Hi all. I have a set of Boss 351 heads, and a set of the similar D1AE-GA Torino heads. The only difference between the two is that the Torino ones have a wider date code during which they were produced, and they do not have the screw-in rocker studs for the adjustable valve train. See the D1AE-GA section here for more details if interested.
So I took the Torino set along with one of the Boss heads to the machine shop, and told them I wanted the Torino set's rocker stud pedestals to match exactly the Boss head. They said no problem, they'd done it before, all good. When I got them back today, one of the stud pedestals on only one of the torino heads had been milled down quite a bit shorter than all the rest. The blue painted one is the Boss, the bare metal one is the Torino.
Boss: https://i.imgur.com/bAsChet.jpeg
Torino done wrong: https://i.imgur.com/7pxUDQ8.jpeg
My question is: does this matter, or is it adjustable to still work? If it can be made to work, will it be weaker because there is less thread engagement? How screwed am I?

TL;DR

The Fall of Shady Sands was when Lucy was taken in 2277, the Nuke of Shady Sands happened in 2282.
The whole timeline in the show has been quite confusing, to say the list. I'm trying to make sense of all the information we were given in the show and out of it, so that the timeline made more sense.
Now, what lore do we have in the show to collaborate with the official timeline:

The ages of protagonists

We have several points considering flashbacks:

• It is heavily implied that Lucy was around 6 years old when she returned back to the Vault (and lost her mother):

Up until I was six, I really thought that the big light on our farm was the sun.
My mom used to take me to play out under that light, and I swear I could feel the sun baking my skin.
After my mom was gone, I realized it was just her that made it all feel so real.

• We don't know the exact age of Lucy, but what we see from the Vault scenes is:
  
• • She is old enough to teach children history
• • She has tried to find a marriage partner for some time, and it is unlikely that participation of the exchange was the first solution.
• • She had relations with Chet for around 10 years.

Putting her as 6 in 2282 would make her 20 years old:

• • The Vault 101 (which is the closest we have to Vault education lore) has children getting specialized training/job placements/apprenticeships by 17. Lucy can be a teacher by 20, at least in the very beginning of her career.
• • I'd find it unlikely that she would resort to a Vault 32 trade by 20 - that sounds too early for me.
• • That would mean she began relations with Chet around 10 years old, which is also way early.

If we put her as 6 yo in 2277, she would be 25 years:

• • That's old enough to teach for some time
• • 25 years old is "Christmas Cake" age, and would make sense for Lucy to worry about being unmarried.
• • 15 years is quite more common to begin relations with someone.

IMO, while both ages can work, 25 years is more believable.
I won't take into account Purnell's age, as there are middle-aged actors playing teenagers all the times - it's rarely evidence. Also, because of Moten and Maximus.
Now, Maximus:

• We see his scene in Shady Sands, immediately after nuking. The child looks around 6? years old.
  
• He is still in training in the Brotherhood, and is an Aspirant, which is the lowest rank in the food chain. However, he has been in the Brotherhood since childhood.
  

If he is 25 (and was 6 in 2277), it would be weird - he has been educated since childhood, and not passing even to a squire by 25 is very strange. 20 or less is more understandable.
IMO, if we try to look into the ages, it makes more sense for Lucy to be older than Maximus, which would set their flashbacks apart.

The Plague of 77'

You know, my vault has endured hardship, too.
In the Great Plague of ’77, everyone had to quarantine, they couldn’t work the farms together.
People starved. My mother included.
My dad dropped to 128 pounds, and he still refused to do anything like this.

This part gives us the most likely timeline when Rose died - 2277.

• This gives Hank a convenient excuse to hide exodus of his family - Betty could easily cover for him remotely, while he rescues his children back.
• The language Lucy uses for her mother vs her father (my mother starved vs my dad dropped weight) implies that she not just starved, but starved to death. That is the most reasonable time to declare Rose's death to the Vault - no one to see the funeral, no one to disbelieve the death. Including Lucy - even at 6 years old, it would be easier for her to get gaslighted into believing she got separated from her mother by the quarantine, and then she died.

The library card

The biggest evidence for the nuke date at 2277 is this library card - it was supposed to be returned in November 2276, but never was. It was in a destroyed elementary school, so it is obvious that for the dates to commence, it would either sit in that locker for 5 years, or something should've happen by late 2276 to prevent the book return.

• One of the overlooked things in that locker is a book titled "The New California Republic" by Kate Williams. Miss Williams is what Moldaver was named before the war, which is unlikely a coincidence.

So, the theory I have for the locker is that used to belong to someone we know, who left Shady Sands by 2277 - can be Rose (who could try to teach in the school), or Lucy/Norm, who could begin to study there, or even Moldavers (again, teaching there). That would, although flimsy, explain why the locker was there unused for 5 years.

What is the Fall

My theory, based on that, is that the Fall is a successful raid on Shady Sands, probably by the Brotherhood (which would make it unrelated to Hank's rescue, but likely act as a distraction), or credited to them. Then, NCR retaliated at the Brotherhood, leading to a massive reignited campaign against the Brotherhood.

• It explains how Shady Sands is still prosperous by 2282 - a raid wouldn't knock out the entire Shady Sands, and be only a temporary disgrace.
• The raid wouldn't last long, and likely be driven out quickly by the NCR troops - but it would cause enough chaos for Hank to use it for his needs.
• The Fall would explain why Shady Sands is called "The First Capital" on the show (G.I. Blues is clearly a reference to F2 name of Shady Sands, but retroactively can explain that). After the raid, NCR has changed capital to another place, while the most of the political capital still has remained in Shady Sands.
• The Fall and the counter-attack by the NCR would explain why the Brotherhood is in a sorry state now - NCR hit them in retaliation, and hit them hard.

Now, the reasons could be that the NCR had a lot of troops tied in the First Battle of the Hoover Dam, and with the Divide explosion, it would be hard for them to return to the heartland. While there would still be troops available, it would make sense for them to be more spread out.
I doubt it was a major siege, but a quick raid, for some specific purpose, could work out.
Now, alternative variants:

• The Enclave raid is a good option. But: If Enclave could do it before, why would they do it only in 2277? If the Enclave had the ability to hurt NCR, one of their archenemies, they would do it as soon as they could. And if it was done due to Hank, I really doubt that Enclave would listen to Hank - even if he is a Vault-Tec representative, Enclave doesn't give a fuck for Vault-Tec.
  
• • However, Siggi clearly knew both Vault 33, and MacLanes. Possibly Hank aided them big (explaining why there is Enclave around California after NCR purges - Hank restored their facility from cryosleep)?
• • Enclave probably does have resources (They definitely can get T-51b Power Armor) to false flag a Brotherhood attack - driving NCR against Brotherhood. In the meantime, Hank can rescue children from Rose.
• A raid by anyone who isn't them is unlikely IMO - raiders can't really go against NCR police in Shady Sands, and Hank has nothing to give them.
  
• I absolutely do not buy the "The Fall is due to economic conditions" or something like that. That doesn't make sense at all - NCR had issues, but it wasn't a failed state in any way, not even remotely.
  

The Nuking of Shady Sands

Shady Sands was presumably nuked. By what, however?
Hank does admit that it was his choice -

"I had to make a choice. Between their violent world and our peaceful one. And I believe, Lucy, I know I made the right choice."

