3 comments

  • rsrsrs86 19 minutes ago
    Impossible to read the slop wall and find the interesting bits. “Unusually” boring because “this distinction matters”
  • wjnc 2 hours ago
    It’s something I like (math and networks) on a subject I like (football) but the AI tone is so heavy I get turned off. It’s far beyond my load-bearing capacity.

    (tldr - a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random, lowering average points taken away and thus harming chances for this ingroup and increasing chances for the outgroup; it’s interesting stuff; the group differs per year)

    • dylan604 1 hour ago
      > a subset of teams get paired dispropotionally often in UEFA Champions League when compared to random

      To the point they have rules that prevent the same game from being played by two teams in the same home stadium for 3 straight years. Not sure how they handle this. Do they just redraw if that pairing is drawn, do the hold back one of the team's ball from the bag, or do they manually set one of the teams against another from the pool before drawing the remaining?

    • hencq 16 minutes ago
      Yes, same. Initially this seemed like an article I should love, but it was basically impossible to get through, so I stopped reading.
    • charlieyu1 2 hours ago
      If the draw is truly random there will always be some outlier stats. Their 25/26 example, the 5 teams are from pots 1,2,3,3,4 so it’s pretty even
  • jazzpush2 2 hours ago
    Shame, it's a cool idea, but the writing is so full of claudism's my mind skims over it completely.

    Bit of an embarrassment to publish that as a published researcher, to be honest.

    • BeetleB 2 hours ago
      This is a fairly cynical way to look at it. Consider the scenarios:

      Pre-LLM, most researchers wouldn't have bothered writing it up outside of a journal. They're extremely busy people, and it takes a lot of effort to write a well polished post. They'll either hand that task off to a grad student or (much more likely) simply not post it anywhere.

      Thanks to LLMs, we know about it. I've often been critical of academia for not making their work accessible to the masses. This is a step in that direction.

      Existing academics' writing is very poor. Did you try reading the average Academic Joe's essays in the past? Much poorer quality (with much poorer images). LLM-speak is a step up.

      • rsrsrs86 18 minutes ago
        It’s a step down. This is not efficient writing. It would rank as very bad academic writing indeed.

        It’s not even good for academia, journals are flooded with slop.

      • aprilthird2021 2 hours ago
        [flagged]