Youtube comments of bruzote (@bruzote).

  1. 91
  2. 91
  3. 52
  4. 52
  5. 48
  6. 46
  7. 32
  8. 31
  9. 30
  10. 26
  11.  @blue-cg8uz  - I am sorry you were told that. It is nonsense. As a properly educated physicist and meteorologist, I would love to know what research source you've read and how it was peer-reviewed. The Irish Potato Famine had multiple causes. First and foremost, the Irish were horribly oppressed by the British, arguably worse than slaves(!). Yes, that's true. The British did not provide food or any care at all for the Irish, unlike slave owners who would at least keep their valuable slaves alive to keep them working! The British didn't let the Irish even live in cities or hold a trade, let alone own the land. The British took that. They destroyed the ability of the Irish to handle a famine. In fact, records suggest Irish food exports went UP during (was the first year?) of the famine. The British were unbelievably cruel to the Irish. The second reason is a fungus, called a blight, that infected the Irish potato crops. This was a huge problem, particularly since Ireland had a monoculture of potatoes, and no alternative varieties were being grown, let alone a variety that was fungus-resistance. Please try to list the source you had for your claim. I would love to read what quantifiable research some "scientists" used to disregard both the blight and the British oppression when it comes to the causes of the Great Hunger. I am not saying weather was not affected, but people round the world didn't experience the Great Hunger. Ireland did. It was not due to a volcano, and their INCREASED food exports were not possible if a volcano could have such a horrific impact on food the citizens needed to grow for themselves instead of exporting (or using as feed for animal meat exports).
    26
  12. 25
  13. 24
  14. 24
  15. 23
  16. 22
  17. 20
  18. 20
  19. 20
  20. 17
  21. 17
  22. 17
  23. 16
  24. 14
  25. 14
  26. 13
  27. 13
  28. 12
  29. 12
  30. 12
  31. 12
  32. 12
  33. 12
  34. 11
  35. 11
  36. 11
  37. 11
  38. 11
  39. 10
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 10
  45. 10
  46. 10
  47. 9
  48. 9
  49. 9
  50. 9
  51. 9
  52. 8
  53. 8
  54. 8
  55. 8
  56. 8
  57. 8
  58. 7
  59. 7
  60. 7
  61. 7
  62. 7
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. 7
  66. 7
  67. 7
  68. 6
  69. As EVERYONE knows, some things can be either natural OR MAN-MADE. If I start a forest fire, that is NOT natural. If you had a reasonable amount of wisdom, you would know that you should not speak of things you don't sufficiently understand. Technically, ANY gas emitted by HUMAN ACTIVITY will result in increased temperatures of Earth's surface. However, this effect is only extremely negligible for the two major gases of the atmosphere (molecular nitrogen and molecular oxygen). On the other hand, this temperature effect is MORE SIGNIFICANT for CO2. THIS IS A PHYSICAL FACT THAT YOU SIMPLY CANNOT REFUTE. It is a basic fact of physics that ANY collection of molecules has the property of emitting and absorbing radiation! If you don't accept this fact, you don't accept nature. Of course, this means when mankind emits gases, mankind influences the amount of radiation that the surface of Earth will be receiving from the atmosphere. When the surface of Earth receives more radiation, which is energy, then it warms because that radiation energy is converted to heat energy. Again, this is very old information and iirrefutable. Since the middle of the *19th* century (yes, the century *before* the last one), scientific discovery led to understanding that all objects both absorb AND emit radiation. Even back then, it was understood that any surface absorbing radiation with a certain efficiency would also be emitting radiation at an equivalent proportional efficiency of its temperature. Later work in spectroscopy revealed that the Earth's atmospheric components generally have a reduced amount of absorptive and radiative efficiency in the region of 8-12 microns (the photon wavelengths). This is nicknamed the "infrared atmospheric window". The same kind of research showing the atmospheric window also showed that CO2 is relatively more efficient at absorbing AND EMITTING radiation in this window when compared to the average atmospheric components. This means if you add CO2 into the atmosphere, then the atmosphere WILL absorb more radiation than it did before, especially in the 8-12 micron "window". It also means that the CO2 will EMIT RADIATION more effectively than the overall atmosphere. Since adding CO2 increases the efficiency at which the atmosphere radiates, it means the surface is GUARANTEED to receive and absorb more energy as a result of that extra CO2. When the surface absorbs more energy, the temperature goes up. Thus, when humankind emits incredible amounts of CO2, humankind raises the surface temperature compared to what it would have been without the addition. These are unrefutable facts about radiative physics. They can be proven in the field, and even in a tabletop experiment. As humankind began burning fossil fuels and also destroying forests, humankind HAS been causing the atmosphere to RAPIDLY accumulate CO2 faster than seen in history AND to higher levels than ever seen in human history. Either one of these facts spells out problems for humankind. Together, they WILL bring out about changes that lead to deaths of many humans and additional suffering for many, many more.
