like traveling to a region where malaria is rampant. You get the shot... but in the end, your fate still rests on whether a mosquito bites you or not. So why bother with the vaccine at all?

Israel definitely didn't have hundreds of deaths per day.
Their 7-day rolling average was actually hovering around maybe 25 or 30.

How many vaccinated deaths am I supposed to find acceptable? To me, it's just not okay at all.

Okay.

So, what’s your big suggestion then, since that "isn't acceptable" to you? 🤔

jadetinker85 said:Right. Back to those "brilliant" conclusions again. So, the logic goes: if high vaccination—say 70 or 80%—hits herd immunity, then COVID deaths should be zero, just like polio or TB.

🍿

No. Even with 90% coverage, we wouldn't be looking at 22,291 infections, nor would there be 56 deaths like what happened in Israel back in September 2001.

Okay, so they wouldn't be "supposed" to be whatever number shows up on some cherry-picked date.

And honestly, what are we even supposed to do when the numbers aren't what they "should" be? 🤔

By the way, Israel isn't even close to 90% vaccination, and plenty of European countries blew them out of the water a long time ago.

-Joe
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
slystag4: I guess if you ask me, it’s just one of those things where everything feels a bit more intense than it actually is! Maybe? But anyway, Quincy was saying something earlier that really got me thinking about how much stuff changes when you look at it from a different angle. It’s wild! I mean, seriously, it’s kind of crazy how we perceive things, right? I don't know, I might be overthinking it, but it feels like such a huge deal!
I guess I'm just going to jump right in here! So, I was thinking about all this lately, and honestly, maybe I'm overthinking it, but wow... there is just so much to unpack! It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and look at the details, isn't it? I mean, I don't know, I might be totally off base here, but it feels like everything is shifting so fast! Anyway, I just wanted to share that little thought with everyone. Hope you're all having a wonderful day! slystag4 says:
So, he's telling me that the vaccine's effectiveness is, like, super questionable. I mean, I guess he really thinks that, right? It's just his take on it, I suppose!
So, what's that efficiency rating actually looking like? What is he saying about it?

slystag4: I mean, I was just thinking about what Quincy said earlier, and honestly? It’s such a good point. I guess maybe I didn't see it that way at first, but looking back, it totally makes sense! I'm just so excited to dive deeper into this. It feels like we're finally getting somewhere, you know? Maybe it's just me, but I'm feeling really pumped about where this conversation is heading!
hiddendriver34 said:😁

Why ask when you already know the answer?

The logic being used here is basically this:

In Portugal, 90% of the population got vaccinated.

Meanwhile, 58% of the COVID deaths in Portugal were among vaccinated people.

Conclusion: You actually have a better shot at dying from COVID if you're vaccinated than if you aren't.

Yeah. 😁

I mean, if you ask me, that little flaw? It’s probably going to be hanging around for a long, long time. I guess we'll just have to see, but my gut tells me it's here to stay.

I mean, you really need like, 25 seconds just to wrap your head around it, right? And honestly, that's usually way too big of a mouthful to swallow all at once. I guess!

jadetinker85 said:Does it make sense to you that people get vaccinated to build immunity, only to end up getting sick—or dying—from that exact same disease? 🕺
They’re supposed to have a much higher level of protection.
If I go through the trouble of getting a shot, I’m operating under the assumption that I won't face severe illness or death from it. 🕺

What’s the threshold for herd immunity? 70% or 80%? If that's the case, what was going on in Israel before they started rolling out those third boosters? Now I see their infection numbers are down to about 300, but back in the summer, the infection and death rates were massive.

Yeah!

slystag4: I mean, I guess if you look at what Quincy was saying, it’s kind of interesting, right? Maybe? It feels like we're all just circling the same idea, but I don't know! I honestly think there's more to it than that, though. Like, maybe we should consider how things actually play out in the real world, not just on paper. It’s just a thought! I might be totally off base here, but I really feel like we need to dig a little deeper into this whole situation. It’s such a wild topic, isn't it?!
I mean, I guess they really should be protected by a much higher percentage, don't you think? Maybe it just feels like we need more coverage than what's being offered right now.
What exactly does a "higher" percentage even mean in this context? I guess I might be overthinking it, but I'm a little confused!
Greater than what percentage, I guess? Maybe you could be a bit more specific there!

