We use cookies to improve your experience on Vidnexa. We use necessary cookies to keep you signed in and keep the site secure, and — only with your permission — preference cookies (seen videos, recent categories), analytics cookies (anonymous visitor id, A/B assignment), and marketing cookies (only when a third-party ad tag or slot is enabled).
Learn more
Cookie preferences
Choose which non-essential cookies Vidnexa may use. Necessary cookies are always on: they keep you signed in, protect forms, and keep the site secure.
NecessarySession, feed security nonce, admin sign-in persistence. Always on.
PreferencesSeen-video list, recent categories, row preferences. Remember what you watched and browsed.
AnalyticsAnonymous visitor id and A/B assignment, used to measure traffic and test feed changes.
MarketingThird-party ad tags and slots, only when an admin enables them. No marketing cookie is set by default.
You know what? This 1000 IQ plays thing was cool for a while. How about some science, and read till the end numb nuts.<br>Okay skip this part,<br><br>So you could be like "low-IQ plays that were great anyway"<br>Because IQ is a relatively stable trait across time. So a dumb player is a dumb player, no matter how good their one-off masterpieces seem.<br>Anyway I skipped the statistics. So let's assume IQ is IQ, meaning the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is about 15.<br>Z score would be "IQ claim" minus "mean/average" divided by standard deviation. Or 900 divided by 15, which is 60<br>If you wanna say 60 IQ, that's probably closer to your average sports fan (I mean come on, 1000 IQ, do you even know how unlikely that is?)<br>Okay, any z score to percentile calculator. Now after you try 60 and you're like "wtf it doesn't work", try 4. Try a calculator with more decimals. Okay, so long story short, the calculators don't work like that.<br>Because that math doesn't exist. Because it doesn't need to exist (it probably does exist but 1000 IQ doesn't), because 1000 IQ doesn't exist.<br>If you talk about it in ridiculous terms, like out of say 10 billion people, you'd have a z score/percentile that indicated that one person.<br>But IQ itself doesn't work like that. The tests are reliable up to about 162, or claimed to be.<br>Like, 200 IQ is not really a thing. Also, if you're talking straight up IQ, above a certain threshold it just sort of stops mattering. Like if my IQ is 130, I'm fine, an IQ of 120 is like all you need for the sort of high end thinking shit. Lower IQs, you have more fun and people actually like you. Average IQ people get laid more, for instance.<br>In any case, if you're saying a player has a high IQ because of one play, you don't.<br>And it's way funnier to say like "this player who's known for playing terribly at these moments (stop having the memory of a goldfish, numbers don't go that big) actully pulled off something No one was expecting, look at how impressive this usually average player looked at this one moment. Wish we'd see more of that from players we like, you know whatever.<br>1000 IQ is just genuinely a nonsense phrasing for people who don't understand how IQ is measured.<br>You need a standardized test. And you do the factor analysis on the cognitive abilities, I mean, they'll jsut correlate it back with another fuckin IQ test at this point, who actually independently derives novel mental data manipulation diagramatics and association-success these days? That's like, shit that I would do. And it wouldn't just be one number, by the way. And it's like "ohh, but IQ predicts like this and that outcome", yeah? Have you tried specifing the mental abilities more closely associated, rather than taking RPM and verbal reasoning and being like "that makes you good at your job", like we really could differentiate better than that, and, like with type a personality, we Could technically find like, the actual predictive components, that have the (un)desired effect (like anger/hostility=bad for cardiovascular system). <br>So yeah.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n29H1x5o0A&t=373">6:13</a> That play is really a fumble at the endzone. He never stepped on there before tossing the ball.
If I had a nickel for everytime a packer took advantage of the kickoff out of bounds rules, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
When you don't have talent or your opponent is better than you and you can't win by talent alone. cheat or trick them. "shows great sportsmanship", i teach my boy to win fair and square or take the lose like a man which aren't many real men in sports anymore ,only premadonnas
Some of the best assists in NBA history are not here..an example is backward pass looking the other way under an opponents legs and between two other opponents to create an easy dunk…the player making that pass is being (arguably) called the best basketball player ever. A player who with his team won us the Gold Medal at the Olympics (& the previous final) in the clutch. No mention here though. Wonder why? 😀
When will basketball players figure out that you can slam it off the rim back to yourself every time. It’s not like you are only allowed to do it one time
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n29H1x5o0A&t=335">5:35</a> that's a touchback by rule. The ball crossed the goal line that's all that matters on a kickoff
I once went out with someone whose bath was haunted by John Lennon’s ghost. The faint sound of songs he never got to finish came through the pipes. The quality was little better than a bad radio, but you could tell who it was. My girlfriend stayed in the water until her skin was puckered, serenaded by the spirit of a dead Beatle, while I waited. When the landlord raised the rent too high, she was heartbroken. She spent weeks talking back to Lennon’s ghost, saying where we were moving, begging him to follow. But the new bath stayed silent.
Me tryna watch a video:<br>Volume: I'm boutta end this man's whole career<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n29H1x5o0A&t=1">0:01</a> OHH