Tag: Explain

  • Nearly 2 Million People Watched Jesse Eisenberg Explain The Unusual Reason He Feels “Guilty” Taking Vacations


    If there’s one type of character Jesse Eisenberg is known for playing, it’s guys with a wee bit of stress. OK, sometimes it’s full-blown anxiety.

    Jesse in a suit and shirt stands at an event with a

    Jamie McCarthy / Getty Images for National Board of Review

    Whether it was his Oscar-nominated turn as Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network or his critically acclaimed role in the FX/Hulu miniseries Fleishman Is in Trouble, Jesse has a knack for personifying jittery characters.

      Merrick Morton/©Columbia Pictures/Courtesy Everett Collection Linda Kallerus / ©FX / Courtesy of FX via Everett Collection

    Merrick Morton/©Columbia Pictures/Courtesy Everett Collection Linda Kallerus / ©FX / Courtesy of FX via Everett Collection

    He’s playing another one in his new film A Real Pain, which he also wrote and directed. The film follows Jesse as a disciplined guy and Kieran Culkin as his laissez-faire cousin taking a trip to Poland. It’s earned rave reviews.

    Jesse and Kieran sit on a couch in a casual setting, engaged in conversation. One wears a navy shirt, the other a maroon hoodie and striped pants

    Searchlight Pictures / Courtesy Everett Collection

    Earlier this month, A Real Pain received two Oscar nominations. Jesse is up for Best Original Screenplay, while Kieran is competing for Best Supporting Actor.

      Arturo Holmes / Getty Images

    Arturo Holmes / Getty Images

    Jesse stopped by Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week to talk about the movie, but one anecdote he shared about his vacation habits…or lack thereof…really caught people’s attention.

    Jimmy and Jesse in suits stand together, one with a striped tie and the other in an open-collared shirt, smiling at the camera

    Randy Holmes / Disney / Getty Images

    While discussing travel habits, Jimmy asked Jesse if he goes on vacations, which prompted the actor to say, “I don’t like vacations.”

      ABC / Via youtube.com

    Of course, he explained why. “I feel too guilty to go on a vacation. I have a very good life,” he said, noting that working as a film actor has him feeling “lucky” since he regularly travels for work.

      ABC / Via youtube.com

    As a result, he isn’t prone to laid-back vacations. “I can’t do that because I’m riddled with guilt,” he said.

      ABC / Via youtube.com

    He noted his vacation habits are more in line with that of his and Kieran’s A Real Pain characters who traveled to Poland for a Holocaust tour. “Those are the travels I do,” he said, using his last two vacations as an example. One was to a concentration camp in Austria, and the other was with his family to Timisoara, Romania, which is where the 1989 Communist revolutions began.

    Three people stand indoors near a window, one in a cap and striped sweater, another in a hoodie, and the third in a light blazer

    Searchlight Pictures / Courtesy Everett Collection

    “That’s the only time I could go on vacation and not hate myself,” he said of the Romanian trip.

      ABC / Via youtube.com

    Jesse later admitted he hasn’t told his son about Disney World. “I went to Disneyland during his lifetime without him,” he said. “I was doing something in Shanghai, and they took me to Shanghai Disney. I told him about it and he said, ‘It sounded interesting, but when are we going back to Rwanda?’”

      ABC / Via youtube.com

    The interview moment went viral on the late-night show’s TikTok page, garnering nearly 2 million views. In the comments, people were amused by Jesse’s self-deprecating humor about his stress.

    “He is the personification of anxiety ,” one person wrote.

    Comment with profile image:

    “i feel his anxiety through the phone,” another said.

      @ozymandias_24/TikTok / Via tiktok.com

    Someone even noted he should’ve voiced Anxiety in Inside Out 2, which would have been genius casting.

      @alurkinglurker/TikTok / Via tiktok.com

    Someone saw their own anxiety in Jesse, commenting, “I’ve never seen someone as anxious as me.”

      @elicoast/TikTok / Via tiktok.com

    And another summed up the moment best, saying, “As nervous as he looks, he is actually hilarious.” Because if you can’t laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

      @user36597086/TikTok / Via tiktok.com

    You can watch the clip on TikTok and read all the great comments here.





    In a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, actor Jesse Eisenberg revealed an unusual reason why he feels guilty taking vacations. Nearly 2 million people tuned in to watch as Eisenberg explained his unique perspective on taking time off.

    During the interview, Eisenberg shared that he feels guilty about taking vacations because he enjoys his work so much. He explained that he feels privileged to be able to do what he loves for a living and feels guilty when he takes time away from it.

    Eisenberg’s candid confession struck a chord with viewers, many of whom could relate to feeling guilty about taking time off from work. The interview sparked a conversation about work-life balance and the pressures of the entertainment industry.

    Fans of Eisenberg praised his honesty and vulnerability in discussing his feelings about vacations. Many commented on how refreshing it was to hear a celebrity speak openly about their struggles with guilt and workaholism.

    Overall, Eisenberg’s interview with Kimmel resonated with viewers and sparked a thoughtful discussion about the importance of taking breaks and prioritizing self-care. Nearly 2 million people watched as Eisenberg shared his personal perspective on guilt and vacations, proving that his candidness struck a chord with audiences.

    Tags:

    Jesse Eisenberg, guilt, vacations, celebrity news, entertainment, interviews, viral video, Hollywood, guilt complex, actor guilt, vacation guilt, guilt reasoning, guilt confession, guilt explanation, guilt revelation, guilt admission, Jesse Eisenberg interview, guilt discussion, guilt video, guilt story

    #Million #People #Watched #Jesse #Eisenberg #Explain #Unusual #Reason #Feels #Guilty #Vacations

  • Hands-On Explainable AI (XAI) with Python: Interpret, visualize, explain, and



    Hands-On Explainable AI (XAI) with Python: Interpret, visualize, explain, and

    Price : 53.88

    Ends on : N/A

    View on eBay
    implement machine learning models

    In this post, we will dive into the world of Explainable AI (XAI) with Python, exploring how we can interpret, visualize, explain, and implement machine learning models in a hands-on manner.

    Explainable AI is a crucial aspect of machine learning, as it allows us to understand and trust the decisions made by complex models. By providing transparency and interpretability, XAI enables us to gain insights into how models work and why they make certain predictions.

    To get started with Hands-On Explainable AI (XAI) in Python, we will use libraries such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), Lime (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations), and ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5) to interpret and visualize the inner workings of machine learning models.

    We will also walk through examples of how to explain model predictions, feature importance, and decision boundaries using these XAI techniques. Additionally, we will demonstrate how to implement these interpretable models in Python, providing a practical guide for incorporating XAI into your machine learning projects.

    By the end of this post, you will have a solid understanding of Hands-On Explainable AI (XAI) techniques in Python and how to apply them to interpret, visualize, explain, and implement machine learning models effectively. Stay tuned for a deep dive into the world of XAI with Python!
    #HandsOn #Explainable #XAI #Python #Interpret #visualize #explain,hands-on explainable ai (xai) with python

  • SNL comedian uses five words to explain why ‘Elon Musk is not a Nazi’


    Your support helps us to tell the story

    From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

    At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

    The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

    Your support makes all the difference.

    Saturday Night Live has taken a swift aim at Elon Musk, following the Tesla CEO’s controversial salute towards Donald Trump on inauguration day that many have deemed fascist.

    Musk, 53, was heavily criticised, including pushback from his own family, after he touched his chest and raised his right arm towards the sky as a gesture of thanks to Trump. He then repeated the salute just seconds later.

    During the 26 January episode of SNL, Weekend Update host Michael Che mocked Musk for the salute, once again drawing comparisons to the Nazis and Musk’s own Tesla brand.

    “Elon Musk was criticised for his speech at a rally after the inauguration in which he appears to give the Nazi salute. But come on, Elon Musk is not a Nazi,” Che said of the man behind the much maligned Cybertruck. “The Nazis made nice cars,” quipped Che, referencing the origins of Volkswagen.

    Musk previously responded to the widespread criticism, and rather than denying it was a Nazi salute, he instead said his critics needed “better dirty tricks” because comparing their political opponents to Adolf Hitler is “sooo tired”.

    Elon Musk

    Elon Musk (AFP via Getty Images)

    Musk’s Tesla company has become a target for his critics following the salute scandal.