• Hank fired the nukes directly:
  
• • The Vault-Tec was unlikely have any nukes on their own before the war - it tried to gain Appalachian nukes before that. It's possible, although very unlikely, that WV or other nukes were under Vault-Tec control, enough for Hank to call it remotely (likely from the Vault, as it would be in 2282) from Vault 31 or 33.
• • Again, if that would happen in 2282, Lucy would remember him being absent, and he would need another reason to cover his absence.
• Hank fired the nukes through the Enclave:
  
• • The Enclave had an access to Bradley-Hercules - a satellite which could fire nukes from orbit, and while the satellite's options are limited in the game, it could make sense that either there are other satellites, or in 5 years it could change firing line towards California.
• • If the Enclave had a firing shot against NCR, they would have done it the moment they could at all. NCR destroyed Navarro. It claimed the legacy of the United States. It is one of the biggest nemesis of the Enclave, only Brotherhood rivaled them. So, either Enclave were given the shot only by 2282, or they weren't the ones.
• • It is possible that Hank gave them some crucial information about nuclear plans of Vault-Tec (if they had nukes), control codes from Vault 31, or something else (like the cold fusion chip), in exchange of Enclave extracting his children from Shady Sands.
• Hank/Enclave rigged the Shady Sands reactor:
  
• • Hank was implied to be well-versed in SCIENCE, so it might be plausible that he returned to Shady Sands in 2282, rigged the reactor and left before it could explode. It is possible, but also needlessly dangerous for him - he would need a head-start in days before explosion, and the security of a reactor would be strong. An Enclave mole, working at the reactor, could rig it for the Enclave, however.
• The bomb was smuggled:
  
• • Also a possible solution - you can find nuclear warheads in a lot of places out there. A van with the nuke goes into Shady Sands and goes boom. I doubt Hank had any influence to do that, but the Enclave might have the reason and resources.

SPOILERS FOR END OF SEASON 1
In the pilot when Moldaver captured 6 vaulties and had them on their knees at gunpoint, she told Hank to choose between them and his daughter, and as we know he chose his daughter.
My theory is that each of those Vaulties was from the Buds' buds program in V31, so when she asked him to choose it was a quick way of determining if there was even a chance of breaking him enough to give her the code she needed.
I'll admit my only evidence for this is that 1 of those people (Stephanie the Cyclops) is a confirmed member, but wouldn't it also make sense if Chet was also a Bud? He could have been the one to warn Betty about the need to clean up V32 before Norm took more people in there. And it would be a good plot twist if Lucy's cousin-with-benefits turned out to be a Sleeper Agent.
Or not, that's probably more likely.

My post on SGA's best and worst PnR coverages was crossposted to this sub by u/kingcakebabyokc, so I thought you might like this one.
The piece that was crossposted was an extensive look at SGA and GTO vs. FEP coverages in the PnR.
I logged and coded 227 PnRs vs. Western Conference playoff teams for the piece. Two of those games were against the Kings.
These are my notes from those games. I just wanted to share what coverages went well, which ones didn't, and general thoughts from both Kings games I watched for the piece—I hope that's okay with this sub.
The big piece has videos that help show why some of these coverages are less than ideal vs. SGA and why some are successful. There are a lot of Kings ones in the edits (most aren’t good coverages), but to prevent the idea of this being fully self-promotional, I will link the videos in the comments below and not up here.
Here is a breakdown of Sacramento’s coverages vs. SGA’s PnR and their effectiveness.
​

	Number of Poss	TOs	Points Per Poss (Fouls)
Ghost (No Switch)	5	0	1.8 (2)
Ghost (Switch)	1	0	3.0
Ghost (Blitz)	3	2	1.0
Over + Drop	4	0	1.625 (1)
Down + Drop	1	0	2.0
Over + Level -> Drop	3	0	1.333
Over + Show/Blitz	12	0	1.125 (2)
Refusal (At the level)	10	0	1.5 (1)
Switch (At the level)	1	0	0.5
UNDER	1	0	0.5

​
Game 1 (December 14th):
SGA ran 23 PnRs, finishing at 1.333 PPP, with two turnovers and four fouls drawn.
During the December 14 game, Sacramento decided to employ an aggressive strategy at the level of the PnR. Sabonis played eight times in a blitz or aggressive show coverage, allowing only 0.75 PPP on those actions.
The numbers say this was an effective strategy. But they are heavily weighed by a few misses on open shots early in the game.
Even though the Kings only gave up 0.75 PPP on these actions, they gave up wide-open shots on every possession to pretty good shooters.
This coverage also exposed Sacramento to SGA’s preferred action (the refusal) when seeing the screener's defender up at the level. SGA refused six PnR actions when the secondary defender was at the level (ready to show/blitz) and scored 1.833 PPP while drawing three fouls.
If you combine the actions, it comes out to 14 PnRs at 1.214 PPP with three fouls drawn and many open shots!
^^ As the game went on and Oklahoma City got the rhythm of the coverage, bringing a big up to the level of the screen hurt Sacramento more and more.
If you don't vary the looks, SGA and Oklahoma City get in a groove and can exploit this aggressive coverage with space and ball movement.
Game 2 (February 11th):
SGA ran 14 PnRs, finishing at 1.667 PPP, with zero turnovers and two fouls drawn.
Sacramento again decided to be aggressive at the level of the PnR in this game.
They played four times in a blitz or aggressive show coverage and allowed a whopping 1.875 PPP on those actions.
SGA also had four refusals this game and scored 1.00 PPP, but out of these four possessions, he created two wide-open three-point shots for 40% three-point shooters.
If you combine both actions, the result is 8 PnRs at 1.437 PPP. That is not good enough to win.
Sacramento’s aggressive coverage surprised SGA in the first half of their December game and was momentarily effective.
But once the Thunder started getting a feel for what Sacramento was doing, they set the screen higher and slipped the action. This led to good shots as the December game continued and into the February game. This caused Sacramento to put Sabonis in more drop coverages, where SGA has a clear advantage.
Sacramento has aggressively attacked SGA at the screen level, which is not a coverage strategy that most effectively naturalizes SGA because it creates 4v3 attacks with skillful players in the short roll and allows SGA to refuse the screen and attack 4v3 himself.
Sacramento covered 22 PnRs at 1.30 PPP throughout two games with the screener's defender up at the level, ready to Blitz/Show on the action. This number will not lead to success.
I would expect Oklahoma City to defeat Sacramento if they meet in a series.
Sacramento could make a change that would give them a puncher's chance:
They could switch from being aggressive at the level to going ‘under” every SGA action and not allowing him or the ball to get downhill without heavy resistance.
This would help in three areas where SGA and the Thunder found success vs. the Kings:
​

1. Keep Sabonis shielded from downhill attacks while in “Drop” coverage.
   
2. No need to "Veer" switch onto Chet to take away his pick-and-pop threes.
   
3. Do not give up 4v3 attacks from the screener when the Kings blitzed the PnR action.
   

Ellis went under a PnR action in the second half of the February game; it led to a tough shot from SGA after being stuck for a few seconds.
The soft switch and Under have been the most effective coverage on film I’ve seen during the 227 PnR actions logged for the bigger piece. It has allowed teams to keep their defensive shell and limit drive and kick actions from the Thunder.
Thanks for reading. I’m interested in seeing if the Kings start to mix in some “Unders” when Sabonis is involved in the action tonight or if they stay with the ultra-aggressive strategy at the level for SGA PnRs.

I've been using a persistent nspawn container for building AUR packages exclusively, using my own script for several years now.
Recently, I found Jia Tan's GPG key in the nspawn container.
I'm not sure which package pulled in the key and if it's anything to be overly concerned about. I deleted the key when I found it, and forgot about it till I read the file today, that I saved listing the GPG keys in the nspawn ccontainer.
I wasn't too concerned finding the key, have already checked my systems, know it was basically a non issue on Arch systems using the official package, and don't have any ssh servers accessible from the WAN, or even running except when I'm using it.
My thoughts were that an AUR package was or is pulling from one of his git repos somewhere. I have no idea what package it was at this point and haven't looked into it yet. I'll build AUR packages sometimes just to test for building, and remove it thereafter. Does this warrant any further investigation? Possibly track down the AUR package/s to see whats being pulled in? I could search through my nspawn container .SRCINFO files if it's worth the time, but keep only my currently used AUR packages build directories.
Anyone else have or find his key?
[builduser@chroot-p5g /]$ gpg --list-keys

