The rejection of @theresa_may's deal by many of those who campaigned to leave means there is now absolute certainty of a division in the 52% who voted that way. It is thus implausible that the deal is favoured by a majority of British people. It must be put to a @peoplesvote_uk
More from Sport
#swfc are finally back in league action tonight 8pm GMT away to Coventry #pusb
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
#swfc Derby's latest win over QPR leaves Wednesday six points adrift of 21st and safety with two matches in hand.
— Peter A. L\xf8hmann (@ploehmann) January 27, 2021
How have teams in those circumstances done in the previous 22 seasons?
[thread] pic.twitter.com/LxENys45wC
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
