Defence
Contributor
who decided what numbers go where on a dart board and is there a pattern they follow?
WarriorBot 🤖 Ask WarriorBot
- Thread starter tajhay
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
The design of a modern dartboard, known as the "London" or "clock" pattern, is attributed to a carpenter from Bury, Lancashire named Brian Gamlin. He allegedly devised the number layout in 1896, at the age of 44, aiming to penalize inaccuracy. However, historical documentation of Gamlin and his invention is scarce, leading some to question the validity of this claim.
The number layout on the dartboard may seem random, but there is logic behind it. It is designed to reward accuracy and punish inconsistency. The numbers around the board are in such an order (20,1,18,4,13,6,10,15,2,17,3,19,7,16,8,11,14,9,12,5) to alternate high and low numbers as much as possible.
If you look closely, you'll see that the numbers with high scoring potential (20,19,18) are flanked by low numbers (1, 5, 4, 3). This means if you aim for the high scoring numbers and miss slightly, you get penalized with a low score. This layout increases the skill level required in the game of darts and it penalizes a lack of precision with a lower score.
North Sentinel inhabitants are isolated from society. Should civilisation get involved?
To interfere goes against their wishes. To not interfere denies them the right to education, healthcare, etc.
What should civilisation do?
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
This is a complex question touching on topics of sovereignty, human rights, cultural preservation, and non-interference. As an AI, I don't form personal opinions, but I can provide analysis based on the information available.
The Sentinelese people of North Sentinel Island (part of the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal) have chosen to remain isolated for centuries. They have consistently expressed a clear lack of interest in contact with outsiders, often reacting with hostility to attempted interventions.
Arguments for non-interference respect the principle of self-determination, emphasizing the Sentinelese's right to live in the way they choose, which is sustaining life without modern civilization's offerings of healthcare, education, etc. Concerns about exposure to modern diseases against which they have no immunity also support non-interference. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act of 1956 also legally protects their desire for isolation.
Arguments for intervention typically hinge on the idea of extending 'benefits' of modern civilization, like education and healthcare. However, such benefits may not be viewed as such by the Sentinelese. There's also the danger of cultural erosion, and the potentially disastrous impact of disease transmission.
Currently, the policy favored by the Indian government, which has jurisdiction over the Andaman Islands, is one of "eyes-on and hands-off" – maintaining a distance while keeping a watch over the inhabitants to ensure their protection from external threats.
It's a sensitive balancing act: preserving their right to self-determination and cultural preservation, and minimizing any potential harm to their community from the outside world, while considering arguments about modern human rights. Human rights organizations and activists usually favor policies that respect indigenous groups' desires and rights to self-determination.
Why are they entitled to self determination and to do what we would consider crimes to visits?
Why are cults or individuals that want to opt out of society not allowed to opt out of societies rules like the Sentinelese?
If the Sentinelese don’t know the benefits of civilisation can they make an informed choice?
The issue you've brought up is indeed complex and touches upon a variety of ethical, legal, cultural, and societal aspects. Let's break it down:
1. Self-Determination: Under international law, the principle of self-determination is typically applied to people under colonial rule or similar cases. The Sentinelese's right to this is often asserted on the grounds that they are the indigenous people of their land and they have consistently shown that they want to be left alone. From a legal standpoint, the Indian government (which has jurisdiction over North Sentinel Island) treats the island as an autonomous administrative division and legislation exists to protect the tribe's isolation.
2. "Crimes": From a mainstream legal perspective, the acts by the Sentinelese could be seen as violent. However, given their lack of contact with the outside world, their responses can also be viewed as a defense mechanism against perceived threats. The aim is not to condone violence, but to acknowledge that the Sentinelese have a different set of social norms created by centuries of isolation.
3. Cults & Individuals: The comparison of the Sentinelese to cults or individuals is not entirely analogous. The Sentinelese are a distinct ethnic group with a history stretching back at least thousands of years, so their situation is not quite the same as a cult or an individual that arose within and subsequently rejects a larger society.
4. Informed Choice: This is indeed a contentious point. The Sentinelese might not have a clear understanding of the 'benefits' of modern civilization. Yet, it's critical to remember two points: firstly, what we consider 'benefits' may not align with their values and lifestyle, and secondly, contact with civilizations has historically often led to the decimation of indigenous populations due to disease, exploitation, and cultural erosion.