/home/builduse.gnupg/pubring.kbx ---------------------------------- pub rsa2048 2011-06-03 [SC] 6645B0A8C7005E78DB1D7864F99FFE0FEAE999BD uid [ unknown] Allan McRae  uid [ unknown] Allan McRae (Developer)  sub rsa2048 2011-06-03 [E] pub rsa2048 2017-06-04 [SC] [expired: 2022-08-02] B8151B117037781095514CA7BBDFFC92306B1121 uid [ expired] Andrew Gregory (pacman)  pub rsa2048 2016-04-07 [SC] 27EDEAF22F3ABCEB50DB9A125CC908FDB71E12C2 uid [ unknown] Daniel Stenberg  sub rsa2048 2016-04-07 [E] pub rsa2048 2013-04-30 [SC] 8657ABB260F056B1E5190839D9C4D26D0E604491 uid [ unknown] Matt Caswell  uid [ unknown] Matt Caswell  sub rsa2048 2013-04-30 [E] pub rsa4096 2014-10-04 [SC] 7953AC1FBC3DC8B3B292393ED5E9E43F7DF9EE8C uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  uid [ unknown] Richard Levitte  sub rsa4096 2014-10-04 [E] pub rsa4096 2021-07-16 [SC] [expires: 2031-07-14] A21FAB74B0088AA361152586B8EF1A6BA9DA2D5C uid [ unknown] Tomáš Mráz  uid [ unknown] Tomáš Mráz  uid [ unknown] Tomáš Mráz  sub rsa4096 2021-07-16 [S] [expires: 2027-07-15] sub rsa4096 2021-07-16 [E] [expires: 2031-07-14] pub dsa1024 2001-09-05 [SC] 5ED46A6721D365587791E2AA783FCD8E58BCAFBA uid [ unknown] Mark Adler  sub elg2048 2001-09-05 [E] pub rsa4096 2010-10-24 [SC] [expired: 2024-02-02] 3690C240CE51B4670D30AD1C38EE757D69184620 uid [ expired] Lasse Collin  pub rsa4096 2019-01-19 [C] EC3CFE88F6CA0788774F5C1D1AA44BE649DE760A uid [ unknown] Mark Wielaard  uid [ unknown] Mark Wielaard  uid [ unknown] Mark Wielaard  sub rsa2048 2019-01-20 [A] sub rsa2048 2019-01-20 [S] sub rsa2048 2019-01-20 [E] pub rsa4096 2021-03-09 [SC] 4EF4AC63455FC9F4545D9B7DEF8FE99528B52FFD uid [ unknown] Zstandard Release Signing Key  pub rsa2048 2011-01-12 [SC] [expired: 2021-12-31] D8692123C4065DEA5E0F3AB5249B39D24F25E3B6 uid [ expired] Werner Koch (dist sig) pub rsa2048 2014-10-29 [SC] [expired: 2020-10-30] 031EC2536E580D8EA286A9F22071B08A33BD3F06 uid [ expired] NIIBE Yutaka (GnuPG Release Key)  pub ed25519 2020-08-24 [SC] [expires: 2030-06-30] 6DAA6E64A76D2840571B4902528897B826403ADA uid [ unknown] Werner Koch (dist signing 2020) pub ed25519 2021-05-19 [SC] [expires: 2027-04-04] AC8E115BF73E2D8D47FA9908E98E9B2D19C6C8BD uid [ unknown] Niibe Yutaka (GnuPG Release Key) pub rsa4096 2019-12-21 [SC] [expired: 2022-12-20] A5A45B12AD92D964B89EEE2DEC560C81CEC2276E uid [ expired] Martin Matuska  uid [ expired] Martin Matuska  pub rsa4096 2013-10-09 [SC] C01E1CAD5EA2C4F0B8E3571504C367C218ADD4FF uid [ unknown] Benjamin Peterson  uid [ unknown] Benjamin Peterson  uid [ unknown] Benjamin Peterson  sub rsa4096 2013-10-09 [E] pub ed25519 2019-11-20 [SC] [expires: 2024-11-18] 76C0969C076A23EC4849F462D3E3E8ACF99DE8EA uid [ unknown] Ashish Kulkarni (Open Source)  sub cv25519 2019-11-20 [E] [expires: 2024-11-18] pub dsa1024 2006-11-05 [SC] 84736900600FF95EF23513F52975A150DEF6218F uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  uid [ unknown] Vincent Ladeuil  sub elg2048 2006-11-05 [E] pub dsa1024 2004-08-02 [SC] 7C0135FB088AAF6C66C650B9BB5869F064EA74AB uid [ unknown] Chet Ramey  sub elg1024 2004-08-02 [E] pub rsa3072 2021-07-30 [SC] [expired: 2024-01-08] 19882D92DDA4C400C22C0D56CC2AF4472167BE03 uid [ expired] Thomas E. Dickey (self-signed w/o SHA1)  uid [ expired] Thomas E. Dickey (use for email)  pub dsa1024 2003-10-02 [SC] C7ECC365AB6F255E1EB9BA1701FA998FBAC6374A uid [ unknown] Stuart Bishop  uid [ unknown] Stuart Bishop  uid [ unknown] Stuart Bishop  uid [ unknown] Stuart Bishop (Work)  uid [ unknown] Stuart Bishop (dropbear.id.au Domain Admin)  sub elg4096 2003-10-02 [ER] pub dsa1024 2004-03-06 [SCA] 58B277C0D208F7AC460C07C84548B3A8C0D70C12 uid [ unknown] John Szakmeister  sub elg4096 2004-03-06 [ER] pub rsa4096 2014-10-04 [SC] [expired: 2024-01-30] EFC0A467D613CB83C7ED6D30D894E2CE8B3D79F5 uid [ expired] OpenSSL security team  uid [ expired] OpenSSL OMC  uid [ expired] OpenSSL Security  ============================================================================================================== pub rsa4096 2022-12-28 [SC] [expires: 2027-12-27] 22D465F2B4C173803B20C6DE59FCF207FEA7F445 uid [ unknown] Jia Tan  sub rsa4096 2022-12-28 [E] [expires: 2027-12-27] =============================================================================================================== pub rsa3072 2022-12-09 [SC] [expires: 2025-12-08] DB2C7CF1B4C265FAEF56E3FC5848A18B8F14184B uid [ unknown] Martin Matuska  uid [ unknown] Martin Matuska  sub rsa3072 2022-12-09 [E] [expires: 2025-12-08] pub rsa4096 2014-12-15 [C] [expires: 2025-07-21] EF6E286DDA85EA2A4BA7DE684E2C6E8793298290 uid [ unknown] Tor Browser Developers (signing key)  sub rsa4096 2021-09-17 [S] [expires: 2024-08-23] 

EDIT:1
Did a search after posting....
It's the pacman-static AUR package that pulls in the xz package source, which Jia was the dev of for some time...
/home/jeff/.a-Aurch-AUbase/chroot-p5g/home/buildusepacman-static/src/xz/*
I do find it interesting that reportedly, the test files were involved in the process (creating a bash script) as part of the back door code injection. There are several files titled as 'test-*' included in the build directories. Going in for a closer look....
The test directory contents:
$ file src/xz/tests/* awk '{print" "$0}'

src/xz/tests/bcj_test.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/code_coverage.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/compress_prepared_bcj_sparc: ELF 32-bit MSB relocatable, SPARC, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped src/xz/tests/compress_prepared_bcj_x86: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped src/xz/tests/create_compress_files.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/files: directory src/xz/tests/Makefile: ASCII text, with very long lines (446), with escape sequences src/xz/tests/Makefile.am: ASCII text src/xz/tests/Makefile.in: makefile script, ASCII text, with escape sequences src/xz/tests/ossfuzz: directory src/xz/tests/test_bcj_exact_size.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_block_header.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_check.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_compress_generated_abc: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_compress_generated_random: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_compress_generated_text: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_compress_prepared_bcj_sparc: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_compress_prepared_bcj_x86: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_compress.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_files.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_filter_flags.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_filter_str.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_hardware.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_index.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_index_hash.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_lzip_decoder.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_memlimit.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_microlzma.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_scripts.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/tests.h: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_stream_flags.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/test_suffix.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable src/xz/tests/test_vli.c: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/tuktest.h: C source, ASCII text src/xz/tests/xzgrep_expected_output: ASCII text 

EDIT:2
And as expected, found nothing similar to the content described here: https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4
I'm guessing this key will only be present if you built AUR pacman-static on your system. That said I don't see how having the key could pose any potential issues with this package and based on what I found...
As for other AUR packages that may use his key, be aware and if found, check what it may be pulling in.

