Coaching staff is more like the president and the cabinet. They aren’t the ones who actually do the things, like how its the players who actually play the game, its the civil service who actually implements those policies.

So really, its which head coach and coaching staff do you want?

AND like, Tom Brady is the top career administrator at the USDA. They decide the “on the ground realities” of how to implement the plan.

Thats how.

A haiku:

It’s not DNS

There’s no way it’s DNS

It was DNS

Can’t we just arrest this guy for distribution of scam?

I’m in this meme and I don’t like it.

No turning back

they are like, spot on colors

(S)tussy

Also, look at your containers.

Missed opportunity for :

im five american cheeses

In this economy?!?!

But all of them were deceived

For another leches had been made…

Discover that 3d printing can’t meet the precision requirements and cast metal won’t meet the mechnaical requirements, gear shears, make peace with your fate, fall from sky onto local orphanage’s annual puppy adoption drive.

Bold assumption to make that a home-jobber would get you up into the sky.

Even the pulltabs?

😢

I thought a quickpick was always a dollar. Obviously most people do more than 1 quickpick.

Then of course dollar scratchers and pull tabs.

Sound like enough money for 11 more lotto tickets.

based af and morally acceptable use of AI.

The profen the profen

The profen the profen

Robocop couldn’t stop me pukin’ and flushin’

No balls to be bustin’, no fightin’, no cussin’

Just love for a drug called I boo profen

I agree that in general meta analysis stands apart, but I brought it up because it’s so often coupled with a deep review of material like a review article would hold. It’s also totally valid to cite a review article as a primary source, but I tend not to prefer this in my writing. My reasons for this are two fold, first, one of my memories was a curmudgeon who insisted on going all the way back through any chain if claims and citations to find, originally source, and reevaluate each claim. And, in doing so, regularly found irregularities and misattributed statements or just straight up mysteries of where the hell someone got something from. Its a pita, but it pays to be detail oriented when evaluating claims a domain has just accepted as table stakes.

This litterally happened to me recently where I was trying to figure out how this, fairly well known author had determined the functional form they were fitting to a curve. And like, three or four citations deep and a coffee with a colleague of theirs later, it turns out “they just made that shit up”.

“And we shall call this land upon which the lord hath bestow upon us, South Beach. Or maybe the Mission. Idk, depends on the mood we’re in”

I’m on the fence about not citting primary sources. And especially in the sciences, where it’s actually the slow, boring, long process of many publications and many datat sets coming together to conclude something 'in the aggregate '. Like I’ll usually go to a review or meta analysis paper as a citation, because it’s combining and comparing the results across studies.

And really, a living document like Wikipedia is more like that kind of review or meta analysis paper.

I’m not disagreeing that were taught to go for primary sources, but in some ways, they’re actually less reliable than secondary sources if those secondary sources are taking in a a broader collection of primary sources, which something like Wikipedia is.