Jump to content

Pretzel

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Pretzel last won the day on April 9

Pretzel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

602 One of the All-Time Greats

3 Followers

About Pretzel

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Colorado

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    N/A
  • Handedness
    Righty
  • GAME Golf Username
    Pretzel

Recent Profile Visitors

7,971 profile views
  1. Since there is some ambiguity, I'll describe the circumstances that would make me prefer one option over the other 2: CHIP Some obstacle is present along the path of a putt (sprinkler head, tree root, another ball, or something like a kidney bean shaped green where the putt couldn't make it to the hole without leaving the green again) Some kind of maintenance problem is present along the path of a putt (turf damage, heavy ball marks, poorly cut edge of the green that could deflect the ball unpredictably) Anything over 3 feet off the green or so Basically just any unusual conditions that would increase the chances of a putt bouncing off line by a large amount. If it's just flat/smooth fairway for less than 3 feet and then a well-maintained putting surface beyond that I won't chip because it has a worse result, on average, than putting. I should probably putt from longer distances off the green, but I haven't practiced it enough to feel comfortable with my distance control unless it's a very brief stint rolling on the fairway. SOMETHING ELSE If I'm up against the collar of the rough I'll use a bellied wedge to "putt" the ball without having interference from the rough. Sometimes I will experiment and use a bladed 3-iron or a 3-wood chip instead, but I'm mostly comfortable with a bellied wedge here since it pretty much perfectly skims over the rough. PUTT Anything not listed above, which includes almost every shot where the ball ends up on the fairway within 3 feet of the green.
  2. This was the impression I got whenever the Am Tour visited the courses I worked with/for. The first course I mentioned in my first comment here, where we hosted a tournament, is a course notorious for having awful pace of play. Reason being that marshals (myself included at that time) were banned by the owner of the course from asking players to skip a hole or allow the group behind them to play through. That combined with overserving beverage carts and a course branding as being "different" from other golf courses meant weekend rounds were usually 6 hour booze-cruises on golf carts. Despite all of that the Am Tour event still finished up in 4 hours flat and honestly caught our staff a little off-guard since the food wasn't prepared yet (we had planned for the usual 5+ hour rounds). In the other events it was the same story. Pace of play was good, and the events I saw always included a meal at the course. Regardless of the actual value of their points system, it does have a national points system all the same to allow you to compare yourself against golfers around the country - a perk not included even in stage golf association tournaments. I'd consider them as a higher end alternative to local club or even stage golf association tournaments for those who are somewhere in the 5-20 handicap range. For golfers better than a 5 handicap and certainly those better than scratch you might find more/better competition at the "official" events run by state associations or the USGA, but as far as the mid-high handicappers go I'd say these are a good option for "high-end" tournaments complete with rankings systems, meals, and guaranteed pace of play. The cost of them has also come down, as what I'm seeing shows a cost of $115-125 for 1 day events and $245 to the two 2-day events in Colorado this past year. Of course, I am slightly biased in saying that the state associations are better for low handicappers simply because the Colorado Golf Association does an excellent job with their events. They have online systems to handle every aspect of events from registration all the way to even include live online scoring, something that's really cool in my opinion. They put on 39 different championship events and/or qualifiers in a state with a limited golf season alongside another 32 non-championship events. They also, funny enough, include information on their website about all Golfweek Amateur Tour events in the state of Colorado.
  3. It's not even close really, we aren't anywhere near being able to do that yet because we don't even know how to measure how high someone is with blood draws and the most advanced testing possible. The problem is that you can't test for metabolites of THC because they remain in your system for weeks on end. It's because THC/metabolites are nice and soluble in lipids (fat), which means they store themselves away inside your fat reserves and don't rinse out as easy as the water-soluble alcohol. The other complicating factor is that current tests don't really tell you anything about how much of these metabolites are present in urine or saliva, they're just a strict yes/no because measuring the levels has never been necessary before (when it was still locally illegal). The only tests that can currently measure the quantities are blood draws, but then you can't go drawing blood at every traffic stop nor does the quantity of metabolites give you any real useful information. The information about quantities is useless because different people have WILDLY different perspectives when the same amount of metabolites are present, it's not like alcohol where there's a nice clean scale. Basically you have to rely on roadside sobriety tests at the moment, because police have no other methods of detecting impairment from marijuana. So now my car's malfunction will give police reason to pull me over, and I'd be willing to bet they'd also use it as probable cause to search your vehicle just because when you blew sober on the breathalyzer. Your car also now has a direct line to the police, meaning they have a direct line back to you. Grown adults don't need to have police constantly babysit them, and doing that won't solve any issues because it'll stretch police resources too thin to accomplish anything useful.