Hope Springs + Season of the Saltwater Serenade (previous idea)
This is an idea for a summer season in Fish 2.0!

Seasonal content

Unique locations

• Serenity Shores - a picturesque beach with crystal-clear waters and a serene, lovely pastel pink sunset.
• Coral Cove Lagoon - a deep lagoon with colorful clusters of coral, teeming with tropical fish. The rays of light emanate into the deep waters.
• Palm Breeze Pier - near a local tropical town full of hustle and bustle, with lots of exotic fish.

Seasonal fish

• Coral Grouper - Rocking the latest trends in undersea fashion. Too bad it'll go out of fashion in like a week.
• Sunset Snapper - Shimmering scales reflecting the glistering sunset. Truly a sight to behold... or be caught.
• Firetail Trout - It burns, burns, burns, summer barbecue is so hot, but this is hotter.
• Coconut Dweller Squid - A master of disguise. You'll have to crack the code to catch this slippery character.
• Sunspot Angelfish - Radiates sunshine vibes with its sunspot patterns. Don't forget to bring the sunscreen!
• Celestial Mariner - Of seraphic allure and mystery, he who navigates the cosmic currents of the vast oceanic expanse. (Boss)
• Corallith - The ancient coral monstrosity. The patterns make it look more like an 80s hipster than a fearful leviathan. (Boss)

New fish

• Pearl Gourami (found in Atlantic Ruins)
• Lemon Tetra (found in Mystic Pond)
• Mandarinfish (found in Atlantic Ruins)

NPCs found

• Diego Santos (resident of Palm Breeze Town, cheerful and easy-going, hates alcohol, does not know of Chet Sterling)
• Dr. Lucas Martine (ichthyologist who goes to exotic, seasonal places to discover fish, kind of a nerd but doesn't admit it, 38 yrs old)

Items found

• Ice Cream Sandwich Bait - Allows you to catch summer fish anytime.
• Sunken Treasure
• Tool Box
• Bait Box
• Fishing Pole
• Net
• Harpoon
• $50,000-150,000
• 150x Skin Fragments
• Golden Bait
• Magnet Bait

Accessories
Accessories switch up the way fishing tools work.

• Bobber - Multiplies the effectiveness of baits by 1.5x, or makes Vintage/Magnet/seasonal baits luckier.
• Fishing Wire Cutter - Decreases the chances of catching nothing or your wire getting tangled (lose 2 durability).
• Swivel - Increases the length of your fishing line, allowing for catching fish at further distances for more HQ fish.
• Plummet - Allows catching fish at deeper depths, where rarer and different fish can be caught.
• Topwater Lure - Increases chances of catching multiple fish.

With this comes a new box: the Tackle Box. Feel free to organise rarities accordingly.

[Credit: This post was inspired by what seemed to be an odd comment in another thread.]
Can you guess what this code prints?

z=42 a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -g z z=79 } a echo "main/z=$z" 

If you guessed a/z is 27 and main/z is 79, because z in b() points to the global z, I'm afraid you've been misled by the bash docs:

$ ./test.sh a/z=79 main/z=42 

This code, however, prints a/z=27 and main/z=79:

z=42 a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -g z=79 } a echo "main/z=$z" 

And this one complains z: unbound variable:

set -u a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -g z z=79 } a echo "main/z=$z" 

But this one, that combines the declaration and assignment of global z, doesn't:

set -u a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -g z=79 } a echo "main/z=$z" 

See, the description for declare (to which local is a rough twin) says this:

The -g option forces variables to be created or modified at the global scope, even when declare is executed in a shell function. It is ignored in all other cases.

But you also have to take into account dynamic scoping, also documented in the man page:

The shell uses dynamic scoping to control a variable's visibility within functions. With dynamic scoping, visible variables and their values are a result of the sequence of function calls that caused execution to reach the current function. The value of a variable that a function sees depends on its value within its caller, if any, whether that caller is the "global" scope or another shell function. This is also the value that a local variable declaration "shadows", and the value that is restored when the function returns.

Everyone who's used local to shadow a throwaway variable like i from another variable named i in its caller function knows this in their gut.
But what the docs don't say is that the only thing local -g var is good for is enabling functions to create/modify global variables with special declare attributes, like the -A (associative array) flag, and only if you assign a value at the same time:

set -u a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -gA z=([Hi]=there [Lo]=blow) } a declare -p h 

yields, instead of z: unbound variable...

$ ./test.sh a/z=27 declare -A z=([Lo]="blow" [Hi]="there" ) 

but divorce the assignment from the declaration:

set -u a() { local z z=27 b echo "a/z=$z" } b() { local -gA z z=([Hi]=there [Lo]=blow) } a declare -p z 

and you get this, because this b's z is actually a's z, which is clearly not an associative array:

$ ./test.sh ./test.sh: line 11: Hi: unbound variable 

Confused? So was I, so I filed a bug report, which led to an interesting email chat with Chet Ramey and the other bash maintainers. The upshot:

1. NOTABUG, but we'll accept documentation suggestions to remove this confusion.
2. Yes, a local -g var declaration-without-assignment is Pretty Useless.

Gematria is a system of assigning numerical values to Hebrew letters. It is a form of numerology that has been used by Jewish scholars for centuries to find hidden meanings in the Bible and other sacred texts.
The word ‘gematria’ is derived from the Greek word ‘grammata,’ which means ‘letters.’ The earliest known use of gematria dates back to the 2nd century BCE, when it was used by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. However, it is believed that gematria was developed much earlier.

The Numerical System

In its simplest form, gematria involves assigning a numerical value to each Hebrew letter. The numerical values are assigned based on the order of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. For example, the letter א has a value of 1, the letter ב has a value of 2, and so on.
Once the numerical values of the letters have been assigned, they can be added together to find the numerical value of a word or phrase. For example, the word ‘chai’ (חַי) has a numerical value of 18, because the numerical value of the letter Chet (ח) is 8 and the numerical value of the letter Yud (י) is 10.

The Ancient Usage

Gematria can be used in a variety of ways. It can be used to find hidden meanings in the Bible, to compare different words or phrases, or to create acrostics. For example, the name ‘David’ has a numerical value of 14, which is the same numerical value of the word ‘king.’ This suggests that David was destined to be king.
Biblical Interpretation: In Jewish tradition, Gematria was used to uncover hidden meanings in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Scholars believed that words or phrases with the same numerical value were connected in some way. For example, the word for ‘life’ (חי, pronounced as ‘chai’) has a numerical value of 18. This led to the belief that 18 was a lucky and symbolic number associated with life. Similarly, phrases with numerical equivalences were seen as having deeper connections, providing insights into the text’s interpretation.
Numerical Symbolism: Greek philosophers like Pythagoras used Gematria to explore the underlying numerical patterns in the universe. They believed that numbers had inherent properties and significance. For example, the number 10 (represented by the letter Yud, in Hebrew) was seen as a symbol of completeness and perfection. This concept influenced Greek philosophy and mathematics.
Divination and Prediction: Some individuals in the past used Gematria for divination and predicting future events. They believed that by manipulating words and numbers, they could gain insights into upcoming circumstances or make sense of seemingly random occurrences.
Naming and Identity: Gematria was sometimes used in the past to choose or change names. Parents might calculate the numerical value of potential names for their child to ensure a name with positive or auspicious connotations. Similarly, individuals might adopt new names with specific numerical values as a reflection of their identity or spiritual path.
These examples demonstrate the diverse ways in which Gematria was employed in the past, ranging from religious interpretation and mysticism to philosophical exploration and even practical applications like naming. It reflects the belief that numbers and words held deep and interconnected meanings that could be unraveled through careful analysis and contemplation.