    The owner of a Cybertruck that was vandalised with the word “Nazi” says she believes the offensive graffiti was targeted at Musk.

    Amanda Lopez-Lara, from the Bay Area, California, said that following the recent controversy surrounding the tech billionaire, the incident was unlikely to be a “coincidence”.

    Meanwhile, the British activist group, Led By Donkeys, projected an image of Musk’s salute onto Tesla’s Berlin Gigafactory, accompanied by the phrase “Heil Tesla”. The group, along with Germany’s Centre for Political Beauty, accuse Musk of using his wealth to “degrade democracy”.

    Led by Donkeys teamed up with German activist group Center for Political Beauty to project the image of Elon Musk on a Tesla Gigafactory in Berlin, Germany (Led By Donkeys)

    Led by Donkeys teamed up with German activist group Center for Political Beauty to project the image of Elon Musk on a Tesla Gigafactory in Berlin, Germany (Led By Donkeys)

    It comes after SNL’s Chloe Fineman admitted that she had “no regrets” for calling out Musk after he allegedly made her cry when he hosted the show in 2021.

    “Remember when I got in trouble for calling out Mr Nazi Salute?” the comedian shared in a Tuesday (21 January) Instagram Story. “Ya no regrets.”

    Last November, Fineman, 36, alleged that the Tesla billionaire, who hosted the show in May 2021, brought her to tears after telling her that her script wasn’t funny.



    “SNL Comedian Debunks Elon Musk Nazi Rumors with Five Simple Words”

    Tags:

    SNL, comedian, Elon Musk, Nazi, explanation

    #SNL #comedian #words #explain #Elon #Musk #Nazi

  • C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins


    The C.I.A. has said for years that it did not have enough information to conclude whether the Covid pandemic emerged naturally from a wet market in Wuhan, China, or from an accidental leak at a research lab there.

    But the agency issued a new assessment this week, with analysts saying they now favor the lab theory.

    There is no new intelligence behind the agency’s shift, officials said. Rather it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months.

    The analysis, however, is based in part on a closer look at the conditions in the high security labs in Wuhan province before the pandemic outbreak, according to people familiar with the agency’s work.

    A spokeswoman for the agency said the other theory remains plausible and that the agency will continue to evaluate any available credible new intelligence reporting.

    Some American officials say the debate matters little: The Chinese government failed to either regulate its markets or oversee its labs. But others argue it is an important intelligence and scientific question.

    John Ratcliffe, the new director of the C.I.A., has long favored the lab leak hypothesis. He has said it is a critical piece of intelligence that needs to be understood and that it has consequences for U.S.-Chinese relations.

    The announcement of the shift came shortly after Mr. Ratcliffe told Breitbart News he no longer wanted the agency “on the sidelines” of the debate over the origins of the Covid pandemic. Mr. Ratcliffe has long said he believes that the virus most likely emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    Officials said the agency was not bending its views to a new boss, and that the new assessment had been in the works for some time.

    In the final weeks of the Biden administration, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, ordered a new classified review of the pandemic’s origin. As part of that review, the agency’s previous director, William J. Burns, told analysts that they needed to take a position on the origins of Covid, though he was agnostic on which theory they should embrace, a senior U.S. intelligence official said.

    Another senior U.S. official said it was Mr. Ratcliffe’s decision to declassify and release the new analysis.

    Since the outbreak of the pandemic, questions have swirled around whether the two labs handling coronaviruses in Wuhan had followed safety protocols strictly enough.

    The agency made its new assessment with “low confidence,” which means the intelligence behind it is fragmentary and incomplete.

    Even in the absence of hard intelligence, the lab leak hypothesis has been gaining ground inside spy agencies. But some analysts question the wisdom of shifting a position in absence of new information.

    Former officials say they are not averse to a new examination of the Covid origins intelligence by the Trump administration. President Biden ordered a new review of the intelligence early in his administration after officials told the White House they had still-unexamined evidence.

    Mr. Ratcliffe has raised questions about politicization in the intelligence agencies. Mr. Ratcliffe, who was the director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration, argued in an essay for Fox News in 2023 that the C.I.A. did not want to embrace the lab leak to avoid geopolitical problems for the Biden administration.

    “The real problem is, the only assessment the agency could make — which is that a virus that killed over a million Americans originated in a C.C.P.-controlled lab whose research included work for the Chinese military — has enormous geopolitical implications that the Biden administration does not want to face head-on,” he said in the piece, which was written with Cliff Sims, a top aide. C.C.P. refers to China’s Communist Party.

    Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has long said he thought the pandemic originated in one of the Wuhan labs and praised the shift in judgment by the agency.

    “Now the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Mr. Cotton said.

    Mr. Ratcliffe said on Thursday, when he was sworn in, that a look at the origins of Covid was a “Day 1” priority.

    “I think our intelligence, our science and our common sense all really dictate that the origins of Covid was a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he told Breitbart. “But the C.I.A. has not made that assessment or at least not made that assessment publicly. So I’m going to focus on that and look at the intelligence and make sure that the public is aware that the agency is going to get off the sidelines.”

    Senior intelligence officials in the Biden administration defend their process and methodology. They have said that no intelligence was suppressed and insist that politics did not play into their analysis.

    These officials say that there are powerful logical arguments for both the lab leak and the natural causes theories, but that there simply is no decisive piece of intelligence on either side of the issue.

    To boost the natural origins theory, intelligence officers would like to find the animal that passed it to a human or find a bat carrying what was the likely ancestor of the coronavirus that causes Covid.

    Similarly, to seal the lab leak, the intelligence community would like to find evidence that one of the labs in Wuhan was working on a progenitor virus that directly led to the epidemic.

    Neither piece of evidence has been found.

    But Mr. Ratcliffe has promised a more aggressive C.I.A., and it is possible that he will order more actions to penetrate the labs in Wuhan or the Chinese government in a search for information.

    It will not be an easy secret to steal. The senior ranks of the Chinese government do not know, and do not want to know, American officials have said. So if there is intelligence, it is probably hidden in a place that is hard to get to.

    Intelligence officials interviewed in recent weeks say it is possible that such a piece of evidence exists in a lab in China, at least in theory. But, they said, it is still more likely that the answers to questions surrounding the virus’s origins will come through a scientific breakthrough, not an intelligence revelation.

    Under the Biden administration, the intelligence community leaned toward the theory that the virus came from the market. But officials readily admitted it was hardly a sure thing.

    Five agencies, including the National Intelligence Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed that natural exposure most likely caused the epidemic. But they said that they had only low-confidence in their assessment.

    Until now, two agencies, the F.B.I. and Department of Energy, thought a lab leak was more likely. But their theories are different. The F.B.I. believes the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Energy Department put its bet on another lab, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control.

    Officials would not say if the C.I.A. believes one lab or the other was the more likely source of the virus.



    The Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) has reportedly shifted its stance on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, now favoring the theory that the virus may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. This change in perspective comes after months of speculation and debate surrounding the origins of the virus, with some initially dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy.

    According to recent reports, the C.I.A. has obtained new evidence and intelligence that points towards the possibility of a lab accident as the source of the virus. This revelation has sparked renewed interest in investigating the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other research facilities in the area, with calls for greater transparency and cooperation from Chinese authorities.

    The lab leak theory has been a topic of contention since the early days of the pandemic, with some experts and officials arguing that it is a more plausible explanation than the previously favored theory of natural animal-to-human transmission. As more information comes to light, it is becoming increasingly clear that a thorough and independent investigation into the origins of Covid-19 is necessary to prevent future pandemics and hold accountable those responsible for any potential mishandling of dangerous pathogens.

    The C.I.A.’s shift towards supporting the lab leak theory is a significant development in the ongoing debate over the origins of the virus, and it underscores the importance of a comprehensive and transparent investigation into this global health crisis. As the world continues to grapple with the devastating impact of Covid-19, it is crucial that we uncover the truth behind its origins in order to prevent similar outbreaks in the future.

