Olympian1010

In Californian English, there’s a few Spanish words that have been “borrowed” and used in place of/or alternatively to their English counterparts. For example, it’s pretty normal for an English speaker to greet another English speaker with “Hola.” Likewise, is not unusual to hear an English speaker use “gracias” instead of thank you. This could also be limited to communities with a large Hispanic/Latin American influence like mine. I’m curious to know if this happens in other languages? Like would Spanish words sometimes times be used instead of/interchangeably in Brazilian Portuguese?

When listening to the video, I was trying to figure out if I did that or not. Apparently I do

The coxswain has to jump from one boat to another

There were multiple recounts held in various states throughout the country during our last election.

I believe the vote is counted digitally, and then the ballots are stored in the machine as a fail-safe/backup. I can’t remember much about how that part of the process works though, so I could be wrong.

See, as a Californian, that’s something I disagree with. Our system is one of the most democratic in world. It’s not without flaws, but I do take pride in it. I describe our system as for the people, of the people, beholden to the people. I will admit that I took 4-5 hours to research and read about the propositions during the last election. I do understand that there are people who don’t have time to do that though.

I don’t quite get what you mean, but if your talking about turnout it was higher in 2020 than 2016 (or anytime since 1952). I’m sure mail ballots helped with that, but there was still plenty of people using the machines when I voted.

It’s just a different way of doing things. I think it gives people more confidence in our system. There’s also an app that you can have on your phone, where you can make all your choices in advance, and then just load them onto the ballot the minute you get to the machine, and then cast your ballot. I found our paper ballots to be tedious and annoying. I found the machines to be a much more user friendly. All of the steps can be a little confusing, so that could definitely be streamlined or made more understandable in the future.

We only use machine generated ballots at our polling places in California, or at in least in LA County. When you get to the polling place, your identity is verified, and your given a blank ballot. You then put that ballot into the voting machine, and select the candidates (or yes/no answer) you want for each election. Then machine then prints out the ballot so you can view it over and make sure it’s correct. You then re-insert the ballot into the machine, and push a button to cast it. Nothing about that process seemed worrying, questionable, or concerning when I cast my ballot. I felt pretty confident that my vote would be counted as I had cast it, and the process was relatively quick and easy. I filled out a paper ballot in 2018, and I much preferred using the machines in 2020. Our mail ballots are paper ballots though, so if people still prefer paper ballots they can use their mail ballot.

Alright, some of this might be explained by part 3: “You don’t stress the vowel sounds too much.” Yep, that’s vowel reduction, and I definitely do that. There’s some examples of that when the women is comparing Chicano English (which doesn’t have vowel reduction) to other SoCal English (which does have vowel reduction). Still didn’t say anything about the “s” sound you noticed. During the Chicano English segment they talk about something to do with the “s” sound. Is that what you were talking about, or something different? So the digress thing might be related to the vowel position switching he was talking about. I generally say it as “die-gress” as well, but there are definitely people in SoCal who do say it as “dig-ress”

@intoronto I wasn’t aware of (or at least don’t remember) any decent shooters coming out of Aruba. What event did they have an athlete get the MQS in?

@OlympicIRL I think there needs to be a discussion about how points are tabulated for multi-juries after the current contest. I would propose the following: Multi Juries have two options for voting 1) Classic method currently in use 2) the option to submit one set of votes agreed upon by all members of the jury The reason I suggest this amendment is because the multi-jury voting is a little wack. For instance, a couple editions back, me and Dez both gave a country (Tunisia or Brazil I think) points, but yet that song got no points in the final combine vote. It seems a little ridiculous that both jury members could decide a song deserves points, but then that song doesn’t get any points. Something else that could remedy that particular problem would to first rank all songs voted for by all members of the jury, then (if the jury has 3+ members) to rank the songs voted for by multiple members, and then rank songs according to points gained from a single jury member. I’m just trying to spitball ideas here, so I’d love to here other participants thoughts on all this.

Badminton’s scoring system might change soon. Proposal from Badminton Indonesia/Badminton Maldives would make games best of 5, with sets to 11 points. Source: https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1106196/badminton-world-federation-agm-may

Votes sent. Fantastic selection this year. It was very hard to a) choose only 12 songs to award points to and b) put those 12 in an order. Overall, 25 songs received a final ranking from me.

Right, that’s my argument. I’m fine with the shoe technology as long as everyone has fair access to it. If it’s available for the general public and for all competitors, then it’s fine in my books.

I have to be honest that I don’t quite understand or agree with the position many people seem to have about the current shoe technology. I get that people think it’s lame that world records and other fast times are falling because of technology, but if the argument is that sports cannot progress for the sanctity of records, then I don’t agree with that position.

Came across this while watching some recap/reaction videos. I had no idea about the controversy in Russia about the song.

Here’s what I propose as the qualification system under the current quota distribution, logistics, etc. World Championships: 4 Quotas Continental OQT (preferably just using the Continental multi-sports games): 5 Quotas World OQT Tournament 1: 4 Quotas World OQT LCQ Tournament: 1 Quota Best Ranked Non-Qualified Athlete: 1 Quota Host Nation or Invitation: 1 Quota The ranking would be based off a World Cup circuit, however if the UWW doesn’t have one, then it would be based off points gained at 6-8 tournaments identified by the UWW and denoted as ranking tournaments (would take place in the 2 seasons preceding the Olympics, and must be open to International participation (ie not continental or invitational)). The “Host Nation/Invitational” quota would work like this: for each discipline the Host Nations gets a maximum of 3 quotas, and a minimum of three remaining quotas go to the invitation criteria. Athletes would be eligible for invitation if they were from a tripartite eligible nation or the best ranked athlete from an unqualified NOC (IOC/UWW would decide which athletes to invite).

Oh, these look very good. The street area has a lot of diversity in terms of features. That will create a great comp hopefully.

Yet another Games postponed to 2022.