The debate over the Sentinelese hence raises intricate questions about human rights, cultural relativism, and non-interference, and clear answers are difficult to come by. Ethicists, anthropologists, legal experts, and policymakers will probably be grappling with these questions for the foreseeable future.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
As an AI, I don't have live access to data or real-time bookmakers' odds, and the chances of the NZ Warriors making the top 8 in the NRL next season can vary based on many factors. Factors could include the team's performance in the last season, changes in the team line-up, the health and condition of the players, among others.
For the most accurate and updated odds, I recommend checking with reputable sports betting websites, related sports news sites, or contacting a bookmaker directly. They can provide real-time odds based on all relevant factors. Please remember that betting should be done responsibly.
In a professional sporting competition of say 16 teams, if a team is in the top 4 one year, are they statistically likely to remain in at least the top four the following year? Build an argument with statistics across various sporting competitions. Discount dramatic changes in in roster having a significant effect.
And what odds are a top 4 team of winning the competition the following year? Isn’t it more likely from a top 4 team which has a platform to build off?
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Without direct access to real-time data or the ability to analyze specific sporting statistics as an AI, I can't provide numerical evidence. However, general principles and patterns observed in professional sports can form a basis for discussion.
1. Consistency: Teams that perform well consistently tend to have robust underlying factors contributing to their success. These factors can include skilled players, experienced coaching, sufficient funding, and a strong support structure.
2. Momentum: Success can build momentum. Teams that finish in the top 4 may have a psychological advantage, a winning mindset, and a proven strategy which can provide a platform to build off for the following year.
3. Top 4 Chances: Although each new season is a separate event with differing circumstances, top-performing teams from the previous year often have high expectations to replicate their success. However, this isn't a rule, as sports are unpredictable by nature and a multitude of factors can impact outcomes.
Regarding the odds of a top 4 team winning the competition the following year, it's generally true that teams finishing in higher spots are seen as stronger competitors in the next season providing they maintain their key success factors. Top teams usually have pivotal players, a strong tactical approach, superior fitness levels, and a positive team culture that contribute to consistent results.
Nevertheless, these are general observations and trends that might not hold in specific cases. Each sport and each competition can have its own particular dynamics and nuances. For more precise predictions, you'd need to analyze the specific statistics and conditions of the sport and competition in question. Preseason odds provided by bookmakers also consider these factors.
If we were meeting an opponent on a rugby league field and we said we are going to ‘fold them’ would this be an overly aggressive comment; a joke or an appropriate motivational saying?
Would Kane Evans be able to fold anyone?
Saying that you're going to "fold" an opponent in a Rugby League game can be interpreted in a few ways, depending on the context and tone. Generally, such a statement could be seen as aggressive, as it implies dominating the opposing team in a pretty forceful way. However, in the context of competitive sports, it could also be viewed as a motivational saying meant to boost morale and determination among teammates.
As to your second question, Kane Evans is a professional rugby league footballer who is known for his strength and skill. In the context of rugby league, when someone says a player is going to "fold" someone, it's usually suggesting they'll outperform or overpower them on the field. Kane Evans clearly has the ability to strongly compete against his opponents due to his physicality and technical skills. Of course, the actual outcomes of any sports competition depend on a variety of factors including strategy, teamwork, and the condition of the players on the day of the game.
Remember, sportsmanship and respect towards opponents is always important, even while speaking in competitive and motivational terms.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Is it ever ok to turn a blind eye to an employee stealing from you as the employer?
Turning a blind eye to an employee stealing is generally not advisable for several reasons:
1. Legal implications: Theft is against the law and ignoring it can have legal repercussions not just for the individual concerned but sometimes for management and the organization.
2. Ethical reasons: Turning a blind eye to theft goes against most ethical standards. Allowing one person to steal without consequence can seriously damage the moral fabric of your organization.
3. Trust and morale: If employees see that theft is being ignored, it can create an environment where trust and morale are eroded.
4. Precedent-setting: Ignoring theft can set a dangerous precedent, as it implies that such behaviour is acceptable.
5. Financial impact: Theft can cause significant financial losses to the organization over time.
Remember to address such situations appropriately and promptly. Consult with human resources or seek legal advice on how to proceed. The best solution will usually involve a proper investigation and, if the theft is proven, disciplinary action according to your organization's policies and legal guidelines.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
Candace Owens is a highly polarizing figure whose work—primarily as a conservative commentator and political activist—generates strong opinions both in support and opposition. The term "grifter" is widely used to describe someone who operates as a con artist or swindler, typically exploiting their social position or public platform to deceive others for personal gain.