    Tags:

    1. C.I.A.
    2. Lab leak theory
    3. Covid origins
    4. C.I.A. perspective
    5. Covid-19 origins
    6. Lab leak hypothesis
    7. C.I.A. investigation
    8. Covid-19 pandemic
    9. Coronavirus origins
    10. Wuhan lab theory

    #C.I.A #Favors #Lab #Leak #Theory #Explain #Covids #Origins

  • Explain One Play: Steph Curry and Dennis Schröder run with Scissors to cut up Wizards


    A list of all Explain One Play articles and videos is at The new Explain One Play Search Engine. In this episode, we analyze the Golden State Warriors’ use of the ‘Scissors’ pick-and-roll play in their recent games against the Minnesota Timberwolves and Washington Wizards om 2025-01-19-WAS-GSW. Key moments include strategic play calls from Steve Kerr, critical screens by Kevon Looney, and standout performances by Steph Curry, Dennis Schröder, Gary Payton II and Andrew Wiggins. We also explore how different defensive responses from teams like the Timberwolves and Wizards influence the Warriors’ adjustments Lastly, we update the struggle to form…

    Read more at dubnationhq.com






    In this edition of Explain One Play, we’re breaking down a highlight play featuring Steph Curry and Dennis Schröder as they cut up the Washington Wizards with precision and finesse.

    The play starts with Curry bringing the ball up the court, closely guarded by his defender. As he crosses half court, he quickly surveys the defense and notices a mismatch with Schröder being guarded by a slower defender. Curry immediately calls for a pick from Schröder, who obliges and sets a solid screen.

    With the screen set, Curry quickly accelerates past his defender and gets into the paint. As the defense collapses on Curry, he makes a quick kick-out pass to Schröder, who is now wide open on the perimeter. Schröder catches the ball and without hesitation, rises up for a three-point shot.

    The shot is nothing but net, as Schröder drains the three-pointer with ease. The Wizards defense is left scrambling as they try to recover, but it’s too late. Curry and Schröder have successfully cut up the defense with their quick decision-making and teamwork, leaving the Wizards in their wake.

    This play showcases the importance of spacing, communication, and taking advantage of mismatches on the court. Curry and Schröder’s ability to read and react to the defense led to an easy basket and ultimately helped secure the win for their team. It’s plays like these that highlight the brilliance of two elite playmakers working together to dissect the opposition.

    Tags:

    Steph Curry, Dennis Schröder, NBA, basketball, analysis, breakdown, play breakdown, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Lakers, Washington Wizards, basketball strategy, teamwork, scoring, assists, highlights, basketball tactics, sports analysis

    #Explain #Play #Steph #Curry #Dennis #Schröder #run #Scissors #cut #Wizards

  • Baseball Hall of Fame ballots 2025: The Athletic’s voters explain their selections


    The night before Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2016, I was lucky enough to be in the plaque room in Cooperstown, N.Y., standing behind Cal Ripken Jr. in line to get a drink.

    As I looked around the room, I saw Randy Johnson pointing out his plaque to friends, a smile on his face that was never seen on the field. I saw Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal sitting at a table talking, and wished I were a Spanish-speaking fly on the wall to hear that conversation. As I nursed a beer in the corner, Barry Larkin came over and asked how I was doing.

    “Dude, I shouldn’t be here,” I said to Larkin, whom I’d covered briefly late in his Hall of Fame career, while looking around at so many of the game’s legends. “I don’t belong here.”

    “I know what you’re saying,” Larkin said.

    I was incredulous and pointed in the direction of his plaque: “Barry, you can’t. Your face is over there.”

    “Bro,” Larkin said, dead serious. “I get it. I don’t feel like I belong here either.”

    That interaction stuck with me, and I remember it every year when the Hall of Fame ballot arrives in November.

    The ballot itself is an unremarkable piece of office paper and comes with simple instructions. There are 30 or so names (28 this year) with boxes beside them, and a place to sign the ballot, making it official.

    Some scoff at the Hall using paper ballots, delivered by mail and returned in a pre-paid envelope. But the fact that it’s an actual, tangible piece of paper makes the already weighty assignment feel heavier.

    I have been voting for the Hall of Fame since the 2015 election, marking Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson on my first ballot among eight other names. Each time has been an honor. Over the years, I’ve also had countless discussions with other voters, Hall of Famers and people in the game about what makes a Hall of Famer.

    I have my own beliefs, but so do the roughly 400 other voters, each with their own reasoning and bar to clear. It’s difficult to get a consensus of 75 percent of the voters to agree on anything, but nearly every year the baseball writers find someone worthy to reach that threshold. Even here at The Athletic, we have different ideas about Hall voting; each, I believe, is well thought out, with the process taken seriously — so seriously, in fact, that we believe we should show you how we voted, but also why we voted as we did.

    The 2025 Hall of Fame class will be announced next Tuesday and immortalized, along with Dick Allen and Dave Parker, this summer in Cooperstown. Here are the ballots of 12 of The Athletic’s Hall of Fame voters and, in their words, more on their selections. — C. Trent Rosecrans


    In awe of the Hall: Barry Larkin in 2016, four years after he was inducted. (Jim McIsaac / Getty Images)

    Daniel Barbarisi’s ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Billy Wagner

    When Hall of Fame season was getting underway this past fall, I got a message from one of the guys I was a Red Sox beat writer with in the late 2000s, someone who had covered Dustin Pedroia at the same time I did. He asked, pointedly, are you voting for Pedey?

    Pedroia is something of a cause célèbre among a group of voters, and I get that. He was fun to cover, he was relentless and productive and more than all of that, he was inspiring. This was a guy who clearly wasn’t supposed to be there, who made his life’s work about getting in the faces of people who didn’t believe in him and showing them that he could kick as much ass as the next player, and probably more, because he wanted it more.

    Writers will sometimes pose the (imperfect, incomplete) question: Does it feel like I’m watching a Hall of Famer? With Pedroia, in the late 2000s, it did. Elite, distinctive, rose to the moment, delivered consistency and impact at the plate and in the field, won awards, won World Series, made things feel bigger than they were. The peak was there. But it didn’t last.

    Look over his counting stats — 1,805 hits, 140 home runs, 138 steals, 725 RBIs, and so on — and they are hallmarks of a career that feels incomplete. One moment Pedroia was a metronomic presence at the heart of the Red Sox lineup, and the next he was just … gone, replaced by a new generation of stars, supposed to be the bridge from the 2007 group to the up-and-comers who won the 2018 title, but in reality he was largely absent after a devastating 2017 knee injury.

    Was that a singular moment that wrecked an otherwise Hall of Fame career? Yes and no. It was the injury he couldn’t come back from, but there were numerous others before that, wear-and-tear injuries, pushed-too-hard injuries, the problems that come from putting that level of torque and that level of himself into every ferocious hack. I think back on Pedroia’s swing and the word that comes to mind is violence. It looked like he was summoning everything he had for the fifth pitch of the third at-bat of the night for a 2009 Tuesday night game against the Orioles, and he did that every single game, always. That adds up.

    I grew up in New York thinking Don Mattingly was both the greatest ever to play and a clear Hall of Famer, and the similarities between the two cases are pretty obvious. As a kid or even a young adult, you don’t really understand why someone like Mattingly doesn’t make the cut, and feel a slight resentment about that. But years ago, I remember hearing Mattingly discuss his own candidacy with remarkable clarity: how grateful he was to be considered, and how he was acutely aware that he was not a Hall of Famer. The numbers weren’t there. That peak matters, but so does longevity; he had one at a Hall of Fame level and not quite the other.

    Pedroia’s career is impressive enough that it shouldn’t be seen in the context of What Could Have Been. But when it comes to the Hall of Fame, it’s hard not to wonder.

    Dustin Pedroia


    Dustin Pedroia dives for a grounder in 2019, his 14th and final season. (Billie Weiss / Boston Red Sox / Getty Images)

    Tim Britton’s ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Félix Hernández, Dustin Pedroia, Andy Pettitte, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner, David Wright

    Look, I cover the Mets, so I understand one fan base’s case against Chase Utley’s Hall of Fame candidacy. But to me, Utley is an easy call. He produced like a legitimate MVP candidate for five seasons and like an All-Star for 10. He was the ringleader for a team that won five divisions, two pennants and a championship. He was baseball’s best second baseman for a decade, and he should not be dispatched into a group with Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker as should-be Hall of Famers at second base who haven’t made the cut.

    Utley leads a group of similar candidates who excelled for around a decade but lacked the longevity to reach the counting stats of traditional Hall of Famers. David Wright was right there with Adrián Beltré as the sport’s premier third basemen for a decade. Dustin Pedroia took the mantle at the keystone from Utley. And Félix Hernández was historically good through his 20s — good enough to mitigate the abruptness of his decline in his 30s. The sport has changed, most obviously for starting pitchers, leading me to place an even higher value on a player’s peak, especially when it extends for nine or 10 seasons.

