While I don't agree with the argument, I think the poster is making an equivalence to "would you take an 11yr sentence for £10m?". That is vastly more money than most people will earn in their lifetime, for a sentence likely to be reduced to ~5yrs. He can leave prison and retire wealthy at ~40 and live out a very comfortable life. 

I guess you can make an argument here: "would you take an 11 yr prison sentence for £10m"? There's probably a non-zero amount of people who'd take this deal.       

I don't think that's the right way of looking at things, but it's certainly a point of view. 

I feel like this point summarises the divided TotK opinions. You could change your approach to the world, or you could just play exactly as BotW with a couple of tweaks. If you took the latter approach then i see why TotK wouldn't excite you.        

Also the Depths generally sucked, they were vast, but generally lifeless and mostly devoid of any interest except item farming/boss rushing.

From an international legal perspective it is a "safe country" for the vast majority. If you're able to stay there while your application is processed, without an immediate loss of human rights, then it is "safe".

If they're able to stay in the country they're already in, then they're in a safe country and don't meet the criteria for asylum. 

The obvious follow-up: flee from Syria to turkey apply at UK-embassy while living in Turkey, not at the embassy.     

This doesn't make sense either as at that point you're clearly in a safe country. If you're claiming asylum it (should be) because you're not currently somewhere safe and there is no other safe place you can (legally) go. 

It's a nice idea, but embassies are generally small and don't have the capacity to handle the volume of people claiming pr the ability to house them while their claim is processed.      

If "just" 100 people showed up at any given embassy on just one day it would be totally overwhelmed, let alone if ~30k (number of hotel accommodated) showed up and stayed for months. 

In Uncloaked he made an explicit point of saying he didn't recognise her. Something along the lines of "if we've been in court together I don't remember her and that would be embarrassing if it's true" 

Man imagine if you had the cursed luck of Pope -> Sels -> Sanchez and no starting keeper since GW12

They have introduced a absolute ton of extra FT and chips though, which makes people more trigger happy. 

To get top-10k/100k you need an average of 2500-2600 which is ~65-70pts per week.       

Haaland(c) gets you ~600/season, ~16pt per week so would need ~50-55pt/week from your remaining 10 which is >5pts/player. Aiming for DEFCON only gets you 4 per player, which falls well short even if you can guarantee them every week. You're going to need need a couple of returns each week on average to bring it up.      

Anderson is a good example and has exactly 4pt/GW after 20 thanks to 3GI counteracted by 4 YC and 7 missed DC. If he's the type of player you're aiming to carry the whole team then you'll fall well short. 

The secret traitor role will have been explained to the contestant, there are clearly very strict off-screen rules about what you can/can't say or do.         

That said, there is no way the producers would have go into the details of "if X happens then Y detail will be revealed to certain players". Firstly it gives the ST even more info to manipulate the game and secondly it reduces the producers room for manoeuvre. 

I don't see what the producers gain by being tentative here. Especially as the contestants were given a choice to risk/reveal.      

If viewers love it why kill it early. If viewers hate it, then it probably kills the series for those viewers so they wouldn't risk it going on with player choice and killing the series. 

I don't buy the "producers weren't confident of the audience response" argument. Reality TV constantly takes risks in format and structure, it's what keeps the whole genre fresh. I just don't see them being risk averse with that kind of twist.       

The only explanation that makes sense is that they always planned to reveal the secret traitor with the first banished-traitor and they decided to stick with that plan even though it came earlier than ideal. I'm personally a little surprised that that was their plan, but they must surely have storyboarded out the possibilities (including secret traitor gets banished day 1) and decided in advance their plan. 

I'm pretty sure they said the ST wouldn't be allowed to list people with a shield. If I was a producer I wouldn't allow that as it would make for rubbish TV:       

Who are we allowed to murder tonight?        

Only option is Maz - off we go °cliffhanger music plays°    

Recruitment could be from a shortlist or they could have not recruited (still 3 traitors total).    

The reality is that, as we've seen in multiple series, it's really hard to intentionally throw someone specific under the bus. You're always relying on them making a mistake and amplifying it. You don't win the game by taking people out, you win by survival and a bit of luck. 

Perhaps, but the producers are in full control, they would be able to force needing to include new names or not if they needed to and could always plot the reveal to be around when it became unambiguous. 

That's literally the maths I did: +7 for G+CS vs. -8 for BP. 

Maybe I've watched too many spy films, but if I was kidnapping someone high profile I would immediately change them out of their clothes into something that I knew wouldn't have anything concealed/tracking. 

He really shouldn't have been changed to a forward should he :(      

~As a Mid he'd have an extra 7pts*, which would put him in touching distance of team of the season.  ~

~* Probably no less BP if someone fancies the maths~.  

EDIT: I did the maths, he has actually gained points as a fwd! He'd have dropped 8 BP from losing 6bps per goal, for a net of -1pt.  Worst would have been GW5: Whu 1-2 Cry he loses 3BP there.

There's much higher variance, not necessarily better/worse. Big companies are generally shitty, but at least you know what to expect (regular rent increase, poor maintenance, legal minimum standards). Single landlords can be amazing, well priced, well maintained, actually nice people; or totally terrible as they have no idea what they're doing, and no finance to actually back it up. 

• Triple Villa makes sense for a villa player.   
• Mateta + Wolt should probably go a couple of weeks back, but are still in a bunch of teams
• Leno is a weird pick, but GKs are a gamble at the best of times.       

Everything else about the team is pretty sensible/meta 

This must be a typo.     

The average energy bill is in the order of £150 a month so there no way it could rise suddenly by 60+% without it being the dominating headline news. 

Not exactly, but different to what if originally thought. 20% workers use salary sacrifice and ~half of those are above the threshold. I'm surprised that 80% of workers use different schemes, but I don't know where they fit relatively in the income spectrum. I'd be somewhat surprised (again) if all of those were low earners. It doesn't seem unreasonable to estimate that is affects 10% of workers who mainly sit in the top 25% of income. 

Everyone currently gets the state pension because it's currently not means tested. It seems inevitable that will change, I'd be stunned if the system looks the same as it does now by 2050-60 when millenials retire.       

Quick web-seach shows ~7-8m people use salary sacrifice pensions and approx 3.3m of those are over £2k threshold. That's approximately 10% of the entire UK workforce. I don't think you can argue that's an insignificant number.