  4. Give it another 3-5 years and I might feel the same. Some tech within that umbrella is ready to go out and be a commercial success, but I've done enough work with some of the latest and greatest for machine learning algorithms to know I don't want it touching anything critical safety related just yet. Computer vision is something that many people have a pretty good handle on and there's fresh data coming in often enough that 1-3 missed detections aren't going to cause any noticeable affects. Machine learning is quite a bit more difficult and most practical applications using it are currently "stuck" in that 80-90% of the way there phase that's good enough to show real promise but not good enough to release to the public. Funny enough it's a lot easier to teach an AI to play a video game than it is to teach them to do something like control a temperature. It wasn't all that far off it turns out, the real number was 0.00029 compared to my estimate of 0.00039. The reason I said 3 trips per registered car on average is because while there are a lot of cars that sit (multiple cars for one driver, or the driver isn't using it that day) there are also plenty of cars that are moving all day possibly with multiple different drivers. Figured it probably averaged out somewhere in that 3-4 trips per car range and it looks like that's correct (since 4 trips per car would give a probability of 0.00028. 4 trips per car per day would've been the best guess it seems.
  5. There are currently 270,000,000 vehicles registered in the US currently. Using a conservative estimate of 3 drives/car/day (averaging out to slightly more than each car commuting to and from work each day) that would be 760,000,000 drives each day, of which only 300,000 have a drunk driver. In other words, the probability of any given drive having a drunk driver is 0.00039 - directly in line with the estimate made by @DeadMan.
  6. I'd go with this system over either of those. I have seen automatic braking systems malfunction before and it turns catastrophic in an instant. The incredibly unfortunate part is that automatic braking systems also have a disturbingly high number of ways they can be fooled. The two I have seen personally were leaves covering up the sensor (slammed the brakes on someone in town and caused a collision) and bugs from I-70 covering the sensor (the car locked up and the brakes remained engaged until the sensor covering could be cleaned). As far as GPS-enforced speed limits, this also introduces danger on the roads. It prevents drivers from making effective evasive maneuvers when driving at the speed limit. Malfunctions for this system would also be incredibly dangerous, considering the number one cause of traffic accidents is a differential in speed between the two cars that collided. If one car is limited to 10mph under the speed limit because their GPS glitched out then they just became a sitting duck on the road, though not as bad as the automatic braking malfunction. I'm fine with mandatory safety measures that don't risk lives compared to the alternative of not having them, such as seat belts and air bags. If those fail you may die, but if they fail you are no worse off than you would have been if the safety measures were never installed. I draw the line at mandatory safety measures that will actively risk your safety or life when they fail. Automatic braking systems that will slam the brakes in highway traffic. GPS-enforced speed limits that can hamper evasive maneuvers and cause the same symptoms as automatic braking system failures (if an error displays a limit lower than the true limit). And yes, mandatory BAC interlock devices for law-abiding citizens that can leave them stranded and stuck with a very costly repair bill in the best case scenario and death in the worst case scenario. If we want to talk about personal anecdotes about why it's incredibly important to be able to start you vehicle at any time, I've got the perfect example of how this can risk lives in real scenarios that actually happen. When I was 17 I took the bus with my friends down to the annual Denver Avalanche game and we hung out at the 16th Street Mall afterwards until we caught the last bus back to where our cars were parked. Having parked in opposite corners we parted ways getting off the bus and went to our cars, my friends having no issues driving home. I, on the other hand, had some trouble with starting my vehicle. You see that year the temperature was 15 degrees below zero and my car was an old (1979) Mercedes 240D diesel. Diesel engines don't particularly like the cold, so I cycled the glow plugs several times before trying to start. No dice, so I repeated that. This went on until my car battery died at around 2 AM, and the worst part of it was that stupidly I was only wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a sweatshirt with no jacket or coat. The buses had finished their schedules and the park and ride was empty (I was the last car) in the middle of nowhere without areas I could take shelter nearby. I was lucky to have a mylar blanket and a comforter in the trunk of my car that I kept there only because my Grandpa insisted I'd need them if I was ever stranded in the cold. I wasn't able to get assistance at my location until 5:30 that morning because it was located in the mountain, a lovely cell phone dead zone. 3.5 hours spent in -15 degree weather with only jeans and a sweatshirt. Even sitting in my car without exposure to wind I would have risked frostbite in 30 minutes or less, and that temperature presents a high risk of hypothermia even with proper winter clothing. While wearing winter clothing at that temperature you'll lose one degree of core body temperature about every 30 minutes, sooner if you have no hat. Below 95 degrees (2 hours) is the beginning of hypothermia, below 93 degrees (3 hours) is when amnesia sets in. Profound hypothermia is 90 degrees (4.5 hours) and you'll find yourself no longer even shivering to keep warm. At 86 degrees (6.5 hours) your heart starts to pump arrhythmically. At 85 degrees (7 hours) you'll rip off your clothes for your final minutes of life. Those times are for proper winter clothing. When an ignition interlock device fails, it WILL kill people in the mountains every single year. People who went camping, skiing, hiking, or hunting and get back to their car in the evening only to have it refuse to start. Cell service is sparse at best in these areas, meaning only those prepared with extra blankets/gear and the ability to start fires will survive through the night without heat from their vehicle. I say when, not if, because the failure rate will be above 0%. 