    (For what it’s worth, Andruw Jones would fall into this category as well. However, I do not vote for Jones because of his 2012 arrest on battery charges in a domestic assault incident.)

    Daniel Brown’s ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    Here’s hoping we can avoid the “which” hunt this year — as in, Which freaking voter kept Ichiro from being a unanimous selection? The 10-time All-Star looks poised to accomplish what another former Mariners outfielder, Ken Griffey Jr., barely missed when three voters left him off the ballot in 2016.

    Ichiro would be the first position player to get 100 percent of the writers’ vote and just the second player behind reliever Mariano Rivera, who went 425 for 425 in 2019. And if Ichiro isn’t unanimous, well, that’ll be just as hard to explain as the voters who snubbed immortals such as Willie Mays (left off 23 ballots), Mickey Mantle (43) and Yogi Berra (59).

    My favorite Ichiro stat: Among batters with at least 2,000 plate appearances, he is the only left-handed hitter in MLB history with a reverse platoon split. He batted .329 against lefties and .304 against righties.

    As for my other checkmarks: I continue to struggle with players linked to performance-enhancing drugs, but once Bud Selig, Tony La Russa and other leaders who profited from that era were welcomed into Cooperstown, it complicated the equation.

    CC Sabathia stands out from the starting pitcher pack on this ballot. As Jay Jaffe noted on FanGraphs, Sabathia leads pitchers from this class in WAR, WAR7-Adj and S-Jaws. I also agree with Jaffe that “we won’t see his kind again; nobody born after 1966 has topped his 3,577 1/3 innings, and Sabathia was born 14 years later.”


    Ichiro topped 200 hits in each of his first 10 seasons in MLB. (Otto Greule Jr / Getty Images)

    Steve Buckley’s ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Dustin Pedroia, Andy Pettitte, Jimmy Rollins, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner, David Wright

    CC Sabathia is a lock to be elected to the Hall of Fame in this, his first year on the ballot. That’s as it should be.

    What we also know, thanks to the ceaseless sleuthing from the crew at Baseball Hall of Fame Vote Tracker, is that the big lefty will not be a unanimous selection. And that’s a head-scratcher, frankly.

    Tell you what I’m going to do: Rather than make the Cooperstown case for Sabathia by rolling out all kinds of charts, diagrams and View-Master slides, I’ll just invite you to google “CC Sabathia,” “Hall of Fame” and “duh,” and that’ll take you where you need to go. (I tried it. It works!)

    What I’d like to do with my turn, here on The Athletic’s Open Mic Night (Baseball Hall of Fame edition), is address the appointment viewing that occurred whenever Sabathia was on the mound during his 19 seasons in the big leagues. You know what appointment viewing is when it comes to pitching, right? That’s when a team has a pitcher whose stuff, whose presence, whose personality, is such that you make it your business to always know when he’s doing his business. That’s what you do with the great ones: A note is made, either in the head or in a little gizmo, about when the next start will be. And you don’t miss it. If the manager has reshuffled the rotation due to an off-day or rainout, you adjust your own schedule accordingly.

    When I was growing up in Cambridge, Mass., it was Luis Tiant. Much later on, when I was writing about the Red Sox for a living, it was Roger Clemens and then Pedro Martinez, along with a dash of Curt Schilling, even before the bloody sock. Sabathia is in their company, mostly because of his stellar pitching but also because, sure, he’s a big fella who sometimes wore his cap tilted over the right eye. You could have dropped out of the sky, new to baseball, and instantly recognized Sabathia’s importance.

    I loved watching Sabathia pitch. I admired him for what struck me as an off-the-charts earnestness, as though he wasn’t just pitching for his team but for whatever city he happened to be based in at the time. Though born and raised in the Bay Area, he was a Cleveland guy when he was pitching for the Indians, a Milwaukee guy during that magical half season with the Brewers, and, yes, absolutely, a New York guy during his 11 seasons with the Yankees.

    Media people aren’t supposed to root for this or that player, but it’s perfectly acceptable to admire the artistry. In fact, I encourage it. And CC Sabathia, artist in residence in Cleveland, in Milwaukee, in New York, was someone every ballplayer should strive to be. In this age of openers and pitch counts, we just don’t have enough of his type anymore.

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Why Dustin Pedroia has a checkmark on my Hall of Fame ballot

    Marc Carig’s ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Félix Hernández, Andruw Jones, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Billy Wagner

    One afternoon before a game, I was chatting with CC Sabathia in the Yankees’ clubhouse, where the franchise’s retired numbers are displayed for all to see. He motioned toward the array of numerals — shorthand for the idea of greatness in the Bronx —  and uttered a phrase that over the years became one of his mantras: “The pinstripes are heavy.”

    Yet, Sabathia spent a career meeting expectations that were as outsized as his talent and personality. He starred in Cleveland, a franchise long dependent on its ability to be right about its young talent. Sabathia was a first-rounder and subsequently pitched like it. Upon his deadline trade to the Brewers in 2008, Sabathia pitched on short rest in the heat of a pennant race, even though he knew his Milwaukee tenure was likely a three-month pit stop ahead of free agency. It’s a feat that only grows more impressive over time. Then, Sabathia arrived in New York before the 2009 season as the jewel of a $423 million offseason, a spasm of Steinbrenner-esque spending that represented the franchise’s desperation to end a nine-year title drought.

    That investment paid off immediately. Months later, Sabathia and the Yankees were headed up the Canyon of Heroes. Sabathia was brought in to be an ace and a leader, and needed just one season to accomplish the goal.

    Hall of Famers should be dominant for a long period of time. For me, it’s the primary prerequisite. Sabathia fulfilled that requirement, all while shouldering the weight of expectations. He was an ace, and for a long time, he pitched like it.

    As did Félix Hernández. We can debate the breadth of King Félix’s career accomplishments, but this feels clear: Hernández was so dominant that he’s precisely the kind of player we should want to celebrate.

    Billy Wagner made his mark as a reliever. Few players have been so far ahead of their time, and Wagner racked up strikeouts at a staggering rate for his era. Carlos Beltrán as an all-around player was a sight to behold — gifted both physically and intellectually. Andruw Jones’ greatness in center did not require the aid of advanced metrics to appreciate. And Ichiro’s inclusion requires little commentary: simply one of the best to ever swing a bat.

    Dan Hayes’ ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    Here’s hoping Carlos Beltrán continues trending in the right direction toward Hall of Fame election.

    This is Beltrán’s third year on the ballot. Last year, he jumped 10.6 percent from his 2023 debut, garnering 57.1 percent of the vote. In 2023, Beltrán received only 46.5 percent approval, which was likely an indication some voters were punishing him for his leading role in the 2017 Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scandal.

    Perhaps it was collective fatigue from 2022, when the Baseball Writers’ Association of America turned away Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling (I voted for all three every time), but I checked “yes” for Beltrán in 2023. I don’t condone what Beltrán did in Houston and understand why others might have chosen to leave his name unchecked in that first year.

    But maybe the electorate is open to changing its mind on a very worthy player.

    No other Astros players were punished and A.J. Hinch and Alex Cora have returned to the dugout. Beltrán has paid more for his role than anyone else involved. Since the Mets fired him as their manager in 2020, no other team has considered him for any type of coaching role.

    Beltrán was amazing throughout his career. He arrived with authority, winning the 1999 Rookie of the Year Award, and rarely slowed down. After he was fortunate enough to be traded from Kansas City in 2004, Beltrán lived up to the hype almost everywhere he went.

    His first postseason is one of the greatest performances of all time. His overall postseason play was incredible, slugging 16 homers and nabbing all 11 stolen bases he attempted. Beltrán conquered New York with the Mets. He was a five-tool stud for the first 10 years and a great hitter after that.

    I’m just hoping we don’t exclude yet another amazing player.


    Carlos Beltrán, pictured in 2012 with the Cardinals, had a 1.021 OPS over 256 career plate appearances in the postseason. (Jamie Squire / Getty Images)

    Chad Jennings’ ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Russell Martin, Dustin Pedroia, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner, David Wright

    There seems to be a theory — maybe it’s more of a hot take — that if you must ask whether a player is a Hall of Famer, then he’s not a Hall of Famer. It sounds profound, but it’s cheap, lazy and wrong. We don’t always know greatness when we see it, and the Hall of Fame deserves more than gut instinct.

