MRP- Cotchin on Geary + Hall
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
MRP- Cotchin on Geary + Hall
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Trent Cotchin, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Jarryn Geary, St Kilda, during the third quarter of the Round 13 match between Richmond and St Kilda, played at Docklands on Sunday June 28, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.
Trent Cotchin, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Jarryn Geary, St Kilda, during the third quarter of the Round 13 match between Richmond and St Kilda, played at Docklands on Sunday June 28, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.
Last edited by saintbrat on Mon 29 Jun 2009 7:27pm, edited 1 time in total.
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
![Image](http://www.saintsmembership.com.au/theme/afl-stkilda/img/how-i-want-to-be.png)
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 784 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.Mr Magic wrote:There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 784 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
So why did he get 2 last season for 'attempting to strike'?plugger66 wrote:Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.Mr Magic wrote:There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
You can't on the one hand claim that the dscrepancies occur because of the differing injuries/pain caused by the action and then disregard an incident where nobody was hurt becasue the blow didn't apparently land?
Of course the injury incurred has to come into it. As for the attempting to strike so always give that low impact which i suppose is pretty obvious.Mr Magic wrote:So why did he get 2 last season for 'attempting to strike'?plugger66 wrote:Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.Mr Magic wrote:There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
You can't on the one hand claim that the dscrepancies occur because of the differing injuries/pain caused by the action and then disregard an incident where nobody was hurt becasue the blow didn't apparently land?
No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 784 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
Who said they were consistant. Not me. Like any system there are problems. Do you want to go back to the old system. Had as many if not more faults but just like many things, people think the old days were better.Mr Magic wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
As for your question. West should have gone but it is also different to the King one because last years accidents didnt matter, this year they do.
AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).Mr Magic wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 784 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
So Joffa, are you happy with the penalties handed out to King and Hall based on their actions and relative to each other?joffaboy wrote:AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).Mr Magic wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.
Because that's where this debate started.
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
A bloke called King from St.Kilda a couple of weeks ago.plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
King was charged with Rough Conduct which carries more demerit points than a strike. He would have got 4 weeks reduced to 3 if he had been charged with an intentional strike to the head with the same impact.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
No Kings was too harsh and Halls was not enough but I was looking in isolation at the argument that West got nothing and King got four.Mr Magic wrote:So Joffa, are you happy with the penalties handed out to King and Hall based on their actions and relative to each other?joffaboy wrote:AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).Mr Magic wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.
Because that's where this debate started.
The AFl admitted they got that wrong. it was bad luck that King was the next one to go.
How Hall gets only two weeks after he got 6 for Staker and another 2 for Wakelin is beyond me. On second thoughts it isn't. The AFl changed the rules to state that his strike on Goose was in play when everyone who was at the ground and saw it (including myself B4E whom I was sitting with and another couple of blokes) all KNOW that the ball was at LEAST 80 metres away.
The AFL under Anderson corrupts the process. Always has always will.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- Saintschampions08
- Club Player
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2008 11:04am
He punched someone, with a closed fist, intentionally ... in the face...plugger66 wrote:Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.Mr Magic wrote:There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
And he should have gotten off?
If that's the case theirs some extremely serious problems with our system...
He didnt get off. He got 2 weeks and that is the most it deserved so the system was right in this case. I think he could have got off under the no force rule because the hit wouldnt have hurt my grandmother.Saintschampions08 wrote:He punched someone, with a closed fist, intentionally ... in the face...plugger66 wrote:Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.Mr Magic wrote:There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.Thinline wrote:I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......
Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.
King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.
Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?
If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.
(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)
The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.
And he should have gotten off?
If that's the case theirs some extremely serious problems with our system...
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6316
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 262 times
- Been thanked: 1118 times
I understand the points system etc and if applied properly seems the best deal - the thing that gives me the absolute pips is that carry over points attract the 25% reduction as well as the penalties - after they have already been reduced by the 25% on the previous incident.
Halls latest indescretion is a perfect example - if he takes the 2 weeks - he gets 96.25 carry over points. If he then gets 150 points on his next offence you would assume that 2 weeks even with an early plea ie 150 x .75 + 96.25 = 208.75 points, but with the reduction on the reduced points it becomes 246.25 x .75 or 184.6875 only 1 week penalty.
Halls latest indescretion is a perfect example - if he takes the 2 weeks - he gets 96.25 carry over points. If he then gets 150 points on his next offence you would assume that 2 weeks even with an early plea ie 150 x .75 + 96.25 = 208.75 points, but with the reduction on the reduced points it becomes 246.25 x .75 or 184.6875 only 1 week penalty.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Well Anderscum is a complete dill and farkwit to boot, so do you think the dipstick has even considered adding on the WHOLE points loading onto the 25% reduction as you have quite sensibly suggested?Sainter_Dad wrote:I understand the points system etc and if applied properly seems the best deal - the thing that gives me the absolute pips is that carry over points attract the 25% reduction as well as the penalties - after they have already been reduced by the 25% on the previous incident.
Halls latest indescretion is a perfect example - if he takes the 2 weeks - he gets 96.25 carry over points. If he then gets 150 points on his next offence you would assume that 2 weeks even with an early plea ie 150 x .75 + 96.25 = 208.75 points, but with the reduction on the reduced points it becomes 246.25 x .75 or 184.6875 only 1 week penalty.
I doubt it.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
Hall's punch was reflex, ineffective and harmless.
Cotchin's punch was calculated, effective and hurt.
Who do the imbeciles at AFL HQ suspend, the harmless one of course.
AFL an abbreviation for corruption and incompetence.
Cotchin's punch was calculated, effective and hurt.
Who do the imbeciles at AFL HQ suspend, the harmless one of course.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
AFL an abbreviation for corruption and incompetence.
Last edited by ace on Tue 30 Jun 2009 3:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
"got that wrong" is that the new excuse for "we deliberately got that wrong because we are corrupt".joffaboy wrote:AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).Mr Magic wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?plugger66 wrote:No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?Mr Magic wrote:So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?
If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?
West on X Clarke last season.
How was it different to King's this year?
King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.
Fix the problem suspend West now.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA