Started reading popular non-fiction after a while. WTF is going. Pages upon pages of examples trying to drive home a solitary point which itself is painfully simple. Most of these could have been a 1000-word essay.
“A man can be an artist... in anything, food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece.” I watch this movie once a year.
Can't believe I waited so long to watch MAN ON FIRE, Tony Scott's blood soaked parable of spiritual renewal and old-testament vengeance, where every other shot of maximalist, contrast-pushed, stunningly saturated beauty could be in the Louvre. Denzel is just incredible.
I suspect it is time to explain "Umpire's Call" again. After the ball strikes the pad, what you see is a projection of where the ball might have been, it isn't the actual ball because that has met an obstruction. If more than 50% of the ball is projected to hit the stumps, you can be 100% sure it will. But if less than 50% of the ball is projected to hit the stumps, the current accuracy levels cannot state with 100% certainty that the ball would have hit the stumps. Hence, you go back to the Umpire's original decision because you cannot be certain enough to overturn his call. It is a very good and fair method. As cameras get better and the projected path more certain, we could reach a day when you can be certain that even if the projected path shows a ball merely clipping the stumps, it would in reality have hit them.