The English Gematria

The English version of gematria is based on the Hebrew system, but it uses the English alphabet. The numerical values of the letters are assigned based on their position in the alphabet. For example, the letter A has a value of 1, the letter B has a value of 2, and so on.
The English version of gematria was first used in the 16th century by Christian scholars who were interested in Jewish mysticism. They used it to find hidden meanings in a variety of texts.
Similar to the Jewish and Greek versions of gematria, English gematria can be used in a variety of ways, such as finding hidden spiritual meanings between words and phrases in the Bible, finding connections between famous individuals and historical events, and making modern-day predictions such as the outcome of sporting matches and elections. Example uses, in Bible, the word ‘Jesus’ has a numerical value of 444, which is the same numerical value of the word ‘Messiah.’ In historical events, The word ‘Hitler’ has a numerical value of 259, which is the same value of the word ‘Holocaust.’ In politic, The names ‘Trump’ and ‘Biden’ have the same numerical value of 25. The Modern Gematria

Gematria In Digital Age

In digital age, gematria is no longer confined to the realms of scholarly study and ancient scriptures, it has broken free from its traditional boundaries and no longer the exclusive domain of academics, this ancient practice has gained popularity among the tech-savvy Gen Z and Millennials, breathing new life into this ancient tool, transforming it from a cryptic code into a personal Rosetta Stone for unlocking hidden layers of information within pop culture, history, and current events.

Rise of Gematria Popularity

The rise of gematria’s popularity in the digital age can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the use of English gematria has made the practice more accessible to a wider audience. Secondly, the widespread availability of online gematria calculators provides a convenient way for anyone to calculate numerical values of words and phrases. Finally, online communities dedicated to gematria discussions frequently share intriguing results produced by these calculators, often suggesting the existence of hidden messages or hidden meanings within words and phrases.

Gematria Calculator

Gematria calculators are digital tools that assign numerical values to words and phrases based on specific gematria systems. Users simply enter their desired text, and the calculator outputs the corresponding numerical value. These tools are popular among non-scholars who use them to interpret hidden meanings in political events, predict sporting outcomes, and analyze other modern subjects. However, due to the lack of standardization in cipher systems, calculators with similar cipher names may produce different results. To address this, some gematria calculators allow users to create custom ciphers with their own numerical assignments and Gematria Decoder is one of them.

Making Sense Of All The Ciphers

The modern day English gematria has many ciphers. In this demonstration we wil be using Gematria Decoder as our digital tool. The most popular 8 ciphers are included in the App :

• Simple
• English
• Reversed English
• Jewish
• Reduced
• Reversed Reduced
• Hebrew.

The above ciphers are all based on the English alphabet. For example, the ‘Hebrew cipher’ uses the English alphabet but adopts a numerical system similar to the Hebrew gematria system.
As a beginner, you might be overwhelmed by all of these ciphers, letters, and numbers. They may look complex and intimidating, but they are actually very simple and easy to understand and use.
All you need to know now is this — You could pick just one cipher or select a bunch of them or use them all as one. The choice is yours
Each cipher has its own set of values.

• ‘Simple’ cipher has [A=1,B=2 …Z=26]
• ‘English’ Cipher has [A=6,B=12..Z=156],
• ‘Reduced’ cipher has its own and so on and so forth.

Which one to use is up to you, you need to try them out to decide which one is right for you.

The Modern Usage

If you are wondering the word ‘Jesus’ has any connection with the word ‘Messiah’. You could do a search on both words and compare their values.
The word Jesus produces these results — 74 in ‘Simple’ cipher, 444 in ‘English’ cipher and 11 in ‘Reduced’ cipher
The word ‘Messiah’ produces these results — 74 in ‘Simple’ cipher, 444 in ‘English’ cipher and 29 in ‘Reduced’ cipher.
The app will highlight both 74 and 444 values to indicate that both ‘Simple’ cipher and ‘English’ cipher suggest that Jesus and Messiah indeed have connection but ‘Reduced’ cipher show there isn’t any relatoinship between the two.
If the results produced by the ‘Simple’ and ‘English’ ciphers make sense to you, then pick them as your main gematria ciphers and do all of your searching using them. In general, pick the ciphers that yield the most relevant results and disable those that are not. Most internet users use multiple ciphers at once because they believe that this will reveal more hidden connections. However, purists would stick to just one cipher.
If you are non English speaking user, the app allows you to create your own cipher in your own language.

Intriguing Results

One of the major draws of using English gematria is the intriguing results it produces on modern subjects. Here are a few examples to demonstrate that
Example 1: Entering the phrases “Thriller Album,” “Grammy Award,” “Chimpanzee Bubbles,” and “Painkiller” into a gematria decoder reveals that they are all connected with “Michael Jackson.” This aligns with established facts in real life.
Example 2: In the 2024 Taiwan presidential election, there were three candidates: Lai Ching-te, Hou Yu-ih, and Ko Wen-je. Entering their names into the gematria Decoder revealed that only Lai Ching-te has a connection with the word “President,” and indeed, Lai Ching-te emerged as the winner and became the President of Taiwan.
Skeptics may dismiss these results as mere coincidences and superstitions. However, for true believers, these results demonstrate that gematria can be applied to the English language as effectively as in Hebrew and to modern subjects, suggesting its potential for uncovering hidden messages. These reasons are why gematria is gaining popularity in the digital age.
Visit Gematria Decoder now and experiment with it yourself.
source : gematria-history-its-past-and-present-usage

https://imgur.com/a/OVnWmkP
SOLD AS BUNDLE ONLY!
Reluctantly selling my Flume & Chet Faker’s Lockjaw EP, Flume (2x LP Deluxe Edition), and Skin Companion EP 1 Vinyl Records! Need some extra money right now and i figured i’d sell a few of my rarest vinyl records.
The Lockjaw EP is VERY rare and was an extremely limited release that i bought off of Future Classic’s website (Flumes official label) years ago. It also includes a digital download (unknown is code is expired or not) It’s still sealed, it does have an extremely small 1cm crease at the top right corner (pictured, barely noticeable), but other than that, i’ve kept it in a safe for YEARS. - This one sells for around $200-$300 sealed/new
The Flume 2x LP Deluxe vinyl is sealed/brand new, in perfect condition with retail stickers in the front! It also includes a digital download (unknown is code is expired or not)
The Skin Companion EP 1 is VERY rare and has never been played, brand new/sealed and has the original retail stickers on the back as well. It also includes a digital download (unknown is code is expired or not)
All of these come from a smoke and pet free home, away from the sun, and i take VERY good care of my collection.
Also adding a $15 hard cover protector sleeve for the Lockjaw EP and 2 standard plastic cover sleeves for the other 2 records (included for free)
I will extremely safe in a box with lots of protection
Looking for around $375 for the bundle, shipped.
Comment or message me with any questions!

It’s time to hand out the last set of quarterly awards!
For this article, we’re counting the third quarter as the ~20 games played since Jan 18th, so the statistics cited have been pulled from that sample whenever possible.
[Thanks for reading! As always, I've included a bunch of illustrative GIFs that can be viewed in-context here or at the links embedded in the article. If you're curious, here are my Q1 and Q2 awards.]

Most Improved Player of the Quarter: Donte DiVincenzo, New York Knicks

My Most Improved Player of the Quarter is given to the player who improved the most from the first half of the season to the third quarter; this is not a reflection of the actual award, which looks at play this year compared to last year.
Usually, I try not to put too much weight on someone who simply plays more minutes and, therefore, puts up bigger numbers. Sometimes, though, those numbers get so big they can’t be ignored. In that spirit, I want to acknowledge The Big Ragu himself, Mr. Donte DiVincenzo.
DiVincenzo averaged 11/3/2 in his 22 minutes per game for the first 41 games of the season. But trading away Immanuel Quickley, Quentin Grimes, and RJ Barrett and injuries to OG Anunoby and Julius Randle opened up both minutes and shots for the taking, and DiVincenzo was ready to swipe them. His role started to expand in January before exploding in February.
For the third quarter, DiVincenzo averaged 21 points (!) in 35 minutes (!!), but that doesn’t tell the full story. DiVincenzo ramped up his three-point shooting to an absurd degree, hitting 39% of his 11.6 triples per game.
To put that in context, Steph Curry is averaging 12.1 triples per game for the season on 41% accuracy; Luka Doncic is second, putting up 10.2 attempts on 38% shooting. In other words, if DiVincenzo had been doing this all year, he’d be the second-best three-point shooter in the league. Nobody else is even close to that level of volume and accuracy.
Three-point shooting quality rarely holds as sample sizes get bigger. As someone starts jacking up more and more triples, the difficulty of those shots increases, which should drive down percentages. Not so in DiVincenzo’s case.
He is hunting triples with abandon. They’re rarely bad shots, but they certainly are aggressive. Look at him shake Herb Jones (a feat in itself!) and put up a moonball that soars juuuust past Jones’ lengthy fingertips: [video here]
DiVincenzo’s playing with the confidence of a high school Mean Girl, and he’s just as ruthless. Is he pulling up for three in a 1-on-5 situation with 21 seconds on the shot clock in the third quarter? Hell yeah, he is: [video here]
The Knicks have some fascinating rotation questions to answer when everyone returns to full health.
Shoutout to Deni Avdija, who also garnered consideration for this award (along with many others). I’ve got a lot more coming on him soon, in case you’re a sicko who wants to read about the Wizards.