    6
  70. 6
  71. 6
  72. 6
  73. 6
  74. 6
  75. 6
  76. 6
  77. 6
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 6
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. Urine? Pshaw! Much worse can happen. I've seen kids swim in a cloud of "traveler's bowel distress" while snorkeling in Xel Ha lagoon. That is much worse than urine. Have you seen bits of bowel discharge float into someone's hair? Beyond the discomfort, awful urgency, and fear of being embarrassed, I had to laugh after it happened to me. Though, I still showered extremely thoroughly immediately afterwards. I used a LOT of my shampoo. I was swimming in Xel Ha lagoon when I had a sudden attack of traveler's diarrhea. It happened just after three FULL buses of tourists arrived and they all queued for the bathroom. My only option was to swim to a solitary spot in the lagoon, as the problem was resolving itself one way or another. I let it out about 4-5 feet underwater and immediately experienced total horror as I saw a cloud of bits of dissolving brown and lots of brown liquid envelope me. If my heart could have jumped out the top of my skull, it would have. I screamed through my snorkel but nobody heard me (especially since I was underwater). Immediately out of breath due to the scream, I still backstroked underwater and kicked away so fast, I would have beaten Phelps himself. As I flung myself away in panic, I saw the cloud entrail itself in my wake and follow me! It was like being chased by the Brown Ghost of Death as it tried to encircle my (at least formerly) beautiful, sun-kissed head of hair. Finally, the cloud stopped following me dispersed as I kept swimming. Of course, this probably took place in 3 seconds or less but time slowed down when it happened. Out of breath, I surfaced, looked around, and nobody was near me except some chubby kid approaching me. He swam right past me, eager to explore the lagoon. He suddenly surfaced excitedly and urgently called over his friend to see the amazing group of fish that was feeding on "little bits of food floating everywhere in the water." I just kept my mouth shut - until I reached my friend and had a really funny laugh. So, urine? Ha! Much worse can happen.
    4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. @Jason2003 - The lack of moral values I am highlighting. And morality IS the key point of value underlying this story. If you are such a snowflake that you have a problem with, don't watch the video or read the comments. The point of the video is to highlight the decision to not have enough concern for other people. Rush didn't just make choices about his own personal risks, he lied to others who made deadly decisions for themselves, including a young man with so much of life otherwise ahead of him. When immoral people get others killed, I will speak up in a forum discussing those people. And this forum is doing that. Rush didn't use a proper design methodology for ensuring reasonable safety. The same lack of ethics (and an underlying empathic morality) that he exhibited provides a *broader lesson* for all. If you ignore the lack of morality in leaders, or lack of sufficiently ethical rules (or their enforcement), their will be tragic consequences. I realize snowflakes like you want to run and hide from these everpresent and broad truths, but you won't be allowed to hide. I simply added a second example to reinforce the message. This forum was already addressing the issue because the point of the video was a shockingly immoral decision. Rush didn't make an unrealized error. He knew what he was doing. In his value system, it didn't matter. He deceived and innocents died. This is happening again, now at a national scale, and the same lessons apply. If you are too butt-hurt by that because it undermines whatever obliviousness you choose to hide with, that is your problem. Don't go watching videos directly related to morality (or reading the comments) if you don't want to be reminded of the broader lessons and politics connected to the topic.