15 million new cars are sold each year, and if the failure rate is 0.01% annually then you'd see 1,500 failures in the first year, growing by another 1,500 every year and providing 1,500 more opportunities to kill in either what was described or other scenarios. This is exactly why using emotional arguments is dumb, because realistically the number of deaths would be small but a personal anecdote carries additional weight. The point is that any deaths that directly result from a safety device are unacceptable even if that safety device may save lives in other circumstances. Trading lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens because of a small number of criminals is morally reprehensible on every level.
  7. FWIW the TSA is absolute garbage that literally can't do their job even in their own tests. 'Disturbing' undercover probe found TSA screeners missing many test weapons A Congressional committee chairman said a classified briefing on vulnerabilities in airport security was "disturbing." They fail to find 95% of weapons, which makes your argument in favor of this using the TSA as an example even more ridiculous. It's like saying we should go over Niagara Falls in a barrel by pointing to Annie Edson Taylor and ignoring all the times that it doesn't work. The only thing disgraceful here is the spouting of outright lies about the leading causes of death. Your claimed statistics are patently untrue, and yet you think the facts of the situation are somehow disgraceful? The facts don't care how you feel, but they do guide people towards the most effective course of action in every scenario. Preventable causes of death - Wikipedia Among preventable causes of death all traffic accidents are ranked 7th and make up only 1.8% of total deaths in the US annually. Among all causes of death globally road traffic accidents are only ranked 19th.
  8. This is vastly different from a turn signal. This is a device that will do several things: Increase the price of all cars manufactured with it Introduce an extra critical failure point that will literally brick your car if it breaks, with guaranteed costly repairs (car electronics are never cheap) Introduce the possibility that your car won't work because it thinks you're drunk when you aren't - dangerous in a number of different circumstances Possibly prevent you from wearing gloves while driving if it requires contact with skin Possibly cut ignition to your vehicle and cause accidents if it malfunctions while driving - dangerous in a number of different circumstances All of those are much larger issues than having to lift your finger an inch or two off the steering wheel to press the turn signal stalk. It still wouldn't even necessarily save lives either, because drunk drivers can still drive any car that doesn't have a device installed - of which tens of millions exist in the United States alone. It would impact less than 10% of vehicles on the road and impact less than 0.33% of deaths in the US each year, but it would add major concerns and hassles to the lives of every single person who wants to purchase a new vehicle.
  9. Not all laws affect even law-abiding citizens though. The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives. Laws against murder, for example, have no effect at all on the daily lives of citizens who don't have a desire to kill.
  10. You literally did it again, right here. You told me that I couldn't possibly understand something until I am older, an entirely arbitrary judgement you're applying to me based solely on age despite the fact that my expertise in this realm (biomedical technology) is likely greater than yours. I won't make definitive claims of knowing more than you because I don't know enough about you to make sweeping generalizations about that in the same way you do about age and wisdom. You're also not quite as as clever as you think when you bring up the whole, "living in Colorado" idea - it's a flimsy and transparent dig related to the legalization of marijuana and its popularity among younger people. There is literally no other reason to mention my home state in this kind of discussion. Just cut the crap and discuss the points without attempting to dismiss legitimate arguments simply because of who is making those arguments. Yes, some drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI. You know what also kills people? The inability to get to the hospital because their car won't start since their hands are cold or even covered in their own blood. The inability for a driver to start their car and stay warm in cold weather because there is insufficient circulation in their fingers to get a BAC reading. In the case of steering wheel sensors that would cut ignition once they sensed drinking that would be guaranteed to cause at least a few road accidents when the system inevitably fails and shuts someone's car down in the middle of a highway onramp. More importantly, why do you feel the need to legislate the actions of everyone in the country based on something that affects very few members of the population. In 2016 10,497 people died from alcohol related crashes (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html#targetText=How big is the problem,involved an alcohol-impaired driver.) This is a tragic number to be sure, but it represents 0.003246% of the US population. To put this in perspective, in 2016 there were 80,058 deaths related to diabetes. If you believe that drunk driving is a large enough problem to subject every law abiding citizen to an unnecessary burden every day to "solve" it, do you also believe that we should all be required to check our blood sugar before being allowed to buy a soda? Heart disease killed 635,260 that same year, should we have laws restricting the maximum weight allowed by the government for a citizen? I've shown that it won't stop people from driving drunk, because it's still very possible for drunk drivers to get onto the roads. I've also shown that this type of technology can lead to additional deaths rather than simply preventing them, so the argument of, "if even one life is saved" goes straight out the window. The only question left to ask is why should all 350+ million citizens of the US be subject to a law that could potentially risk their own lives because of what is essentially a rounding error in the more than 2,750,000 people who die each year? It sounds callous, I understand, but the truth of the matter is that drunk driving is realistically a rather infrequent problem after the large campaigns of the late 1900's to change the social culture surrounding driving while drunk.
