4 ms·

I think you nailed it. It's awesome that they have overcome what others perceive as a disability. And in this case, they might have actually turned it into an

I think you nailed it. It's awesome that they have overcome what others perceive as a disability. And in this case, they might have actually turned it into an advantage. But make no mistake, the reason they are beating people is because they are good at football, not because they are deaf.

dnautics 5y ago
well no? Line-of-sight communication with zippy sign language is not distance dependent, or as dependent on environmental audio considerations (jamming). Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable. Conceivably, a football team could learn to adapt by physically blocking line-of-sight between QB and receiver but it's too niche. Same goes for reading sign language. If indeed they are winning because they have a communication advantage (which is and always has been in american football), true it is not strictly because they are deaf, because any other team could learn to use a similar system, but let's be real. It's because they are deaf, fluency especially at a high speed takes near-zero effort.
- rackjack 5y ago
  This reminds me of how left-handed boxers generally have an advantage over their opponents.
  - dmoy 5y ago
    The same is true in fencing. Though it's mostly because fencing (or boxing) a lefty as a righty is unusual enough that you have less practice doing it. While the lefty pretty much only fences (or boxes) against righties. It boils down entirely to comfort. Someone with a good lefty in their club/team that they regularly practice against won't have much difficulty with it. What's really funny, by the way, is watching two lefties fence against each other when neither of them have a second really good lefty to practice against. It just looks... awkward. Of course then you get to a high enough level and it's 100% footwork, and the lefty/right bit mostly stops mattering.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable. You have to aim it. Ships on water don't stay still, fog and rain exist, etc..
  - dnautics 5y ago
    seriously? It's 2021. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it shouldn't be hard to track and aim a 30cm object at 100 m with a laser that is moving +/- 5-10 meters at a speed of 5m/s Fog though, yeah. I get that one.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      The higher the tech, the more that can go wrong.
      - dnautics 5y ago
        navy doesn't seem to care (see USS Ford)
        adventured 5y ago
        The US Navy has a lot of active carriers and few superpower-scale threats, so they're taking an opportunity to experiment (USS Ford) and can afford to do it (for now). It seems like the right thing to do while they can. Ford is the largest warship ever constructed, it's not very surprising they might have problems with a new class.
        jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
        The navy was dragged into that against their preference by Rumsfeld and the rest of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" people. The original plan was for the first Ford class ships to use conventional catapults, etc, while the new stuff was developed and refined in parallel, to be integrated once it was proven ready. That wasn't fast enough for the Revolution folks, who insisted that the most aggressive timeline possible be followed. Nearly everything those people touched has turned into a disaster, costing tax payers billions.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  " Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable." Because they do not work when there is mist, which is quite often the case at sea and also I can imagine, it is a nontrivial issue of aligning them, when both ends are constantly moving, due to waves and cruising direction. Also it might give the position away, if you power up the beam to counter humidity. In some cases, it might be beneficial, though.
- philsnow 5y ago
  Line of sight / laser is restricted by the curvature of the earth but VHF can go (a bit?) farther.

dnautics 5y ago

well no? Line-of-sight communication with zippy sign language is not distance dependent, or as dependent on environmental audio considerations (jamming). Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable. Conceivably, a football team could learn to adapt by physically blocking line-of-sight between QB and receiver but it's too niche. Same goes for reading sign language. If indeed they are winning because they have a communication advantage (which is and always has been in american football), true it is not strictly because they are deaf, because any other team could learn to use a similar system, but let's be real. It's because they are deaf, fluency especially at a high speed takes near-zero effort.

rackjack 5y ago
This reminds me of how left-handed boxers generally have an advantage over their opponents.
- dmoy 5y ago
  The same is true in fencing. Though it's mostly because fencing (or boxing) a lefty as a righty is unusual enough that you have less practice doing it. While the lefty pretty much only fences (or boxes) against righties. It boils down entirely to comfort. Someone with a good lefty in their club/team that they regularly practice against won't have much difficulty with it. What's really funny, by the way, is watching two lefties fence against each other when neither of them have a second really good lefty to practice against. It just looks... awkward. Of course then you get to a high enough level and it's 100% footwork, and the lefty/right bit mostly stops mattering.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable. You have to aim it. Ships on water don't stay still, fog and rain exist, etc..
- dnautics 5y ago
  seriously? It's 2021. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it shouldn't be hard to track and aim a 30cm object at 100 m with a laser that is moving +/- 5-10 meters at a speed of 5m/s Fog though, yeah. I get that one.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    The higher the tech, the more that can go wrong.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      navy doesn't seem to care (see USS Ford)
      - adventured 5y ago
        The US Navy has a lot of active carriers and few superpower-scale threats, so they're taking an opportunity to experiment (USS Ford) and can afford to do it (for now). It seems like the right thing to do while they can. Ford is the largest warship ever constructed, it's not very surprising they might have problems with a new class.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
        The navy was dragged into that against their preference by Rumsfeld and the rest of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" people. The original plan was for the first Ford class ships to use conventional catapults, etc, while the new stuff was developed and refined in parallel, to be integrated once it was proven ready. That wasn't fast enough for the Revolution folks, who insisted that the most aggressive timeline possible be followed. Nearly everything those people touched has turned into a disaster, costing tax payers billions.
hutzlibu 5y ago
" Incidentally, I have always wondered why naval ship-to-ship communication isn't with a LOS tight beam laser -- unjammable and uninterceptable." Because they do not work when there is mist, which is quite often the case at sea and also I can imagine, it is a nontrivial issue of aligning them, when both ends are constantly moving, due to waves and cruising direction. Also it might give the position away, if you power up the beam to counter humidity. In some cases, it might be beneficial, though.
philsnow 5y ago
Line of sight / laser is restricted by the curvature of the earth but VHF can go (a bit?) farther.