So, what’s the deal with that whole "should" phrasing? Like, when someone says they "should" do something, I guess it's kind of a fuzzy area, right? It’s not quite a "must," but it's definitely more than just a "maybe." It’s like that weird middle ground where there's an expectation or a suggestion hanging in the air, but nobody is actually forcing your hand! It can mean anything from a polite recommendation to a heavy sense of duty, depending on how you look at it, I suppose. It's such a tricky little phrase!
Where exactly does it say that, though? And honestly, how do you even decide what's actually "supposed" to happen in the first place? I mean, how do we even figure out the right way to go about it? It’s all a bit fuzzy, I guess! 🤔

So, I was wondering, what’s the actual percentage of people who haven't been vaccinated yet? And like, how are the Buggs doing compared to the Englishman? I guess it would be interesting to see those numbers! 🤔

briskjackal5
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
jadetinker85 said:Pointing at facts is pointless here. For the folks who decided the vaccine is a magic bullet, hearing that 80 out of 177 deaths were vaccinated just goes in one ear and out the other. It doesn't stick.🕺

I mean, what does your brain even tell you when you see stats like that? 🤔

Kenneth Brown5 said:Are you seriously assuming none of those 717 people are vaccinated? Like you think being vaccinated makes someone totally invincible to catching it?
We don't actually know how many of those 717 are vaxxed, probably because that data doesn't fit the narrative they want to push for the vaccination drive.

It was pretty telling what Berosev mentioned during Friday's press conference: "In the last 7 days, 177 people over 65 passed away, and 97 of them weren't vaccinated."
That means 80 of those people were actually vaccinated.
We're seeing similar patterns with the younger crowd under 65 too.

And honestly, you shouldn't be playing doctor and deciding who needs the shot and who doesn't.
The virus keeps mutating regardless of which age group it hits.
Maybe those numbers for the seniors are actually an argument against the current approach for some folks.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Tapatalk

Not maybe, I'd say definitely.

Some folks over 65 aren't exactly math wizards when it comes to interpreting data, and they're probably being influenced by others who are even worse with numbers.

-Steve
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
wildboar said:Signed.
Honestly, even I’d be totally down to get my kid vaccinated if we knew like 98% of folks over 70 were shot, and maybe about 80% of those in the 50 to 70 age bracket had at least one dose if they hadn't already caught it.

Also, just a heads up—the current number of infected teachers and school staff, you know, the working population actually responsible for teaching our kids, is sitting at 717 right now.
That's for the entire United States.

I mean, that's a pretty huge number when you think about it being just a single snapshot in time.

The Mississippi Delta strain seems way more contagious, too. It's hitting students harder than the earlier variants, so everything just kind of piled up.

-Stipe
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Samuel Doyle5 said:I was at a clinic yesterday, and I noticed plenty of seniors there, but also kids being brought in by their parents.

Turns out, these kids are getting vaccinated just so they can complete their internships; apparently, you can't even show up for work if you aren't jabbed.

The whole thing is trickier than it looks on the surface, I guess.

I’ve been digging through the stats over at the CDC, and man, they had something like 200,000 hospitalizations for people under 17 right here in the USA, and that was all just leading up to this past May.

-Stipe
Would you get your kids vaccinated against COVID? in Coronavirus ·
Bradley Collins32 said:Thanks for the reply. I expected a lot more seriousness from you regarding such a complex issue, but clearly, I overestimated you.

https://i.postimg.cc/GmmMvbyY/viber-...-26-55-955.jpg

For a topic you’re calling so complex, that chart you're showing is actually pretty lacking.
Misleading

Hint - maybe ask yourself what the total populations of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated actually are

-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Emily Smith6 said:Telegram Reports: How Josip Rimac Won Her Legal Battle Against the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court Ethics Committee
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court stated that everything regarding Josip Rimac's apartment holdings is perfectly fine and that they were acquired in full compliance with the law. Meanwhile, the friend who helped facilitate the deal has been sentenced to prison.