    All of which is to say that I, too, never thought Russell Martin was a Hall of Famer when he was playing. I covered him in New York, but it never once crossed my mind that I would one day vote for him to be enshrined in Cooperstown.

    Now, I wonder if I simply didn’t recognize Martin’s impact as it was happening. It’s possible, of course, that I’m putting too much emphasis on his pitch framing ability, but it’s also possible that framing is so valuable — and so revered — that it’s going to determine the sport’s next technological breakthrough. Current data shows that Martin was on the leading edge of that skill set, and if your gut says that Yadier Molina (55.6 WAR per FanGraphs) is going to be a Hall of Famer in a few years, then you need to think long and hard about Martin (54.5).

    Of course, that doesn’t make Martin a can’t-miss case, but such players are few and far between. (Ichiro is probably the only one on this ballot.) It takes almost 300 votes for a player to be elected, which has led me to be more of a “Big Hall” voter, and high-peak players fit my vision of Cooperstown. It turns out, so do some players I didn’t recognize as Hall of Famers until it came time to vote.

    Keith Law’s ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley

    I believe this is my smallest ballot since I became a Hall voter, but I’ve always been a “Small Hall” person. There was just too big of a backlog of players because of voter squeamishness over anyone with a possible connection to PED usage that, when I first started voting, I didn’t have enough room for everyone I wanted to check off. All of those candidates either got in or reached their 10-year limit on the ballot, and now we get one or maybe two easy yeses in each year — and some years, we get none.

    Of the six players I did check this year, only Ichiro is a no-brainer; even if someone wanted to quibble with his MLB performance, his impact on the global game is more than enough to make him an inner-circle Hall of Famer. CC Sabathia is the other new candidate for whom I voted, and he just squeaks over the line for me; his performance is quite comparable to that of Andy Pettitte, for whom I have never voted, but Sabathia’s reputation around the game as a clubhouse leader and the way he has used his voice and stature after his playing career to speak out about racial inequities in the game are separating factors for me. Our sport needs more CC Sabathias. We were, and still are, lucky to have him.

    Stephen J. Nesbitt’s ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Andy Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    As a first-time Hall of Fame voter, choosing the boxes to check on your maiden ballot brings with it an amalgam of anticipation, remember-some-guys nostalgia and pressure to firmly plant your flag. And after year upon year of reading writers’ lengthy throat clearing at the start of ballot explainers, I will skip straight to the bullet points.

    • I voted for 10 players. It’s harder than ever to become a Hall of Famer. I will not make that more difficult by delighting in showing off my selectivity.

    • I voted for the steroid guys. Many writers refuse to vote for any player reported to have used PEDs. Others put Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez in a distinct category because they were suspended multiple times after MLB established clear rules. There are cheaters of many forms in the Hall of Fame. If a player is on the ballot, and therefore eligible for election, I will judge them on the factor this game has always held most sacred: numbers. Rodriguez and Ramirez were greats. They have my vote and will surely still fall far short of 75 percent.

    • I voted for Bobby Abreu. That he wasn’t thought of as a future Hall of Famer during his playing career means nothing. It is only an indictment of what was valued at the time.

    • I voted for Andy Pettitte, with my final vote, over Félix Hernández and Mark Buehrle, a threesome I had never expected to consider side-by-side-by-side. There are already too few starters making it to Cooperstown, and that trend will only worsen with current pitching trends. (The longevity-versus-peak debate cannot function once longevity is no longer an option.) All three of these starters had a career 117 ERA+. I enjoyed that. Hernández had the peak, and I expect to vote for him in future years. Buehrle lasted longer, won four Gold Glove awards and a World Series ring. But it’s past time for the induction of Pettitte, whose résumé includes longevity, cold hard stats, postseason success and five World Series titles.

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Stark: Why I voted for Andy Pettitte for the Hall of Fame for the first time


    Bobby Abreu (60.2 career bWAR) has never topped 16 percent of the vote. (George Widman / Associated Press)

    David O’Brien’s ballot

    Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Brian McCann, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    Andruw Jones is considered by many to be the greatest defensive center fielder in a half-century or more. Couple his 10 consecutive Gold Gloves with 434 career home runs, and it’s understandable why so many former players, along with Braves fans, find it unfathomable that Jones hasn’t been elected to the Hall of Fame in seven tries.

    I get why some writers leave him off their ballots. It’s his modest .254 career batting average and 111 OPS+, and the precipitous decline after his age-30 season, his last with Atlanta. He hit .210 with 66 homers and a 95 OPS+ over his final five seasons with four other teams.

    But dig deeper and realize Jones debuted at 19. In a 10-year stretch beginning at age 21, he averaged 34 homers, 103 RBIs and 158 games played while slugging .504 and winning a Gold Glove every season. To repeat, he averaged 34 homers and 104 RBIs while winning Gold Gloves every season for a decade.

    Now, what if he debuted at, say, 22, and had that 10-year stretch from ages 24 through 33? How many would use a sharp decline in his ages 34-38 seasons as a reason to keep a perennial Gold Glover and prolific middle-of-the-order hitter out of Cooperstown? With some, perception has overridden a staggering decade of performance by Jones, the likes of which we’ve seen from few center fielders not named Mays, Mantle or Griffey.

    Perhaps I’m stunned Jones is not in the Hall because I covered so many games during his peak years — first, as a Marlins beat writer who watched Jones routinely erase potential Florida runs and drive in so many for the Braves beginning in his first full season in 1997. Then as a Braves beat writer beginning in 2002, I saw him win countless games with his glove and bat through 2007.

    Consider: Jones finished with about 50 more Defensive Runs Saved than the immortal Willie Mays, and 30 more than cannon-armed Roberto Clemente. Those icons are the only two outfielders with more Gold Gloves than Jones; Mays and Clemente won 12 apiece after the award began in 1957.

    Besides Jones, the only players to win at least 10 Gold Gloves and hit 400 or more homers: Mays, Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Schmidt, three first-ballot Hall of Famers.

    This is Jones’ eighth year on the ballot, and it looks as if he’s going to miss again, albeit by a smaller margin than seemed likely a few years ago when he was named on barely 40 percent of ballots. Jones inched his way up to 61.6 percent in 2024, and this year he’ll likely move closer to the 75 percent threshold required for election, based on the publicly released ballots as of Monday (72.6 percent).

    But voting percentages typically drop at least 5 percent after all ballots are counted, including those not made public before the big announcement, so Jones probably will fall short. If so, he would have two more chances to get in through the writers’ vote.

    It’s going to be close, but I think he’ll be voted in by the writers a year from now or in his final year of eligibility. If not, it’ll be up to an Era Committee to vote Jones into the Hall. And I’m confident they would, given the makeup of those committees, which typically include plenty of former players and managers.

    C. Trent Rosecrans’ ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Andruw Jones, Andy Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    One of the criticisms I hear about Hall of Fame voting is, how can a player not be worth a Hall of Fame vote one year and then be worth a checkmark the next year? You’re a Hall of Famer or not, right?

    But each year has a different electorate after gaining and losing voters, usually replacing older voters with younger ones. That not only changes who is voting, but also how we view the game and our evaluation tools. And each year is a different ballot with different names, but the same limit of 10 choices among those listed.

    Each voter deals with the rule of 10 in their own way. Some never have to consider it because they wouldn’t vote for that many players. Others have to make a distinction between two players with similar cases. Still others look at trends and try to navigate more rules, weighing which players could drop off the ballot if they don’t receive the required 5 percent of the vote or which players are nearing the end of their 10 years of eligibility.

    Bobby Abreu and Billy Wagner are on their sixth and 10th years on the ballot, respectively. For the second time, I voted for Abreu. For the third time, I voted for Wagner. That means I didn’t vote for Abreu four times and didn’t vote for Wagner seven times. At no point did either man’s statistics change.

    There are easy names on the ballot most years, like Ichiro Suzuki this year, but the rest are more difficult to decide. I always believed both Abreu and Wagner were great players with great careers, but before my more recent Hall of Fame research work, I had them below the line for entrance. Over the years, I’ve changed my stance, even if that hasn’t always meant they got my vote. On the ballot for the 2023 class, I voted for both; last year, I only voted for Wagner; this year, I again voted for both.