    3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. @ - I am so very sorry to hear about your husband's death. There are more important things here than my idle comments and interests. From here on out, anything I say is only because I owe it to you to explain anything that may have caused you distress. You asked about my flight experience. I flew just the Cessna T-41 and T-37, both very safe aircraft. About my reference to landing immediately after warnings, I was referring in particular to warnings that presage a potential loss of propulsion in any aircraft that is vulnerable to losing just one engine. That includes chip burn warnings on the V-22. Although the V-22 has two proprotors that are connected, allowing single-engine propulsion in normal conditions, the proprotors require the drive mechanism to function. If the gears fail, the drive fails and the proprotors lose coordination and possibly all control. So, I was commenting on the hazards associated with this warning to highlight the pilot's burden. The warning is for a potentially very dangerous situation and the protocol seems not so urgent about it. Hopefully, my comments were taken as being addressed at the protocol, not at compliance with the protocol. Your husband got to be a V-22 pilot by being a damned good pilot. The protocol he followed was pretty clear that his status should NOT be considered an urgent emergency. He trusted and followed that protocol. In the future, I hope no more pilots face his situation. Boeing and the DoD know that a gear broke due to microscopic inclusions. I hope they fix the risks this can happen again. Finally, some years ago, I lost a cousin to a fiery tragedy that made the national news footage (and the comments). With that in mind, I do try to remember that the internet is a small place, and anyone's comments can reach those close to the heart of a tragedy. I hope I didn't cause you distress. I wish nothing more for you than as much peace as possible for you and your family.
    3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. ​ @chrislockwood5299  - Like what? The stock market being high and joblessness low? *I* paid for those numbers, and so did ***you***. So will the next three generations or more will pay for the national debt used to flood the economy with easy loaned money. And guess who ALWAYS makes the most from easy money? That's right, the banksters and other super-wealthy people. The banksters make money lending out the money that YOU AND I MUST PAY FOR AS DEBT. The highest budget deficit in history is now under Trump. Just like he bankrupted EVERY actual company he ran, he is bankrupting the US and leaving YOU holding the bag. If you consider that an accomplishment, you are pretty sad yourself. What else did he accomplish? He has alienated allies? Check. He BROKE THE LAW? Check. He lied to the PEOPLE? Check^20,000. He had more golf trips and spent more on his trips than any other President in history in the first three years? Check. (After claiming Obama golfed too much.) He created the Space Force, at great cost, which is nothing more than the renamed Space Command? Check. He embarrassed our nation by talking rudely and acting like an impetulent child? Check. He divulged top secret information to adversaries? Check. He had more people in high office in his administration convicted of crimes than any other President in our lifetime? Check. He had more turnover in his administration than any other President in our lifetime and possibly US history? Check. (He knows how to hire smart people? He's the greatest ever yet people leave him like rats leaving a sinking ship? Ha!)
    2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491.  @BrianCinSpruceGrove  - They did ask them directly. Further, any real scientist who understands spectroscopy would know ACGW is real even without a complex model. It's a matter of any system at constant temperature will have energy in = energy out. The Sun heats Earth, Earth radiates the same amount of heat to space via IR. When Earth emits less IR, the system heats up. Guess what? Every CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere immediately reduces the outgoing IR and increases the amount of IR absorbed by Earth's surface. The result is an increase in surface temperature. Add enough CO2 and the increase becomes noticable. Add more and and the temperature increase affects sea level and crop production. Those things affect humans. Period. You don't need a climate model for that, or some dumb-ass conspiracy theory about how middle-income scientists are taking over the government while the powerless CEOs of Koch Industries and Exxon are forced to standby and pay more taxes. Those poor helpless people. If only they had countless payoffs to create a disinformation campaign and payoff the GOP just like the scientists have, but those CEOs are poor and the scientists have so much money. If only it were not so. Those poor Koch Brothers, trying to spread truth and watching their noble assets grow less quickly while they try to save humanity with the truth, all while Fox tries to help the Kochs but keeps failing to get liberals to understand the megarich people are not lying, they are honest and would NEVER lie to make more money.