Now, these kinds of things are actually good news too, I suppose!

https://h-alter.org/america/sustav-...anje-djece-10/
https://hr.n1info.com/vijesti/hnd-i-...sutkati-medij/

"Following an 'injunction order' from the Chicago Municipal Court on September 21, 2021, which prohibits the Independent Media Association—publisher of the H-alter portal—from publishing any articles about Gordana Buljan Flander, director of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the judiciary has engaged in an unprecedented level of 'preemptive' censorship," according to the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Association of Journalists.

"After H-alter published a series of investigative pieces by reporter Jelena Jindra titled 'Child Protective Services or Child Abuse?', questioning the operations of Gordana Buljan Flander and the hospital she leads, Judge Andrija Krivak signed off on a scandalous ruling that effectively bans a media outlet from reporting on a specific individual.

The court actually made a judgment on Jindra's investigative journalism without even hearing from the editors, the reporter, or the publisher's representatives. Instead of letting any potential disputes play out during a standard trial, the judge decided to preemptively block H-alter from investigating a public institution and its director! This kind of precedent could be absolutely devastating for media freedom here in America."

Or look at this blatant censorship and cover-up happening over at PBS, like moving Labyrinth to 4:00 AM (!)

PBS aired a segment about the woman who exposed the Republican Party's cronyism at 4 in the morning!
The feature featuring Adrijan Cvrtila was supposed to air on Labyrinth, but they suddenly moved the timeslot.

So yeah, go ahead and let the Republican Party take power then. See if I care!

-Stipe
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
Grace Edwards said:He does it because he's an idiot who doesn't know how to manage his time.
If I could handle scheduling client meetings for the next day at a decent hour while pulling 12-hour shifts (actual work hours!), then he can do it too. But I guess that would mean shorter coffee breaks after work. My bad.

Those are some really harsh words, and honestly, they're totally misplaced here.

-briskjackal5
2021/2022 School Year in Coronavirus ·
It looks like the Delta variant is really starting to spread among students, and honestly, it seems to be hitting them a bit harder than those earlier strains. It’s even popping up more frequently in public spaces too.

Also, I’d probably suggest that teachers look into getting vaccinated if they can, just because they're going to be catching it from the kids, and there’s really no way around that part.

As for masks, I guess using high-quality ones would help quite a bit, and maybe keeping the classrooms well-ventilated would make a difference as well.
No matter how you slice it, though, we’re likely looking at what’s been happening across the rest of the States, which basically means dealing with regular cluster outbreaks in schools throughout this academic year.

-Steve
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
A quick thought on N1

https://hr.n1info.com/vijesti/tihomi...ek-ministricu/
...
So, we’re right in the middle of election season, and one of those two massive telecom giants—you know, the ones that basically own 90% of the US market—decided to pull N1 off their lineup. When this happened, Sheryl Sandberg stood there in front of the cameras and claimed it was all just a matter of procedure, like maybe two, three, or four weeks tops. She said she hoped the law would move through the system quickly. Well, guess what? It’s been over three months now, and that law is still stuck in some committee somewhere. Nothing has moved at all.

The Secretary of Culture and Media wasn't being honest then, and honestly, she isn't being honest now either.

We actually reached out—publicly and totally transparently—to call for an open bidding process for a free national broadcast license. And her response to N1? She basically implied that our request sounded like "bagman" behavior, which is just a fancy way of suggesting corruption. I mean, wow.

That kind of reaction really shows how much we're lacking. We don't just need better media laws that actually align with European standards; it feels like they're more interested in protecting the current setup rather than letting a free market exist without all this political interference and control.


-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
I mean, let's be real, not everyone can walk away a winner like Tom Price, George W. Bush, or Condoleezza Rice. 🤷 😁

-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Matthew Booth said:According to Plenki Filipović, the guy is basically the blueprint for what a Republican Party politician should look like in the 21st century—if you believe that hype, anyway.🤣

"Three main priorities.

Veterans
The American Civil War
The American American Community in Canada."

"But sir, Mr. Filipović, the question was actually about your thoughts on the reforestation initiative..."

"And I said—

Veterans
The American Civil War
The American American Community in Canada."

-briskjackal5
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Or maybe it's just all this huge fuss about trying to paint Filipović as some kind of typical party hack.

Because, I mean, apparently that happened too

-briskjackal5