    In 2024, Wagner came within five votes of election.

    Although he was once again around my line of demarcation to make the Hall, Wagner was an easy pick in his final year of eligibility. In the end, I’d rather be the reason someone gained entrance into the Hall of Fame than the reason they were kept out.

    Will I continue this way? I don’t know. Each year is its own discussion and each ballot has its own context. I always take that into consideration, an imperfect solution to an imperfect process.


    Billy Wagner garnered 73.8 percent of the vote last year. (Paul J. Bereswill / Associated Press)

    Eno Sarris’ ballot

    Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Félix Hernández, Andruw Jones, Brian McCann, Andy Pettitte, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

    Framing is on the ballot for the first time.

    Whether you think of framing as “stealing strikes” or “presenting,” the skill has real value. When Russell Martin, Yadier Molina, and Brian McCann were catching, baseball was just figuring out how to assign a number to how much framing was worth. The trio ended up being the three best framers in the history of the statistic, as a result of their excellence — but also because the rest of the league hadn’t caught up yet.

    When those three were getting called strikes on more than half of the pitches they received in the shadow zone — the borderline space that’s half-in, half-out of the strike zone — there were also catchers who were getting strike calls on only a third of those opportunities. The trio racked up framing stats because the worst framers at the time were terrible. The worst regular catcher this year (Korey Lee) got strikes on 43 percent of the takes he saw in the shadow zone; the best (Patrick Bailey) got strikes on 53 percent. The league has figured this out. Framing is valued.

    Consequently, if you re-racked the careers of this trio of great defensive catchers and started them now, even with the same work on the field, they wouldn’t achieve the same relative value when compared to their peers. The framing numbers that put all three into the top 15 catchers of all time by FanGraphs’ WAR would no longer be there for them.

    But this happens all the time. Babe Ruth hit 54 homers in a year when second place hit 19 homers. We don’t take that value away from him just because the league hadn’t quite figured out the value of slugging. Dazzy Vance struck out guys way before that was in vogue — he leads in career-adjusted strikeout percentage, and he’s in the Hall of Fame. The sport usually rewards trailblazers.

    All that said — and even though catcher is the most under-represented position in the Hall — I balked at Martin’s offensive stats. A career .248/.349/.397 line with 191 homers and 101 steals didn’t pass my sniff test. McCann hit .262/.337/.452 with 282 homers and was nearly the same framer, so he got my vote.

    But I hope Martin makes it to another ballot. For all the bellyaching I did about his offense, I made an uncomfortable realization late in the process — Molina’s career OPS was worse than Martin’s. And Molina will get my vote.


    Hall of Fame ballot columns from The Athletic

    Ken Rosenthal’s and Tyler Kepner’s respective ballot columns published last week. Jayson Stark’s ballot column will be published later this week.

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Rosenthal: Why CC Sabathia received my Hall of Fame vote this year and Andy Pettitte did not

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Kepner: Why Félix Hernández fell just short on my Hall of Fame ballot — and why I’m grateful he’s still in play


    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Five things to watch on the 2025 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Baseball Hall of Fame reader survey results: How Ichiro, Wagner, Sabathia and more fared

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    A salute to Ichiro, CC Sabathia and the other 12 newcomers to the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

    go-deeper

    GO DEEPER

    Baseball Hall of Fame tiers: Which active players are on course for Cooperstown?

    (Top image: Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic. Photos: Ichiro Suzuki: Tom DiPace / Sports Illustrated / Getty Images; CC Sabathia: Rich Pilling / MLB Photos / Getty Images; Billy Wagner: Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images) 



    As the 2025 Baseball Hall of Fame ballots are being finalized, The Athletic reached out to some of their top writers and analysts to explain their selections. With a stacked group of eligible players this year, the voters had some tough decisions to make. From first-time eligible stars to controversial returning candidates, here’s a look at why The Athletic’s voters made their picks for the 2025 Hall of Fame class.

    First and foremost, the voters considered players’ on-field performance and impact on the game. Statistical analysis played a big role in their decision-making process, as they looked at traditional stats like batting average and home runs, as well as advanced metrics like WAR and wRC+. They also took into account postseason success, awards won, and overall contributions to their teams.

    But it wasn’t just about the numbers for The Athletic’s voters. They also considered players’ character, integrity, and sportsmanship, as well as their impact on the game off the field. This meant weighing controversial figures like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens against players with cleaner reputations.

    In the end, the voters had to make some tough choices. Some players fell just short of the 75% threshold needed for induction, while others received overwhelming support. But regardless of the final outcome, each voter took their responsibility seriously and carefully considered each player’s candidacy.

    As the ballots are tallied and the 2025 Hall of Fame class is announced, fans will undoubtedly debate the decisions made by The Athletic’s voters. But one thing is for certain: the Baseball Hall of Fame is a prestigious honor, and only the best of the best will earn their spot in Cooperstown.

    Tags:

    Baseball Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame ballots, Baseball Hall of Fame 2025, The Athletic, voters, selections, baseball, MLB, voting process

    #Baseball #Hall #Fame #ballots #Athletics #voters #explain #selections

  • Learn Statistics Today: 50 Solved Equations To Easily Explain Statistics! (Content Guide Included Book 2)


    Price: $3.99
    (as of Jan 18,2025 16:16:11 UTC – Details)




    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NCSGZ12
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 3, 2019
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 4199 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 62 pages


    Are you struggling to understand statistics? Look no further! Our latest book, “Learn Statistics Today: 50 Solved Equations To Easily Explain Statistics! (Content Guide Included Book 2),” is here to help you master the concepts with ease.

    This comprehensive guide features 50 solved equations that will break down complex statistical concepts into simple, easy-to-understand explanations. Whether you’re a student, professional, or just looking to expand your knowledge, this book is perfect for anyone wanting to improve their statistical skills.

    With a detailed content guide included, you can easily navigate through the book and find the information you need quickly. From probability theory to hypothesis testing, this book covers it all in a clear and concise manner.

    Don’t let statistics intimidate you any longer. Pick up a copy of “Learn Statistics Today: 50 Solved Equations To Easily Explain Statistics! (Content Guide Included Book 2)” and start mastering statistics today!
    #Learn #Statistics #Today #Solved #Equations #Easily #Explain #Statistics #Content #Guide #Included #Book,machine learning: an applied mathematics introduction

  • Final Destination 6 Can Finally Explain The Franchise’s Biggest Mystery Thanks To 1 Key Change

    Final Destination 6 Can Finally Explain The Franchise’s Biggest Mystery Thanks To 1 Key Change


    The Final Destination movie series is among the latest to get a reboot, and the upcoming sixth movie can finally explain the franchise’s biggest mystery thanks to one important change. Back in 2000, the horror genre was going through a peak in slasher stories, and Final Destination arrived to add extra chaos to this branch. Directed by James Wong, Final Destination introduces the audience to Alex Browning (Devon Sawa), who has a vivid vision of the plane he’s boarding exploding. Alex, a teacher, and some of his friends and classmates leave the plane, which minutes later explodes just like in his vision.

    Because Alex and the rest cheated Death, they begin to die in bizarre circumstances, one by one in the order they were meant to die on the plane. The success of Final Destination led to a franchise with a total of five movies and a sixth one in development, with the rest of the movies following the same formula as the first one. However, the upcoming reboot, Final Destination: Bloodlines, is doing things slightly differently, and thanks to this, it can finally solve the franchise’s biggest mystery without losing the saga’s essence.

    Final Destination: Bloodlines Will Focus On First Responders

    Final Destination 6 Is Taking A Different Approach

    Final Destination 5's main characters talking to Tony Todd's William Bludworth

    The Final Destination movies don’t follow a continuity, instead just being set in the same universe – however, Final Destination 5 reveals at the end that it’s a prequel, and the ending makes way for the plane explosion at the beginning of the first movie. Final Destination: Bloodlines, then, isn’t a direct sequel to either movie in the saga, but it will have a different approach than the one seen in the previous movies and that the audience now knows a bit too well.

    Related


    One Of The Greatest Horror Movie Plot Twists Of All Time Made This Underwhelming Sequel Worth It

    Final Destination 5’s ending has one of the greatest horror movie plot twists ever, however, it is the only good thing about this underwhelming movie.