    2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. This is not the biggest problem with maps. The problem is human nature - people see AREA on a map as the measure of interest or weight of whatever is within shape of interest. I don't think kids should learn geography from maps until they are well-schooled in understanding other kinds of maps. That way they learn early to process maps from an information standpoint, not a standpoint of referring constantly to surface area of places. Schools could teach geography as a subset of map-reading and analysis. Schools must reinforce that geographical map areas represent surface area and ONLY surface area. It is human nature to think other things that tend to correlate with area are exactly proportional to area. Read that again. People wrongly interpret maps by assuming that things that correlate with area actually vary linearly with area. For example, even though people know that the central states of the United States are lightly populated, people living in those states tend to overestimate their importance due to their physical size. This process of interpreting by area is self-deceptive. Applying the idea of understanding what the area represents requires constant reinforcement. Likewise, single-color thematic maps need to be taught and retaught. On most maps of the world, categorical schematic maps using colors often refer to relative measures, not absolutes, yet they will be interpreted as absolutes. For example, a state that has a slight majority of one political group will be assigned a single color to represent the whole state, even if the color only represents 51% of the actual people in the state. Putting together these two problems, for example, you would not believe the high proportion of people who could look at a two-colored politically-themed map of US states and intuitively feel that the color with the most area represents the dominant political theme. In fact, the area usually does not even relate to the number people! A red Wyoming has very few people in the red party, while a blue Massachusetts has a lot more people from the blue party, but it looks like less on the map. The common folk feel (don't even think) that assigning a color to particular areas mean that the vast majority of people living there are pretty much like-minded. This leads to abuse by the majority, thinking they are everybody. In business, I also see this over and over. I dislike when people ask me to create an area-filled map to show marketing information. Marketing executives love maps based on geographical area, but those are worse than useless - they are deceiving due to human nature! One needs to use maps where area is proportional to something useful, not land area, otherwise normal human bias ruins the interpretation for most people. For example, Europe is pretty small on a spatially accurate map when compared to Asia but if you made that map so area was proportional to purchasing power, the map would radically change! I think getting that straight BEFORE geographical map reading IS possible AND preferable. After that is learned (and the knowledge maintained regularly), then teach geography using spatially-accurate representation. Of course, that is where this video comes into play. I think the future of this topic is going to involve three-dimensional images, or two-dimensional images that look 3-D. Then you can avoid the problem of getting the beach ball map to lie flat.
    1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800.  @Treddian  - Since the 1980s the USA lost its will to remain secure. We collectively worshipped Wall Street and profits. Practically nobody running a large company in the US is willing to ensure they have robust security of their computer systems. Even the US government does not care enough. To make matters worse, the US uses contractors for secure systems, so (again) the executives of those contracting companies want to boost quarterly profits so they won't spend the big money required to have better security. It is hard to secure an enterprise-scale system and still have it usable by regular employees. The executives don't care. Likewise, government officials don't really care. Who went to jail when the General Services Administration was hacked and all security clearance application data was stolen? ALL people with secret identity require a security clearance and that data was handled by GSA. That means every secret identity possessed by officers, employees, and other agents were all compromised. Nobody went to jail. Nobody was fined as far as I know. Nobody even got fired. So, our systems are too weak, and any and all adversaries (even allies) can hack our systems. It's heartbreaking to watch corruption of indifference and greed weaken this country. The only salve on this wound is that we live in an open society so at least our intentions are already fairly public. Still, secret people, secret capabilities, and secret plans are almost never reliably secret here in the USA.
