Move to any major Brazilian city and you will learn to hate it. The sheer amount of brutalist buildings just ruins every skyline in the country. When I go to big cities abroad, I really feel in a totally different world
I'm yet to see good major news about Brazil this year. So far it's been microcephaly, the economy flirting with depression, corruption scandals and a political crisis. I wonder how are we going to cope with hosting the olympics amid all that
Did you see the news that Bloomberg calls this year's "final indignity"[1]? A dam holding back mining waste collapsed, killing 17 people and sending millions of tons of toxic mud to the coast between Rio and Bahia.
In Brazil German, Italian and Japanese were also banned during WW2. This was also done so that the immigrants and their descendants would integrate into the Brazilian society faster
I agree partially. Refereeing mistakes are part of the fun of soccer and other sports, but it is not so funny when the team you support ends up losing a game or a championship because of them.
In football it's fairly simple, the rule used to be "you have scored a goal when you have shot the ball far enough into the net that an old half-blind referee can see that it's in the net". Sure there are mistakes with that rule, but the whole game is about subjective calls from the ref, so saying that a cup would hinge on a few millimeters is just silly. The ref could still have missed six penalties for the other team. GLT removes the obvious mistakes, which is good because they are controversial and it's bad PR for the sport, but football will always be about subjective calls.
> the whole game is about subjective calls from the ref
No it's not. The referee is just the shortest practical path to enforce a set of rules, which are the real essence of the sport. This is why people play just fine in parks without referees.
Refs are there to enforce the rules; if the same set of rules can be better enforced by other means, referees should be replaced. Subjective referee calls are a plague on the sport, and they are a prime cause for the dismal amount of corruption in it. The sooner we can get rid of them (or at least reduce their role), the better.
I'm sorry but maybe you are confusing "football" with "American football"? In "soccer" (ahem), the game is completely subject to the ref's discretion. If the ref gives a red card in the first minute, it will affect the game. If the ref chooses not to give that red card, it will affect the game and how it is played. There's no other logical way to view it.
There is no such thing as "American football", that's gridiron ;)
Back to the subject, what I meant is that the fact that the ref has power of life and death over a game is a side effect of his role as the enforcer of rules; but we don't define the game of football as "the game where you have a referee", do we? The essence of football is in its rules, not in how they are enforced; otherwise people couldn't play it in parks without refs.
If tomorrow we could have a perfect "refbot" software that can automatically call fouls from TV with better accuracy than human referees, using it wouldn't mean that we are not playing "football" anymore -- the game would be exactly the same, only rules would be enforced without a human ref. (as a sidenote, such a refbot would wipe out a lot of corruption overnight, and I for one would welcome it with open arms -- never again should we see shambolic farces like the 2002 World Cup, Henry's and Maradona's "Hands of God", etc etc).
An important distinction here is that checkers is also only weakly solved (Connect Four, by contrast, is strongly solved). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
This means that Chinook can play perfectly from the start position against any set of opposing moves, but if you play a move on Chinook's side that it wouldn't play for itself, the resulting position is probably not solved by Chinook.
An arbitrary position is in fact very unlikely to have been solved.