    What’s known about Final Destination: Bloodlines so far is that it will be set in the world of first responders, featuring firefighters, EMTs, and police officers, Final Destination: Bloodlines also brings back Tony Todd’s William Bludworth, the only character from the previous movies to return, and the movie is said to explore his backstory. The new Final Destination movie has also been said to differ from the franchise’s formula, which, taking into account the presence of first responders, might mean that, instead of following the victims of Death’s plan, Bloodlines will focus on those attending to the bizarre deaths.

    Final Destination Has Never Explained The Mystery Of The Visions

    Final Destination’s Biggest Mystery Is All About The Visions

    In every Final Destination movie, the main character has a vivid vision of the catastrophic and deadly event that kicks off the movie. The Final Destination formula is that, after the vision, the character manages to save some of the people meant to die – both people close to them and strangers – but Death doesn’t like to be cheated, so they die one by one in mysterious and horrifying ways. However, none of the Final Destination movies have explained why these visions happen and why these characters get them, as there are no signs of them ever having visions before.

    Related


    Final Destination: Every Death Rule (& Exception) Explained

    The Final Destination franchise focuses on Death’s design, which is constantly changing; here is every death rule and their exceptions explained.

    Of course, this has made way for different theories on why the visions happen and whether they happen at random or whether these characters had something “special” that turned them into targets. One of them suggests that the visions in the Final Destination movies are part of Death’s design, and it gives them to these characters to give them and others a chance to escape, all so Death can later chase them down and, in the process, claim the lives of others who have the bad luck of being near them.

    Letting them go also means that Death has to come up with a new plan to take their lives, through which it also kills more people – in short, the theory suggests Death loves chaos and is the source of the visions, all so it can claim more lives than the original accident alone would. Whether this or any other theory is correct or not, the truth is that Final Destination: Bloodlines focusing on first responders is the way to solve the franchise’s mystery about the visions.

    How Final Destination: Bloodlines Can Solve The Mystery Of The Visions Through First Responders

    This Is The Best Chance To Solve The Franchise’s Biggest Mystery

    Alex, Clear and Carter looking scared on the ground from Final Destination

    As mentioned above, Final Destination: Bloodlines following first responders and differing from the franchise’s formula could mean that they are not the targets of Death’s plan, and instead, they attend and investigate the mysterious deaths of those who are. Without the pressure and threat of being chased by Death, the first responders could investigate a lot deeper than the characters in the previous movies could, with the help of Bludworth. This also allows Bloodlines more timeline freedom, as it can be set between movies, after The Final Destination, or before Final Destination 5.

    Related


    New Final Destination Movie 14 Years In The Making Will Be Worth It If It Gets This Thing Right About The Franchise

    Final Destination: Bloodlines is arriving 14 years after Final Destination 5, and it has to get one key thing right to be worth the wait.

    With this, Final Destination: Bloodlines would differ from the franchise’s formula everyone now knows, but without losing the saga’s essence and still featuring bizarre and shocking deaths. Final Destination: Bloodlines has the potential to solve the huge mystery of the source of the visions and how the targets are chosen, but it could also end up making it a lot bigger.

    Final Destinations Bloodlines Poster

    The premonition-based horror franchise returns in Final Destination: Bloodlines. This entry acts a relaunch for the series with the formula remaining the same. Each Film’s protagonist is given a vision of a deadly event that takes several lives – by using this information to avoid their own death and the deaths of others, By doing this, death looks to claim those who’ve escaped by orchestrating bizarre accidents that kill them one by one. 

    Director

    Zach Lipovsky
    , Adam B. Stein

    Cast

    Tony Todd
    , Brec Bassinger
    , Teo Briones
    , Richard Harmon
    , Owen Patrick Joyner
    , Rya Kihlstedt

    Release Date

    2025-00-00



    The Final Destination franchise has been thrilling audiences for years with its gruesome deaths and intricate plots, but one mystery has always eluded fans: why do the characters have premonitions of their deaths?

    In Final Destination 6, this long-standing question will finally be answered thanks to one key change in the franchise’s formula. Instead of the usual supernatural explanation for the characters’ visions, it will be revealed that a secret society has been pulling the strings all along.

    This society, known as The Watchers, has been orchestrating the deaths of the characters in order to maintain a delicate balance in the universe. By giving the characters premonitions of their deaths, The Watchers are able to ensure that fate is always fulfilled.

    With this new twist, Final Destination 6 promises to delve deeper into the mythology of the franchise and provide a satisfying resolution to its biggest mystery. Fans can look forward to a thrilling and unexpected conclusion that will leave them on the edge of their seats.

    Tags:

    Final Destination 6, franchise, mystery, key change, explanation, horror, thriller, movie, death, sequel, plot twist, suspense, fan theories, sequel reveal, franchise history, hidden secrets, unexpected twist

    #Final #Destination #Finally #Explain #Franchises #Biggest #Mystery #Key #Change

  • ESPN analysts explain why Nick Saban could never serve as college football commissioner

    ESPN analysts explain why Nick Saban could never serve as college football commissioner


    Former Alabama coach Nick Saban has been mentioned as a potential college football commissioner by Penn State’s James Franklin, Georgia’s Kirby Smart and plenty of others in recent days.

    However, ESPN First Take analysts Domonique Foxworth and Shannon Sharpe believe putting Saban in that position is a bad idea. The two have different reasons as to why they don’t believe it would work. Foxworth shared his opinion first.

    “Hell no. … It’s a terrible idea,” Foxworth said. “Put aside the idea of having a commissioner, having someone who is obviously associated with a specific team and organization and a conference, making all the decisions for college football, assuming that any one person is capable of putting the best interest of college football ahead of their own personal bias – it certainly shouldn’t be Nick Saban, because he does not even have the perception of unbiasedness.”

    Foxworth went on to say that he doesn’t believe anyone should be the commissioner of college football. But if there does end up being one, he definitely feels like it shouldn’t be Saban.

    Foxworth doesn’t feel like Nick Saban is capable of being unbiased.

    “You at least have to be perceived as such, perceived as capable of doing it,” Foxworth said. “No one would accept it – because you know who would be No. 1 every year no matter what? Alabama. It makes no sense to have Nick Saban as the commissioner of college football. And I don’t even think you should have a commissioner at all.”

    As for Shannon Sharpe, he shared a different reason for why Nick Saban as the college football commissioner doesn’t make sense.

    According to Sharpe, it’s because Saban gains nothing by adding the pressure and stress of taking over that role.

    “I believe coach Saban loves what he’s doing currently with College GameDay.’ Sharpe said. “It’s a lot less stressful. You make good money. You get to travel, you get out to meet people. And people pat you on the back and tell you everywhere you go that you’re the greatest college coach ever. Coach Saban doesn’t want these problems anymore. Coach Saban doesn’t want these headaches.”

    Unlike Foxworth, Sharpe does believe that there should be a commissioner for college football. He just doesn’t believe the role is right for Saban.

    “I do like the theory of having a commissioner,” Sharpe said I” do think we need a commissioner to get a handle on this and say, ‘OK, this is how we’re going to do it moving forward.’ But I think coach Saban, he doesn’t want that.”



    Nick Saban is undeniably one of the greatest college football coaches of all time, with an impressive record of national championships and conference titles under his belt. However, many ESPN analysts believe that Saban’s coaching style and approach to the game would make him ill-suited for the role of college football commissioner.

    One of the main reasons cited by analysts is Saban’s intense focus on winning and his sometimes controversial tactics to achieve success. Saban is known for his demanding coaching style and his willingness to push the boundaries of NCAA rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. As commissioner, Saban would need to prioritize the overall health and integrity of the sport, which may require a more diplomatic and consensus-building approach.

    Additionally, Saban’s background as a coach may limit his ability to see the bigger picture and make decisions that benefit the entire college football landscape. As a coach, Saban is primarily focused on his own team’s success, whereas a commissioner must consider the needs and interests of all teams, conferences, and stakeholders.

    Overall, while Saban’s coaching prowess is undeniable, his style and approach to the game may not align with the qualities needed to serve as college football commissioner. ESPN analysts believe that Saban’s intense focus on winning and his coaching background may hinder his ability to effectively lead and govern the sport at a broader level.