    1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027.  @MrAnarchocapitalist  - Many people are willing to work but won't bother to look. I am 60 years old. I have problems standing, so I can't work retail or service jobs. People my age are very rarely hired. I have three college degrees, I can work circles around many younger generations, my IQ is excellent, and I have great life experience to bring to a job. But employers don't want me. I am too old. If I don't look for a job, how do I not count as unemployed? I *AM* unemployed, but I am not wasting my time for continued discrimination to keep making me feel miserable. I will let the younger generations pay for my health care. And when they resent having to pay taxes to pay for health care for older people, they can go suck it. Maybe they should have hired us instead of laughing that we can't figure out Tik-Tok. Guess what? We just don't give a flying f*** about such things. We have lived life and know Tik-Tok and other things like phone features just don't matter. I can program in multiple computer languages and learn new ones quickly. I can perform statistical analyses, qualitative analyses, and work on solving physics problems. I have experience as a first responder. And I've been told I am told to work by MANY people in acts of blatant discrimination. By the way, I press over 500 pounds on a leg machine at the gym. So, I am not in poor health. I just have a lumbar problem so I can't stand in one place and foot problems that arise when I spend hours on my feet. Fact is, humans LOVE to discriminate. They think life is a zero-sum game, so if they discriminate, it makes them feel better about themselves. And even older people discriminate against older people. Our society runs on pseudo-capitalism. And that pseudo-capitalism has been increasing unemployment because people are incentivized to do it in order to concentrate their own wealth.
    1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. This story has as much facts and evidence against any Dem as Barr's latest Russia-Dems investigation. This GOP b.s. goes back to before the endless Benghazi investigations that didn't produce one iota of criminal evidence against anyone. How much time and money? And then Barr's investigation? And then this? The GOP voters are f*cking dumb as turds, always falling for the same trick. They are like Charlie Brown and the GOP is Lucy, promising the investigation's are like Charlie Brown's football. Just come and kick the football, GOP voters, and you'll see a conviction. Then the GOP pulls away the football. "Whoopsie! There is no evidence! We lied AGAIN to our voters and they still s*ck our d*ck every time we ask them to!" You're nearly all being used and happy to fall for their next lie. Here's something you can choke on, GOP supporters. How many criminal referrals did the GOP produce after looking into the Trump-Russian connection. The GOP themselves referred Donnie Jr, Kushner, Bannon, and two others. YOUR OWN TEAM ADMITTED THIS! The same team that made no referrals for Benghazi after MANY investigations. And the GOP Barr has made no indictments after his own investigation of Dems. There is NOTHING. You have NOTHING but your own stunted mentality that keeps you going back for more kicks in the teeth by the GOP. Go back to Trump. Go to him he calls you, you can't refuse When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose You're invisible now, you've got no secrets to conceal How does it feel, ah how does it feel? To be on your own, with no direction home Like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone?
    1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100.  @leogama3422  - LLMs like ChatGPT usually get context MUCH better than Search. Search has almost no ability to focus the results. Search at least formerly had functional negation/exclusion capabilities, but no longer. If you put in search terms like -exclude_this or "NOT that", you will get matches that specifically INCLUDE this and that rather than excluding them, especially the advertisements! It is insanely frustrating! AI does not do that. But also, if I want something that is contextually similar to something else, but not a match, Search cannot give it. AI can. AI will also do better with sequences and series of logical results, since it can remember interim results as if they are stored program variables. (Variables are just a mathematical language's equivalent of saying, "Remember this concept and give it a placeholding name 'X'. LLMs can use normal language to do that.) Put another way, AI can do algorithms, search cannot. The difference is vast and immensely important. The biggest problem with AI LLMs is that, unlike Search, they can return results that don't exist (i.e., make stuff up). They do this since they are really just trying to complete sentences. That means returning words, phrases, and concepts that are LIKE those in the training data. So, when you expect an individual example you are quite possibly going to get something that is the ""kind of result" you could get from the real world, so you get fake stuff they are cutely calling "hallucinations". I think that is wrong. The results are ALWAYS real. They are answers with REAL strong correlation to what one would expect to see in a sentence, not made up correlations. Just remember that answers are correlations, and without sufficient specificity in the chat request, those correlations won't be 1.0 correlated with a real-world example, just "highly" correlated "very similar" to whatever else could be in the response.
    1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. Well, I can sympathize with both you and the professor. Regarding the professor, physicists often love their field for its elegance. The ideal concept of human-defined "Laws of Physics" is that they should be able to explain the infinite number of situation-specific laws and rules-of-thumb that people use for deciding things like which kind of tires to use. In a default approach through that idealism, a physics instructor (not so much an experimenter or applied physicist) might assume then that the laws of friction should explain decisions about tire friction. Unfortunately, among the laws of physics, about the worst laws you could depend on as approaching the ideal would be the Laws of Friction. One law, as you may know, states that the area of a frictional surface does not matter when it comes to how much friction is generated by a load. In the physics students' world, this law is "proven" in lab experiments they personally conduct. the problem is those very experiments - and the text books - fail to mention that the experiments use materials that follow the ideal the laws. The experiments should use sticky tape and rubber. Even if they did, physicists would at first argue that you are not measuring friction, you are measuring adhesion. Well, at that point you're almost defining things to get the outcome you want. Adhesion or friction, the goal is to determine the resistance to sliding, and the laws of friction in physics as taught to non-specialists are poorly advertised as being highly dependent on materials. Physicists know this, but they get so used to working with special cases of ideals, they quickly grow comfortable and forget the assumptions. There is also the other way to explain this. The physics instructor deals in the world where cows are spherical. He even MUST deal in the world. Have you tried to explain the infinite complexity of the real world to a typical student. More so, have you ever tried to write an equation for students that is even solvable without using idealized assumptions? The professors get locked into that world. It might even be worth it for the professor to be wrong just so twenty other students don't hear of your conversation and end up losing their understanding of the laws of physics that DO apply to many materials.
    1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205.  @bevally1533  - Sorry, man, but I work in Pharma. The money goes to profits, acquisition of companies that did actual research and got good results, political donations, payoff deals to the medical and insurance industries and advertising. I work on the marketing end. I despise that I am part of a process that I think should be changed, but the money is STILL good enough to pull me in. My salary is paid for by YOU (indirectly)! Well, it is paid for by the sales generated by ads, but the ads cost MONEY. The citizen pays for that money. People like you support the business model but it really is NOT in the citizens healthy interest. Thanks for believing you're mostly paying for research. You are not. And if you think Pharma is not supremely corrupt, consider this. I work in consulting. EVERY year I have had to take MULTIPLE versions of anti-corruption training required by the government. Why? Because Pharma companies find that crime pays. When they caught, they sign Corporate Integrity Agreements. Those "CIAs" require employees, contractors and consultants to take the training. And if you work with three companies that all have CIAs, you must take the same type of training for EACH company! It's ridiculous. It goes on and on, every year. The number of hours I have spent in this training goes into the triple digits! Every year I do it. Big Pharma is corrupt. Period. The whole business model is immoral, IMO. Our governments and non-profits could handle research and education. Instead, Big Pharma has corrupted our politicians and even the citizens' values so much they agree to let the business model run on. That is morally corrupt. Once you've got that, don't be surprised that the legal corruption occurs as well.
    1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. As a non-pilot (but one who had some pilot training), I am puzzled as to why confused pilots in situations like these don't shut off all automation systems and fly manually. They are trained to fly that way as students in the their first aircraft. It works. It is not confusing. Stick, ruddder, and throttles should do it. Add in trim tabs, flaps, and spoilers if you like. Landing gear if you are going to land. Why do I never hear of this being a recommended course of reaction in response to a confused state that should obviously be alarming? Is the industry filled with pig-headed people who refuse to give up on the idea that a confused pilot will ALWAYS correctly think a way out of the problem before disaster strikes? What is so terrifying about flying manually? Seriously, please explain why this course of action is not acceptable. Once flying manually, things would be fine and the pilots could figure out how to restore use of automated systems. I really need to know why flight procedures are so adamant about putting actual flying-the-plane skills at the end of all options, if even considering them at all? Instead it seems to be all about flying-the-computer, or more realistically, flying-the-corporate-line. [Edit: I had not watched the post-crash part that discusses regulatory changes to procedures. Exactly what I was thinking. Shut off automatic control, go to standard throttle, etc. Thank goodness! However, I still think this should be done during any times of obvious confusion. Why not do it?]