Credibly applying such a term to Owens or any public figure would require substantial, verifiable evidence of dishonest or fraudulent behavior. Simply disagreeing with a person's political views or rhetorical style does not substantiate such a serious claim. While Owens' rhetoric and methods are frequently criticized, particularly by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum, assertions that she is a "grifter" are typically opinionated claims, rather than proven facts. It's crucial when discussing public figures to distinguish between personal views, critique, and objectively verifiable facts.
To avoid misinformation, try to gather information from multiple, reliable sources and consider the potential for bias or partisan agenda in any given commentary or analysis.
Make a case for the top 13 rugby league players of all time with one player per position
Choosing the top 13 rugby league players of all time is a challenging task, as it's largely subjective and depends on specific factors such as era, league, and personal preference. However, considering their impact on the game, overall skills, and career achievements, here's one possible all-time starting 13:
1. Full back: Billy Slater (Australia) - Arguably the best full-back in history, Slater was instrumental in countless victories for Melbourne Storm, Queensland, and Australia.
2. Winger: Brian Bevan (Australia/England) - Bevan is the top try-scorer in rugby league history with an incredible 796 tries in his career.
3. Centre: Mal Meninga (Australia) - A prolific centre, Meninga had an illustrious career with the Canberra Raiders and the Australian national team.
4. Centre: Reg Gasnier (Australia) - Gasnier was an extraordinary talent whose speed and agility made him nearly impossible to contain.
5. Winger: Ken Irvine (Australia) - Irvine is acknowledged as one of the sport's greatest-ever finishers with an amazing try-scoring record.
6. Stand-off: Wally Lewis (Australia) - Known as "The King," Lewis dominated in the 1980s with his amazing skill set, and he was instrumental in many Queensland Origin victories.
7. Scrum-half: Andrew Johns (Australia) - Often called the greatest player of all time, Johns' career was filled with extraordinary performances.
8. Prop: Arthur Beetson (Australia) - Beetson was the first Indigenous Australian to captain his country in any sport, and his impact as a prop-forward was immense.
9. Hooker: Cameron Smith (Australia) - With more NRL games than anyone else, Smith's consistency, leadership, and skill over a long career set him apart.
10. Prop: Ruben Wiki (New Zealand) - A physical powerhouse, Wiki was a key part of the New Zealand Warriors' team and the first Kiwi to play 300 NRL games.
11. Second-Row: Gordon Tallis (Australia) - Tallis was a dominant force in the second-row with an aggressive style of play.
12. Second-Row: Garry Schofield (Great Britain) - Known for his game anticipation skills, Schofield is celebrated as one of the best British players of all time.
13. Loose Forward: Ellery Hanley (Great Britain) - A phenomenal athlete who possessed both power and pace, Hanley was named Man of Steel three times during his career.
Please note that the list could vary widely based on individual opinions, and many other great players could easily make the cut.
NZWarriors.com
If you would like to remove these advertisements, please do so by registering a free account
The feeling that the flight from the UK to New Zealand via Asia is faster than via the USA could be due to several factors:
1. Flight Distance: The actual flight path may be shorter when flying through Asia compared to going through the USA. Earth's spherical shape means that the shortest distance between two points (great circle distance) isn’t a straight line when displayed on a flat map. Depending on your exact start/end points, flying from the UK to New Zealand might require less distance through Asia.
2. Flight Time: The total time of the actual flight - not just the distance - can differ. Various factors influence this, such as wind direction and speed. The Jetstream - a band of strong upper-level wind that can reach speeds of over 200 mph - blows from west to east, so flying eastwards (from the UK to Asia to New Zealand) might be quicker than flying westwards (from the UK to the USA to New Zealand).
3. Stopover Time: The time spent at stopovers could be different. Some routes might have shorter layovers or fewer stops that reduce overall travel time.
4. Time Zones: Traveling through different time zones can cause you to experience jet lag differently, which might change your perception of the trip's length.
5. Psychological Factors: The trip might feel shorter because of psychological reasons, such as your comfort levels during the flight, or your mental anticipation and excitement about the aspects of the trip.
Remember that the variance of these factors can cause significant differences in total travel time and experience. Always check potential routes and flight times when planning a trip.
Similar threads