  11. This is similar to how it already works. The majority of states require an ignition interlock devices after a DUI conviction (some states require 2 convictions I believe) that doesn't allow you to start the car unless a breathalyzer connected to the ECU. A lifetime punishment seems rather harsh compared to the current rules instituting several years of ignition interlock requirements, but this would be an acceptable alternative to me for the breathalyzer ignition interlock system that already exists in law. It would be faster and more convenient for those required to have the device installed while achieving the same effect. Come on now, let's not be dishonest with one another. Your statement was quite clear about those who are young having more testosterone than wisdom. Civil discussions are only possible when both parties are honest and neither one attempts to insult or discredit the other for arbitrary reasons.
  12. I already addressed how it would fail to stop drunk drivers, because anybody who is drunk can simply drive a car manufactured prior to the law's implementation. The other items are equally important, and the only reason for you not addressing it is because you simply can't. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend otherwise when all of those avenues of discussion were opened by you, and you alone, in your response to my first post where you attempted to claim I must know nothing because I am younger.
  13. Nothing I said was political. I made a reasonable comparison because there are tens of millions of cars without this device on the road today in the same way there are tens of millions of guns in the country today, with lawmakers coming up with laws that would still only ever affect newly manufactured cars/guns. This is entirely irrelevant and making laws based on how you personally feel about events is the quickest way to create stupid and ineffective laws. Emotions are never rational and can never come up with logical and effective solutions. Laws like the creation of the TSA, which has been found in numerous independent tests (and even their own self-testing) to be entirely ineffective at actually finding weapons. I'm an Electrical and Computer Engineer in the biomedical device industry, I know far more about the technology behind these devices than the average person. "Almost impossible to trick them with gloves or a buddy pushing the button" would imply that you must have continuous contact with your skin to continue driving. Congratulations, you now are no longer allowed to drive a car with gloves on in the winter. You also get to face the problem of not being able to drive the car when your hands are cold because the reduced bloodflow to your fingers will confuse the device and throw an error similar to if you had gloves on. In other words, your car no longer works as a car when it's cold out. No new technology will stop them, because people who drive drunk can still obtain one of the tens of millions of old cars without this technology. What are you going to do? Ban the old cars and buy them back? Good luck with enforcement there. This has nothing to do with testosterone or wisdom. It has everything to do with me knowing enough about the technology to see that it would stop precisely zero drunk drivers and only serve to increase costs and horribly inconvenience (or possible even endanger, if the car cannot drive at a critical time) those who abide by the law.
  14. It's no more effective than ridiculous gun control proposals, and for the exact same reason - there are so many cars out there not subject to the law already that it would be pointless. It's also rendered completely ineffective if the driver wears gloves or their buddy pushes the button. It's a useless piece of tech that will do nothing but make senators feel good about "doing something" so they can pat themselves on the back while in reality nothing changes except making life worse for law-abiding citizens. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  15. For those who are concerned about incorrect scorecards, I have developed a very effective method over the years after my own personal scorecard snafu. Read out your scores, hole by hole, to your scorer and have them read you back their score for that hole immediately after you state the score for the same hole. It's a back and forth pattern than requires both people to read, speak, AND listen - that's the key here. It's easy to lay two scorecards side by side and say they both look correct, because when all you're doing is reading you can end up falling into a pattern where you just unconsciously check each hole off as correct without really looking at it. Even if you read the scores out loud to yourself you can end up doing the same thing because you're not really listening. Your brain knows what it should hear because it just said it, so even if you state the mistake out loud you can very infrequently miss it because you got into a rhythm. Involving all 3 things - reading, speaking, and hearing - with two different people forces you to pay a little bit more attention. It also gives you more than 2x the chances of catching an error even if you didn't notice it, because you scorer will likely notice and if not the scorer anyone nearby could also hear and notice. The back and forth keeps you engaged enough that brain farts are substantially less likely, and in turn incorrect scorecards are also less likely.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...