    1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. I took custody of my father's Town Car when his driving was too dangerous (and he needed to be put into assisted living). There are several big problems with this car. 1. The car can be DANGEROUS. I would not give this car to anyone I love without a strong review of this problem. I have driven many cars in my life. This is the ONLY car in which I have had repeated problems of my right foot actually pushing the gas pedal while I was trying to brake, regardless of my footwear! Sometimes during braking my foot was only pushing the gas, not even touching the brake. Other times I have been pushing both pedals. (They are close enough to each other for this to happen.) I have approached traffic stops, busy roads, and sharp curves and found myself accelerating instead of slowing down! I have tried the pedal adjustment feature and it didn't matter what the setting was. I suspect the issue is mostly due the location of the pedals. They might not be as far right as on other vehicles. They might be too close to each other. Or, it might be the way the right leg or right heel is not supported and this lead to the foot falling to the right. However, I have driven other cars that lack a convenient side support for the leg and I don't recall having this repeated problem with any of them. (Maybe I am forgetting a rental or two, but it would still be unusual.) After this experience with the Town Car, I understand how some people hit the gas instead of the brake. If they are experiencing a problem similar to mine, they are not confused drivers. They are simply finding that the mechanics of hitting the brake doesn't allow a relaxed approach to just angling one's foot to the left and pushing the brake pedal. What one is expecting and what one gets can be two different things. Now I wonder if many people driving into store windows from parking lots are simply driving cars whose pedals require rather intentional use. Much of driving is nearly unconscious habit and feel. If a car behaves out of normal range during half-conscious operations, it could lead to obvious problems. Are most people hitting the gas unintentionally used to driving other cars? 2. The pedals are very sensitive. You barely touch the brake and you're flying forward against your seat belt. You barely touch the gas and all eight cylinders are roaring. For me, this problem is made worse by my other car having soft pedals! =:-D Regardless, other cars I have driven were rarely this sensitive. Adjusting the pedals doesn't help, by the way. The pedal position is not causing the sensitivity. 3. The car lacks rear traction. The gas is VERY sensitive (as I mentioned earlier), but the transmission and power transfer are just tuned badly for the available power compared to the rear weight of the vehicle. I can spin tires *unintentionally*. This is a problem you can't do much about, because the pedals are so sensitive you can't easily depress the accelerator until you get the start you want. It's like an on/off switch. Parked or peeling out. Oh, the tires are fine btw. Tread is good, pressure is 35 psi. So, they are not hard as a rock and slick. 4. I hate the driver's seat. It always feels like I am slipping out due to the angle of the lumbar area pushing me forward. I have a bad lower back and sometimes I enjoy extra lumbar support. This is different. The seat just drives me nuts. I can't tilt it back enough, retract it enough, whatever. Every combination of this seat's setting leaves me feeling pushed off the front edge. It drives me nuts and has me fidgeting frequently. This then drives my wife nuts.
    1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318.  @mangos2888  - You can be as smarmy as you want, but let's see how Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and nearly all of the Asian countries would keep their independence without the US to support them, through soft power and hard power. Having a population roughly equal to California and an economy that is of less importance than that, Canadians don't matter much at all to the geopolitics of the world. So, their society is spared much of the costs of the influence wars that take place within the countries that have real power. Those costs include a constant propaganda between various sources of power. And if Canada was so great, why is Quebec looking to expect immigrants to speak French? What kind of d-bag expects immigrants to know the local language? Ever try to learn a language at 60 years old? How about being younger but raising two kids while working two jobs? Oh, no, but the Quebecois will DEMAND that everybody has to be like them. If you like provincialism and racism, well you'll love that about many Canadians. I have found in my world travels that most places that claim to have no racism only have a lack of it because they are the least welcoming to minorities and simply don't have that many. Remind me again of how many blacks live in St Johns? And how many REAL Canadian children, the indigenous ones, were buried in schoolyards after being stolen from their families? Yeah, keep on pretending the world isn't as complex. Canada is only as "nice" as its ability to insulate itself from the realities of the world. Otherwise, it is no better or worse than another country.