Perimeter Defensive Player of the Quarter: Kris Dunn, Utah Jazz

All season, I’ve broken the Defensive Player award into perimeter and interior categories. This reflects my belief that, while interior defensive players are way more important in the aggregate, perimeter guys deserve some shine, too.
(I have no idea what will happen with positionless All-Defensive teams this season, but there will be a lot of centers involved, I suspect.)
Perimeter defense, more than any other awards, is about feel and eye test. Box score metrics are inadequate, and advanced stats haven’t advanced our understanding of perimeter defense nearly as much as interior defense.
So if you want to pick Herb Jones, or Jalen Suggs, or Derrick White, or Alex Caruso (my winner last quarter), or any other number of worthy defensive options, be my guest. There’s little tangible ammo to argue with, much less to mount a winning campaign. And to be entirely honest, I’ve talked about most of those guys this season; I wanted to highlight the fearsome Dunn.
The on-ball stuff is what makes highlight reels. Many players pretend to play full-court defense; Dunn doesn’t pretend or play. Watch him strip De’Aaron Fox one-on-one in the backcourt here: [video here]
Dunn might be the league’s best transition defender (he inherits the crown from Draymond Green). He has an uncanny ability to get his hands on the rock as opponents start to gather, knocking it out of bounds and allowing the Jazz to set up their defense. Look at him blow up this transition play twice while his fellow Jazzmen casually jog back: [video here]
He’s one of the best at chasing foes around picks and staying attached to shooters’ hips. Watch Klay Thompson be the tail to Dunn’s dog here, as Dunn refuses to lose him around two different screens: [video here]
Outside of the occasional shoutout on The Lowe Post, Dunn doesn’t get nearly as much national recognition as his peers. Let’s all try to change that.

Interior Defensive Player of the Quarter: Victor Wembanyama

I just wrote a whole bunch about Wemby’s unheralded case for Defensive Player of the Year, so you should have seen this coming if you saw that post a few weeks back. One quick updated stat: Wembanyama averaged 3.9 blocks and 1.7 steals per game in the third quarter, for a total of 5.6 stocks.
The players in second — Walker Kessler and Chet Holmgren — are only averaging 3.4 stocks. To be fair, Kessler played just 23 minutes per game, while Holmgren and Wemby hovered around 30. He’s had an underrated defensive season off Utah’s bench. But even normalizing for minutes, nobody is within Wemby’s zip code as a defensive playmaker.
While box-score stats aren’t everything, they sure are something when the gulf is this wide. Rudy Gobert remains the overwhelming frontrunner for the award, given his dominance and Wembanyama’s acclimatization to NBA action, but this might be the last year that anyone besides the Spur wins for a long, long time.

Rookie of the Quarter: Victor Wembanyama, San Antonio Spurs

Rookie I’m Talking About Instead: Brandin Podziemski, Golden State Warriors

Like I said, I’ve talkeda metric ton about Victor Wembanyama this season. What seemed like a close two-man race to start the year between Wemby and the (outrageously good!) Chet Holmgren has become a blowout, and Wemby is getting better by the minute. Brandon Miller is a distant but deserving third.
But since we’ve already discussed many of the most deserving rookies, I want to highlight Brandin Podziemski, Golden State’s bulldog guard.
Before Podziemski’s back injury last week, he had usurped Klay Thompson’s place in the starting lineup. He’s certainly not the triggerman Thompson is from deep, but he stays within the offense without being gun-shy, an important distinction.
Of note: Steph Curry, Andrew Wiggins, Jonathan Kuminga, and Draymond Green have played approximately 300 possessions each with Klay Thompson and Podziemski — a small sample, but not nothing. In those ~300 with Klay, the lineup has a net rating of +8.6 points per 100 possessions — not bad! In the ~300 with Podziemski, the lineup is +21.2, an elite mark. Much more goes into that than Podz’s mere presence, of course, but it’s at least a directional sign that the lineup switch has been successful.
Podziemski is a ridiculous rebounder for his size. His ability to control the glass as a guard (5.8 rebounds per game and a ridiculous 15.3% defensive rebounding rate that looks more like a power forward's stat) are part of the reason the Warriors have successfully been able to run out more lineups with Draymond Green at center this quarter. When a shot goes up, Podziemski is an attentive boxer-outer and aggressive high-pointer: [boring-ass video here]
Is that rebounding clip the lamest “highlight” I’ve ever embedded? Undoubtedly. But it’s illustrative! Look at how he checks his man, Scoot Henderson, to make sure Henderson’s not crashing the glass before ripping the ball out of the air in traffic. Textbook.
Podz is smart, feisty defensively, and an effective secondary playmaker. He can play either guard position, but he’s physically strong enough to play some small forward in a pinch. That positional versatility is important for a Warriors team that thrives on flexibility.

Sixth Man of the Quarter: Naz Reid, Minnesota Timberwolves

Honestly, it’s an underwhelming crop of Sixth Men this quarter. My pick would have been Bogdan Bogdanovic, except he started in 10 of 20 games this quarter. The rule is that a player has to come off the bench in >50% of games played to qualify for the real award, and that’s what we’ll hold to here.
Therefore, my Sixth Man of the Quarter is Wolves big man Naz Reid.
Reid’s ability to shapeshift gives the Wolves more lineup flexibility than people realize. He can replace either Karl-Anthony Towns or Rudy Gobert, and his shooting (43% from deep on more than four attempts per game) ensures that the team can keep two bigs on the floor at all times without sacrificing spacing. Big men with legitimate shooting — not just decent accuracy on two attempts per game — are extremely rare. Big men who can shoot and hold up defensively are rarer still.
The stat line for the quarter of 12/5/1 and a block doesn’t pop, but it undersells how useful his skillset is for this Wolves team. Reid has dramatically improved defensively this season. He’s become quicker on the perimeter and a legitimate shotblocking threat in the paint. He gives the Wolves some switchability, something they don’t like to do with Gobert or Towns as often.
Reid also loves to push the ball in transition, something the Wolves don’t do a lot of otherwise (they are last in the league in transition frequency). At times, the Wolves’ sometimes-stagnant offense needs his jolt of adrenaline. Reid has a nifty handle for a 6’10” guy, and he’s eager to use it: [video here]
The ideal Sixth Man is someone who can both slot into his team’s existing strengths and provide an off-speed pitch. Reid’s improved defense and aggressive mindset check both those boxes, and he takes the quarterly crown.

Coach of the Quarter: Joe Mazzulla, Boston Celtics

The Celtics were a league-leading 16-3 in this timeframe. It was a relatively easy schedule, but the Celtics’ +14.6 net rating in this timespan is half again as good as second-place Minnesota’s +9.3.
There were statement games aplenty. Boston pantsed Golden State the other night in an epic demolition, obliterated Dallas, and even beat Miami twice. The only bad loss was to a then-surging Clippers team.
Boston has had good health and boasts the most talented rotation in the league. The latter, in particular, almost guarantees that Mazzulla won’t win the Coach of the Year award — there’s a sense from many that any Joe could have these guys atop the league. But this specific Joe’s third quarter deserves love.
Mazzulla is coaching. From bespoke offensive game plans to take advantage of individual defenses to wild Jrue-Holiday-at-center defensive lineups to some of the most elaborate switching schemes in the league, Mazzulla isn’t just sitting on his hands and watching his dudes play. He’s even calling the occasional timeout!
Most real coaching happens behind closed doors; a big part of it is personnel management and personal touch. On the outside, we can only judge coaches by results and what snippets of process we can glean. It would have been easy for the Celtics players and management to quit on Mazzulla after last season (and maybe they would have if the Heat had finished them off in four or five games). Instead, the rotation improved, the players bought in, and Mazzulla has the Celtics miles and miles ahead of the rest of the pack.
Players aren’t the only ones who improve; coaches do, too. Mazzulla has shown greater flexibility and more creativity in his second season at the helm. The playoffs, of course, are the ultimate test, but it’s hard to ask for much more from a regular season performance.

