@uhdityea We can’t really compare how good Messi was statistically in any specific area to Maradona/Pele/Muller/whatever, so all we know is that in any specific area he’s the best in the modern era. Hard to tell probabilistically how likely a player like him is
@uhdityea I was kind of trolling in the last tweet. In any case Messi is obviously the modern goat, but these statistical analyses don’t really work considering consolidation in a few top leagues, modern rules, and modern stat keeping are so modern
@MoeSquare Oh. You’d have to weigh those performances by near zero, which is kind of arbitrary. You’d have to just ignore world cup performances for example, which are the highest level in the sport if we judge by pressure put on players and coaches.
@MoeSquare You don’t think LY can have higher value add than Messi for his national team? I can see that if you think Spain will have a better team than Argentina in the future so marginal value add is lower
@MoeSquare At club level yes, even if they were equally talented (don’t think so) Messi’s injury rates are anomalously low.
That said, Messi left a lot of potential value added on the table at national team level. with a good enough career YL can make up for it and be the goat
Taking into account future advancement in sport science increasing longevity and the high value placed on club consistency + increasing talent concentration in top clubs, we’ll probably see Messi’s numbers surpassed sooner rather than later
@Dianubirips @shamhat__ Es lo mismo que cuando le decían chavismo al kirchnerismo, es una manera rápida de comparar con un movimiento político visto como extremo y conocido por la población.
religion is the axioms you choose for your belief system. It's a descriptive thing. No one is really "without religion", some people are intentional about their axioms and some people are not
https://t.co/2AnofyWktl
In any case yes, ignoring technological progress for short run models is a fine assumption. They don’t ignore it for long run models, but those are also much less successful and can be more easily critiqued.
It’s completely bananas that mainstream economics is based on John Maynard Keynes’s paradigm, when Keynes explicitly says his paradigm makes the simplifying assumption of ignoring technological progress, the most important economic force in the modern world.
Why are 1000 year empires necessarily “good”? Why is the pursuit of truth lumped into pursuing greatness? Different thing. Is this per capita? What’s your source for any of this?
One of the great ironies of history is that the pursuit of greatness has accomplished far more good than the pursuit of goodness. The people selflessly devoting themselves to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor have accomplished a lot, but by their own metrics it’s a million times less than the good that’s downstream of the people who devoted themselves to great projects like building sickass boats that go super fast, or forging empires to endure for a thousand years, or comprehending the transcendent truths of physics and biology for their own sake.