    Tags:

    1. Nick Saban
    2. College football commissioner
    3. ESPN analysts
    4. NCAA football
    5. College sports
    6. Saban as commissioner
    7. Football leadership
    8. Saban’s coaching legacy
    9. College football governance
    10. Saban’s impact on NCAA

    #ESPN #analysts #explain #Nick #Saban #serve #college #football #commissioner

  • Psychologists explain why people lie about cultural identity as Hilaria Baldwin’s ‘fake’ accent goes viral

    Psychologists explain why people lie about cultural identity as Hilaria Baldwin’s ‘fake’ accent goes viral


    Hilaria Baldwin has gone viral yet again for forgetting how to say an English word – despite being born and raised in America. 

    Hilaria, 40, who was born Hillary Hayward-Thomas and grew up in an upscale neighborhood of Boston, was exposed four years ago by DailyMail.com for listing her birthplace as Majorca, Spain, despite spending her childhood in Beacon Hill. 

    While her parents live in Majorca, she grew up in the states and was American – despite using a Spanish accent in interviews. 

    On Monday, DailyMail.com exclusively obtained videos that showed Hilaria treating her holiday guests to ‘traditional’ Spanish tortilla, which she made while speaking in her now signature accented Spanglish.

    Hilaria donned a plaid onesie for the Christmas festivities, where she was seen on video saying, ‘I learned this from when I was a kid, don’t look it up online because you’ll learn something different.’

    The yogi explained the secret to her recipe was making sure the potatoes were ‘not cut too tiny,’ and then turned to her friend and appeared to forget the English word ‘onions.’

    ‘My husband hates…cebollas,’ Hilaria said, referencing her actor husband, Alec Baldwin, 66, before her friend quickly reminded her she was looking for the word ‘onions.’ 

    After the video was exposed, FEMAIL spoke to psychologists to find out the reasons that could lead someone to continuously embellish their cultural identity.

    Video obtained by DailyMail.com showed Hilaria treating her holiday guests to 'traditional' Spanish tortilla

    Video obtained by DailyMail.com showed Hilaria treating her holiday guests to 'traditional' Spanish tortilla

    Video obtained by DailyMail.com showed Hilaria Baldwin treating her holiday guests to ‘traditional’ Spanish tortilla

    Hilaria appeared to forget the English word 'onions,' and refers to them by their Spanish name 'cebollas' while cooking

    Hilaria appeared to forget the English word ‘onions,’ and refers to them by their Spanish name ‘cebollas’ while cooking

    Hilaria, 40, took to Instagram to wish her followers a 'feliz navidad' and shared a family photo on Christmas Day

    Hilaria, 40, took to Instagram to wish her followers a ‘feliz navidad’ and shared a family photo on Christmas Day

    Hilaria, her husband Alec, and their children attended the premiere of Spellbound in New York City last month

    Hilaria, her husband Alec, and their children attended the premiere of Spellbound in New York City last month

    Neuro-hacking biopsychologist Dr. Mary Poffenroth told DailyMail.com, ‘Some individuals may fake their cultural identity due to a deep-seated uncertainty about their true sense of self.’

    ‘When someone feels their real identity is somehow lacking or inadequate, their limbic system – the emotional processing center of the brain – may drive them to seek out a more “exotic” or interesting cultural persona,’ Dr. Poffenroth, who wrote Brave New You, explained. 

    Dr. Mary Poffenroth told DailyMail.com, 'Some individuals may fake their cultural identity due to a deep-seated uncertainty about their true sense of self'

    Dr. Mary Poffenroth told DailyMail.com, ‘Some individuals may fake their cultural identity due to a deep-seated uncertainty about their true sense of self’

    ‘Though it’s not their own, this need to fit into another cultural group can give a sense of self-worth and belonging that they might be lacking in their daily life.’

    As to why someone would continue this behavior even after being exposed or discovered, Dr. Poffenroth, based in California, said it could be because they ‘ignore or discount any evidence or criticism that runs counter to their false cultural narrative,’ leading them to ‘concentrate only on positive feedback and validation they obtain.’ 

    ‘Their conviction in the validity of their chosen identity can be strengthened by this selective attention, thus it becomes challenging for them to accept the truth,’ according to Dr. Poffenroth, who works in the mental health space and investigates how the nervous system and brain shapes mental processes and behavior.

    Family and child psychologist Caitlin Slavens, based in Canada, told FEMAIL, ‘Pretending to be from a culture we are not usually comes from a deep desire for acceptance or belonging.’ 

    ‘Some feel detached from their identity and think that assimilation will offer them better social and professional opportunities,’ she continued, explaining that Hilaria seemingly had ‘a deep connection to Spanish culture which was fostered and highly encouraged in childhood.’ 

    ‘Once exposed, they may continue the behavior as a way to maximize shame avoidance or preserve the identity they’ve constructed – especially if they’ve linked their self-worth or public persona to the behavior,’ the Mama Psychologists founder said. 

    Family and child psychologist Caitlin Slavens, based in Canada, told FEMAIL, 'Pretending to be from a culture we are not usually comes from a deep desire for acceptance or belonging'

    Family and child psychologist Caitlin Slavens, based in Canada, told FEMAIL, ‘Pretending to be from a culture we are not usually comes from a deep desire for acceptance or belonging’

    Hilaria and Alec Baldwin, 66, married in 2012. The actor confidently informed talk show host David Letterman that his wife was Spanish during an interview the following year

    Hilaria and Alec Baldwin, 66, married in 2012. The actor confidently informed talk show host David Letterman that his wife was Spanish during an interview the following year

    In a now infamous video clip from 2015, Hilaria (left) appeared on a cooking segment for the Today Show where she seemingly forgot the English word for 'cucumber'

    In a now infamous video clip from 2015, Hilaria (left) appeared on a cooking segment for the Today Show where she seemingly forgot the English word for ‘cucumber’

    This isn’t the first time the former yoga teacher has gone viral for seemingly forgetting a simple word in her native tongue while cooking. 

    In 2015, Hilaria appeared in a now infamous six-minute segment on the Today Show and made an ‘authentic’ gazpacho.

    The Living Clearly Method author listed the ingredients, and at one point, seemed to forget the English word ‘cucumber.’

    ‘We have tomatoes, we have, um, how do you say in English? Cucumber!’ Hilaria said at the time. 

    Hilaria and her 30 Rock star husband have also given Spanish names to all their seven children: Carmen Gabriela, 10, Rafael Thomas, 8, Leonardo Angel Charles, 7, Romeo Alejandro David, 6, Eduardo Pao Lucas, 3, Maria Lucia Victoria, 3, and Ilaria Catalina Irena, 20 months.

    In an Instagram video in 2021, Hilaria defended her behavior, claiming she spent ‘some of’ her childhood in Spain and ‘some’ of it in Massachusetts.

    ‘There was a lot of back and forth my entire life,’ she said.

    ‘I’m really lucky that I grew up speaking two different languages and I’m trying to raise my kids, so they speak two languages too. And that’s something very important to me especially having my family abroad.’



    Hilaria Baldwin, wife of actor Alec Baldwin, has recently come under fire for allegedly falsely portraying herself as a Spanish woman, when she is actually a white American woman from Boston. The controversy surrounding her cultural identity has sparked a conversation about why people may lie about their cultural background.

    Psychologists suggest that people may lie about their cultural identity for a variety of reasons. One reason could be a desire to appear more exotic or interesting. By adopting a different cultural identity, individuals may believe they will be perceived as more unique or special.

    Another reason for lying about cultural identity could be a desire to distance oneself from their own cultural background. In Hilaria Baldwin’s case, she may have felt that her Spanish persona was more appealing or prestigious than her American identity.

    Additionally, individuals may lie about their cultural identity as a way to fit in or gain acceptance within a certain community. By adopting a different cultural identity, they may feel more connected to a particular group or culture.

    Overall, the case of Hilaria Baldwin serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding cultural identity and the reasons why people may choose to lie about who they are. It is important to be mindful of the impact of cultural appropriation and to respect and celebrate all cultures authentically.

    Tags:

    • Cultural identity lies
    • Hilaria Baldwin accent controversy
    • Psychological reasons for lying about cultural identity
    • Cultural identity deception
    • Hilaria Baldwin fake accent scandal
    • Understanding lies about cultural identity
    • Impact of cultural identity deception
    • Cultural identity and authenticity
    • Hilaria Baldwin controversy explained
    • Psychological insights on lying about cultural identity

    #Psychologists #explain #people #lie #cultural #identity #Hilaria #Baldwins #fake #accent #viral