Clutch Player of the Quarter: Max Strus, Cleveland Cavaliers

Listen, I did zero research for this. You can save all your arguments about FG% in the last few minutes of five-point games, etc. The answer is Max Strus.
And while the half-court game-winner rightfully gets all the attention, he also went five-for-five from deep in the last four minutes to cap off a ridiculous Cavaliers comeback.
That’s clutch.

Most Valuable Player of the Quarter: Luka Doncic, Dallas Mavericks

People have very strong opinions about MVP, and that’s great! Despite the plethora of statistical evidence people have to back their preferred candidate, at this point, it’s largely down to a matter of taste. If you’d prefer the metronomic dominance of Jokic and his eye-popping box scores, Shai’s slicing and dicing (32 points on 50/50/85 percent shooting is ridiculous), or Giannis’ steady two-way play (30 points on Shaq-like shooting while regaining his defensive form since Doc took over), that’s fine. The fun of MVP is that everyone can look at the same candidates and come to different conclusions. Jokic was my Q1 MVP, and SGA was my choice in Q2.
But in the third quarter, Doncic averaged a silly 36 points, 10 rebounds, and 11 assists on 52/39/79 percent shooting splits. WTF is that? While he’s comfortably the worst defender of the top MVP candidates, he even averaged 1.6 steals per game.
Advanced stats are similarly rosy. Out of the four major MVP candidates (Doncic, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Nikola Jokic), he had thebest Estimated Plus/Minus for the quarter, although SGA was close behind. I asked Neil Paine to help me find Wins Above Replacement over this period, and he was gracious enough to oblige: Doncic slightly edges everyone else in WAR per game, too. Both the traditional and advanced stats usually favor Doncic for this period.
Other teams won more games during this stretch. But none of the other candidates had to deal with the bevy of injuries and trades upending half of the rotation like Dallas did.
Doncic whines too much to officials and teammates and still takes the occasional play off. It’s distasteful, at best. His 15 technical fouls this season mean he’s one away from a suspension (with more suspensions for subsequent techs a looming threat). The Mavericks, as a whole, have felt disjointed of late while losing four of their last five following a seven-game winning streak.
But Doncic is also putting up a historic combination of efficiency and volume while rebounding like prime Westbrook and putting forth career-best defensive efforts. It’s hard to put too much blame on him.
Luka is the least likely of this foursome to actually win the award for a variety of reasons, but his incredible third quarter deserves acknowledgment.
That's all I've got. Who would you have picked?

It’s time to hand out the last set of quarterly awards!
For this article, we’re counting the third quarter as the ~20 games played since Jan 18th, so the statistics cited have been pulled from that sample whenever possible.
[Thanks for reading! As always, I've included a bunch of illustrative GIFs that can be viewed in-context here or at the links embedded in the article. If you're curious, here are my Q1 and Q2 awards.]

Most Improved Player of the Quarter: Donte DiVincenzo, New York Knicks

My Most Improved Player of the Quarter is given to the player who improved the most from the first half of the season to the third quarter; this is not a reflection of the actual award, which looks at play this year compared to last year.
Usually, I try not to put too much weight on someone who simply plays more minutes and, therefore, puts up bigger numbers. Sometimes, though, those numbers get so big they can’t be ignored. In that spirit, I want to acknowledge The Big Ragu himself, Mr. Donte DiVincenzo.
DiVincenzo averaged 11/3/2 in his 22 minutes per game for the first 41 games of the season. But trading away Immanuel Quickley, Quentin Grimes, and RJ Barrett and injuries to OG Anunoby and Julius Randle opened up both minutes and shots for the taking, and DiVincenzo was ready to swipe them. His role started to expand in January before exploding in February.
For the third quarter, DiVincenzo averaged 21 points (!) in 35 minutes (!!), but that doesn’t tell the full story. DiVincenzo ramped up his three-point shooting to an absurd degree, hitting 39% of his 11.6 triples per game.
To put that in context, Steph Curry is averaging 12.1 triples per game for the season on 41% accuracy; Luka Doncic is second, putting up 10.2 attempts on 38% shooting. In other words, if DiVincenzo had been doing this all year, he’d be the second-best three-point shooter in the league. Nobody else is even close to that level of volume and accuracy.
Three-point shooting quality rarely holds as sample sizes get bigger. As someone starts jacking up more and more triples, the difficulty of those shots increases, which should drive down percentages. Not so in DiVincenzo’s case.
He is hunting triples with abandon. They’re rarely bad shots, but they certainly are aggressive. Look at him shake Herb Jones (a feat in itself!) and put up a moonball that soars juuuust past Jones’ lengthy fingertips: [video here]
DiVincenzo’s playing with the confidence of a high school Mean Girl, and he’s just as ruthless. Is he pulling up for three in a 1-on-5 situation with 21 seconds on the shot clock in the third quarter? Hell yeah, he is: [video here]
The Knicks have some fascinating rotation questions to answer when everyone returns to full health.
Shoutout to Deni Avdija, who also garnered consideration for this award (along with many others). I’ve got a lot more coming on him soon, in case you’re a sicko who wants to read about the Wizards.

Perimeter Defensive Player of the Quarter: Kris Dunn, Utah Jazz

All season, I’ve broken the Defensive Player award into perimeter and interior categories. This reflects my belief that, while interior defensive players are way more important in the aggregate, perimeter guys deserve some shine, too.
(I have no idea what will happen with positionless All-Defensive teams this season, but there will be a lot of centers involved, I suspect.)
Perimeter defense, more than any other awards, is about feel and eye test. Box score metrics are inadequate, and advanced stats haven’t advanced our understanding of perimeter defense nearly as much as interior defense.
So if you want to pick Herb Jones, or Jalen Suggs, or Derrick White, or Alex Caruso (my winner last quarter), or any other number of worthy defensive options, be my guest. There’s little tangible ammo to argue with, much less to mount a winning campaign. And to be entirely honest, I’ve talked about most of those guys this season; I wanted to highlight the fearsome Dunn.
The on-ball stuff is what makes highlight reels. Many players pretend to play full-court defense; Dunn doesn’t pretend or play. Watch him strip De’Aaron Fox one-on-one in the backcourt here: [video here]
Dunn might be the league’s best transition defender (he inherits the crown from Draymond Green). He has an uncanny ability to get his hands on the rock as opponents start to gather, knocking it out of bounds and allowing the Jazz to set up their defense. Look at him blow up this transition play twice while his fellow Jazzmen casually jog back: [video here]
He’s one of the best at chasing foes around picks and staying attached to shooters’ hips. Watch Klay Thompson be the tail to Dunn’s dog here, as Dunn refuses to lose him around two different screens: [video here]
Outside of the occasional shoutout on The Lowe Post, Dunn doesn’t get nearly as much national recognition as his peers. Let’s all try to change that.

Interior Defensive Player of the Quarter: Victor Wembanyama

I just wrote a whole bunch about Wemby’s unheralded case for Defensive Player of the Year, so you should have seen this coming if you saw that post a few weeks back. One quick updated stat: Wembanyama averaged 3.9 blocks and 1.7 steals per game in the third quarter, for a total of 5.6 stocks.
The players in second — Walker Kessler and Chet Holmgren — are only averaging 3.4 stocks. To be fair, Kessler played just 23 minutes per game, while Holmgren and Wemby hovered around 30. He’s had an underrated defensive season off Utah’s bench. But even normalizing for minutes, nobody is within Wemby’s zip code as a defensive playmaker.
While box-score stats aren’t everything, they sure are something when the gulf is this wide. Rudy Gobert remains the overwhelming frontrunner for the award, given his dominance and Wembanyama’s acclimatization to NBA action, but this might be the last year that anyone besides the Spur wins for a long, long time.

