Pandering to the few diehards who can pay attention to more than 100 games a year on every day of the week including weekdays for 4+ hours at a time is not a sustainable way to build or maintain interest in your sport in newer generations.
If you look at the article, you can see that games have been getting progressively slower since records started being kept back in the 1920s. The recent rule changes have managed to cut the duration back to what they were in the early 80s.
By your logic, the games my mom grew up watching weren't slow enough, and the games my grandma watched were true blasphemy at around 2 hours flat.
Meanwhile, from my wife's perspective, I spend all afternoon watching even these sped-up games.
Does watching or listening to baseball feel too fast-paced? I haven't played much attention to baseball in many years, but I agree with you, baseball is supposed to be slow.
Espn has a feed of soccer events (cards, shots, goals, etc), but that doesn't give you anything close to a complete state-of-the-game in the way that baseball scoring does.
I did a tour of an MLS stadium yesterday and the tour guide was showing some of the equipment the players wear during the game and the _teams_ actually have a moment by moment read out of exactly where all all the players are on the field and what they are doing, where contact is made on the ball, their heart rate and lots of other stuff, and the ball itself has electronics in it in some leagues, so it actually _is_ possible to completely reconstruct a game from a data feed. Just that the feed isn't public.
I have been advocating for multiple dishwashers for a long time, but the reality is that many times when preparing a meal you dirty more dishes than fit in a single load, and dirty dishes will still pile up in the sink.
Surely this is a queuing problem, and must be solved accordingly.
After all, the universe has only two kinds of problems: those solved by queuing theory, and those solved by category theory. Or so hanging out on HN would have me believe.
Honestly the article is all over the place and appears to be mostly "bullshit" although I haven't afforded it a complete read yet (and probably won't).
I probably prefer a clear separation of nature and non-nature, with my home/backyard being the latter one, but having actual nature within a walking distance - which requires the non-nature parts to be dense, not sprawling wide.
Your NIMBYism sounds like the typical response to diversity, bio or otherwise. Try replacing "nature" with some other terms; it's not a flattering statement.
“It ain’t over til the arbitrary time limit” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.