An analysis of the new World Cup ball
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
1. Turbulent flow of air over ball means ball has less drag: this happens at high speed
2. As ball slows down, gets laminar flow, gets more drag: viscous drag is less but boundary separation occurs close to ball
3. You want ball to be fast enough to be entertaining. People considered Jabulani slow because it entered laminar flow earlier than others.
4. Interesting that Jabulani was faster at high speeds, but the transition was earlier and sharper as it slowed down
5. Al Rihla transitions to laminar latest and drag increases later than every other ball
Very cool! Of course, the Jabulani was known to waver and swerve, which makes sense now that we see this chart since if various parts of the ball are experiencing laminar v turbulent, the ball will (perhaps unpredictably) swerve. And if that happens at higher speeds than otherwise, you'll have whacky behaviour. Neat!
Apparently "Pendleton Hill" is either "Hill Hill Town Hill" or "Hill Hill Hill Hill" depending on what the root of the -ton was.
I never understood why Americans call it 'foot'-'ball' when the sport is mostly played with the hands rather than exclusively with the feet as in world football.
Was it a patriotism thing, to ignore the world's most popular sport, and make their own one where America will always be no. 1?
edit
>Was it a patriotism thing, to ignore the world's most popular sport, and make their own one where America will always be no. 1?
In America they were playing something like rugby football and eventually dropped the rugby part at roughly the same time England was playing association football and dropped the association part. It was hardly the most popular worldwide sport at the time.
For example in European-ish countries it's called Calcio (to kick) in Italy, Nogomet (leg) in Boznia/Croatia, mappa (ball) in Cyprus, labdarugas officially (ball-kicking) in Hungary.
There's another 8 or so countries where it's called another form of kick/ball/leg/something etc.
Finally it's called soccer in about 15 countries, of which the USA is only 1, where almost none of them have another variant of football.
https://www.businessinsider.com/football-vs-soccer-map-2013-...
And in many languages a word directly derived from "Football" is common to refer to the game.
Fun fact: the term originated in England.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
"Football is a family of team sports that involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball to score a goal. Unqualified, the word football normally means the form of football that is the most popular where the word is used."
Why call it soccer? Maybe it's because the English, who invented it, called it that in 1895.
"The term soccer comes from Oxford "-er" slang, which was prevalent at the University of Oxford in England from about 1875, and is thought to have been borrowed from the slang of Rugby School. The slang also gave rise to rugger for rugby football, fiver and tenner for a five-pound and ten-pound note, and the now-archaic footer for association football.[12] The word soccer (which arrived at its final form in 1895) was first recorded in 1889 in the earlier form of socca.[13]"
So, you see, when the Aussies call their thing "football" it's an interesting cultural quirk but when Americans do the same it's because they are big dumb. And how ignorant and culturally domineering of them to call a sport by the name that the inventors of that sport coined for it. Man, these Americans!
Since perhaps the average speed of the ball in-game is around the transition speeds and so this ball's lower transition speed makes it overall faster than the ball with lower drags at higher speeds (since the ball is rarely at those high speeds).
Most popular? Sure. Most beautiful? That seems to be in the eye of a soccer fan beholder, but it turns out Wikipedia agrees on the phrasing [1], and there are websites devoted to explaining it [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Game
[2] https://www.goal.com/en/news/explained-why-is-football-calle...
Last several have been down in viewship by a lot (and increasing).
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/21/john-ol...
He is a comedian, isn’t he? So is this comedy or not? I‘m not British and not a native speaker, I can‘t tell.
Also is it necessary to specify "left" when talking about comedy? I can't really think of anyone right-wing who can be called a comedian. Guys like Crowder and Gutfeld are the closest but they kinda struggle with joke construction, material and they paint themselves into a corner (and tbh delegitimize themselves a bit) by their uncritical, fawning adoration of some pretty ridiculous political figures.
People can't even handle sets from Dave Chappelle or Ricky Gervais without calling for a boycott.
None of these guys got suddenly deplatformed, cancelled or boycotted because of a joke. They struggled a bit, made some missteps then blamed their audience and "cancel culture" when it wasn't well received. They can still be funny, but when they're airing their grievances about that (i.e. doing the stuff that the right like) it's obvious, awkward and a bit painful.
If they make people clap instead of laugh, they're probably not that funny.
I dunno, I saw someone complaining about left-wing comedians was curious to hear who might be a right-wing comic.
> Most of what I’ve seen involved material that’s repetitive (how many by now have delivered a variant of the One Conservative Joke - “I identify as an attack helicopter”?) and was designed to make the viewer validated in their right-wing beliefs at the expense of, say, some clueless “libtard” rather than exploring the form at all (ie it’s to make you “clap”).
I agree that validating beliefs makes for boring comedy.
On his case, the social criticism is the true part of while other parts like the self deprecation and random bits of pop culture references (“how many movies has this actor done this year?”) are there as supporting jokes.
The surest way to send a message to FIFA is to hit viewership numbers. Performative outrage will achieve exactly nothing.
Come on.
It's a principle constantly under attack from people who believe that politics must infuse everything, that there can be no arena exempt from enforcing whatever is on top of their agenda.
And that's ok - there are lines in the sand that must be drawn when amicable jousting is no longer an option. For every major tournament the question needs to be asked, has the host or any participating country crossed that line? And be aware that if we say yes; "the line is crossed", we also sully the divine aura to some extent.
I will also not check to see what Kate Winslet's take is.
Now I need to find someplace that streams the world cup.