Rookie of the Quarter: Victor Wembanyama, San Antonio Spurs

Rookie I’m Talking About Instead: Brandin Podziemski, Golden State Warriors

Like I said, I’ve talked a metric ton about Victor Wembanyama this season. What seemed like a close two-man race to start the year between Wemby and the (outrageously good!) Chet Holmgren has become a blowout, and Wemby is getting better by the minute. Brandon Miller is a distant but deserving third.
But since we’ve already discussed many of the most deserving rookies, I want to highlight Brandin Podziemski, Golden State’s bulldog guard.
Before Podziemski’s back injury last week, he had usurped Klay Thompson’s place in the starting lineup. He’s certainly not the triggerman Thompson is from deep, but he stays within the offense without being gun-shy, an important distinction.
Of note: Steph Curry, Andrew Wiggins, Jonathan Kuminga, and Draymond Green have played approximately 300 possessions each with Klay Thompson and Podziemski — a small sample, but not nothing. In those ~300 with Klay, the lineup has a net rating of +8.6 points per 100 possessions — not bad! In the ~300 with Podziemski, the lineup is +21.2, an elite mark. Much more goes into that than Podz’s mere presence, of course, but it’s at least a directional sign that the lineup switch has been successful.
Podziemski is a ridiculous rebounder for his size. His ability to control the glass as a guard (5.8 rebounds per game and a ridiculous 15.3% defensive rebounding rate that looks more like a power forward's stat) are part of the reason the Warriors have successfully been able to run out more lineups with Draymond Green at center this quarter. When a shot goes up, Podziemski is an attentive boxer-outer and aggressive high-pointer: [boring-ass video here]
Is that rebounding clip the lamest “highlight” I’ve ever embedded? Undoubtedly. But it’s illustrative! Look at how he checks his man, Scoot Henderson, to make sure Henderson’s not crashing the glass before ripping the ball out of the air in traffic. Textbook.
Podz is smart, feisty defensively, and an effective secondary playmaker. He can play either guard position, but he’s physically strong enough to play some small forward in a pinch. That positional versatility is important for a Warriors team that thrives on flexibility.

Sixth Man of the Quarter: Naz Reid, Minnesota Timberwolves

Honestly, it’s an underwhelming crop of Sixth Men this quarter. My pick would have been Bogdan Bogdanovic, except he started in 10 of 20 games this quarter. The rule is that a player has to come off the bench in >50% of games played to qualify for the real award, and that’s what we’ll hold to here.
Therefore, my Sixth Man of the Quarter is Wolves big man Naz Reid.
Reid’s ability to shapeshift gives the Wolves more lineup flexibility than people realize. He can replace either Karl-Anthony Towns or Rudy Gobert, and his shooting (43% from deep on more than four attempts per game) ensures that the team can keep two bigs on the floor at all times without sacrificing spacing. Big men with legitimate shooting — not just decent accuracy on two attempts per game — are extremely rare. Big men who can shoot and hold up defensively are rarer still.
The stat line for the quarter of 12/5/1 and a block doesn’t pop, but it undersells how useful his skillset is for this Wolves team. Reid has dramatically improved defensively this season. He’s become fleeter on the perimeter and a legitimate shotblocking threat in the paint. He gives the Wolves some switchability, something they don’t like to do with Gobert or Towns as often.
Reid also loves to push the ball in transition, something the Wolves don’t do a lot of otherwise (they are last in the league in transition frequency). At times, the Wolves’ sometimes-stagnant offense needs his jolt of adrenaline. Reid has a nifty handle for a 6’10” guy, and he’s eager to use it: [video here]
The ideal Sixth Man is someone who can both slot into his team’s existing strengths and provide an off-speed pitch. Reid’s improved defense and aggressive mindset check both those boxes, and he takes the quarterly crown.

Coach of the Quarter: Joe Mazzulla, Boston Celtics

The Celtics were a league-leading 16-3 in this timeframe. It was a relatively easy schedule, but the Celtics’ +14.6 net rating in this timespan is half again as good as second-place Minnesota’s +9.3.
There were statement games aplenty. Boston pantsed Golden State the other night in an epic demolition, obliterated Dallas, and even beat Miami twice. The only bad loss was to a then-surging Clippers team.
Boston has had good health and boasts the most talented rotation in the league. The latter, in particular, almost guarantees that Mazzulla won’t win the Coach of the Year award — there’s a sense from many that any Joe could have these guys atop the league. But this specific Joe’s third quarter deserves love.
Mazzulla is coaching. From bespoke offensive game plans to take advantage of individual defenses to wild Jrue-Holiday-at-center defensive lineups to some of the most elaborate switching schemes in the league, Mazzulla isn’t just sitting on his hands and watching his dudes play. He’s even calling the occasional timeout!
Most real coaching happens behind closed doors; a big part of it is personnel management and personal touch. On the outside, we can only judge coaches by results and what snippets of process we can glean. It would have been easy for the Celtics players and management to quit on Mazzulla after last season (and maybe they would have if the Heat had finished them off in four or five games). Instead, the rotation improved, the players bought in, and Mazzulla has the Celtics miles and miles ahead of the rest of the pack.
Players aren’t the only ones who improve; coaches do, too. Mazzulla has shown greater flexibility and more creativity in his second season at the helm. The playoffs, of course, are the ultimate test, but it’s hard to ask for much more from a regular season performance.

Clutch Player of the Quarter: Max Strus, Cleveland Cavaliers

Listen, I did zero research for this. You can save all your arguments about FG% in the last few minutes of five-point games, etc. The answer is Max Strus.
And while the half-court game-winner rightfully gets all the attention, he also went five-for-five from deep in the last four minutes to cap off a ridiculous Cavaliers comeback.
That’s clutch.

Most Valuable Player of the Quarter: Luka Doncic, Dallas Mavericks

People have very strong opinions about MVP, and that’s great! Despite the plethora of statistical evidence people have to back their preferred candidate, at this point, it’s largely down to a matter of taste. If you’d prefer the metronomic dominance of Jokic and his eye-popping box scores, Shai’s slicing and dicing (32 points on 50/50/85 percent shooting is ridiculous), or Giannis’ steady two-way play (30 points on Shaq-like shooting while regaining his defensive form since Doc took over), that’s fine. The fun of MVP is that everyone can look at the same candidates and come to different conclusions. Jokic was my Q1 MVP, and SGA was my choice in Q2.
But in the third quarter, Doncic averaged a silly 36 points, 10 rebounds, and 11 assists on 52/39/79 percent shooting splits. WTF is that? While he’s comfortably the worst defender of the top MVP candidates, he even averaged 1.6 steals per game.
Advanced stats are similarly rosy. Out of the four major MVP candidates (Doncic, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Nikola Jokic), he had the best Estimated Plus/Minus for the quarter, although SGA was close behind. I asked Neil Paine to help me find Wins Above Replacement over this period, and he was gracious enough to oblige: Doncic slightly edges everyone else in WAR per game, too. Both the traditional and advanced stats usually favor Doncic for this period.
Other teams won more games during this stretch. But none of the other candidates had to deal with the bevy of injuries and trades upending half of the rotation like Dallas did.
Doncic whines too much to officials and teammates and still takes the occasional play off. It’s distasteful, at best. His 15 technical fouls this season mean he’s one away from a suspension (with more suspensions for subsequent techs a looming threat). The Mavericks, as a whole, have felt disjointed of late while losing four of their last five following a seven-game winning streak.
But Doncic is also putting up a historic combination of efficiency and volume while rebounding like prime Westbrook and putting forth career-best defensive efforts. It’s hard to put too much blame on him.
Luka is the least likely of this foursome to actually win the award for a variety of reasons, but his incredible third quarter deserves acknowledgment.
That's all I've got. Who would you have picked?
​