    1
  1319. 1
  1320. I am still calling "NOT ALIENS!" Either these aliens have mental illness or some either serious mental defect, or this is not aliens. Think about it. If you were an alien traveling the stars, would you keep flying around a bunch of vessels stuck to the surface of the water? Would you not be more interested in the 99.999999% of native activity that is NOT military maritime? It's not like modern naval ships or even military aircraft are even a primary factor in understanding human society and culture. So, either there are aliens with OCD, obsessed with irrelevant naval vessels, or it is not aliens. Additionally, why do we have such terribly inadequate phenomena coverage on these UAP? So we should be grateful about a radar clip (ostensibly real)? We should be grateful with eyewitness accounts? Regular citizens get more useful, multi-perception footage of street cops beating down citizens than the whole US Department of Defense can provide us get with their complete surveillance system running 24x7x365 under total global coverage? And how come we can't get anticipatory comments like, "The analysts considered these images could be caused by human-built hardware launched by SSNs and deploying ECM to test our defenses. Just because we have not built such things doesn't mean we couldn't. FFS, we went to the moon and even the Challenger Deep - decades ago! Humanity CAN build such things if we cared to, and maybe someone has cared to do such a thing. But no, people skip the easiest solution and try the most complex solution imaginable - building a whole other space-faring species from nothing. As if that is a simpler explanation.
    1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. This guy is out of touch with reality. He claims that when a government collects taxes to pay for jobs, that is paying for jobs through theft. So, let's get this right. The people CHOOSE (i.e., vote) to hire a mayor to provide services by governing as mayor. The people CHOOSE (i.e., either directly or by their elected reps) to collect some taxes so the government can pay for the mayor. They pay him, he provides a service, and this self-deluded fellow calls it theft. Let's say the people then agree to increase taxes so they can afford to hire first responders. Others would call that a mutually beneficial exchange where the people pay money for lifesaving services and the first responders collect a salary. This fantasist calls that theft. What a load. I stopped listening at that point. However, before then I had a big problem with his extremely subjective approach. He offers NO quantitative standard for his chart analyses (where he draws lines and why). One of the biggest forms of scamming people with ideas is from people who draw trends on charts of data that includes noise on multiple time scales, particularly noise that is scale invariant. These scammers draw these lines without giving you ANY quantitative (and hopefully time-independent and regime-independent) criteria for how they choose the dates and value ranges, but they claim their perspective is the right one. The fact is, charts of noisy data can be drawn at varying slopes across the same time period (based on naturally biased and unnoticed weighting), and certainly over just slightly different time frames. That's a few more minutes of my life I won't get back. Folks, if we all stop settling for hokum like this, the algorithms of YT won't trick us with these videos and we will ALL save time by only watching informational videos based on maximum objectivity and quantitative rigor.
    1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378.  @joee.blessed1223  - Your sense of reality is different than mine, so let's talk. How many whimsical abortions take place each year moments before childbirth? Do you have verifiable records of even one taking place ever, let alone many per year? If not, why are you assuming this is a thing? Because you're anxious and need something to fret about that is not a real-world issue? Also, you said you don't agree with abortion. Do you think just a few cells can constitute an actual human? Because if thirty-two non-sentient cells are induced to be dropped out of a woman's uterus, people call that an abortion. 32 human cells. So, if someone scrapes your skin, did they commit murder since they killed some human cells? What constitutes a human? If a human lacks sentience, is it human? Such questions are part of the reason the abortion debate is a hot topic. Btw, the Christian Bible and the Torah CLEARLY consider ending a pregnancy to be less than murder. There are literally two highly different punishments for murder and causing the loss of a fetus. The latter is considered a much more minor issue. So, if you oppose abortion as murder, it is most certainly NOT because you are a devout Jewish or Christian who believes in the holy text. Is it science, because science certainly would not classify a few cells as humans, not even a human fetus that looks like a tadpole would qualify as "a human". Given all this, can't you see how reasonable people might think that saving a woman's life is acceptable even if it means allowing a dying fetus to die?
    1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. Remove greedy vultures? So, do you think contractors should be able to gobble up unlimited customers, as they outbid others in a race to the bottom? That kind of greed is what we call the American Dream, becoming a Self-Made Person. Meanwhile, the very same process also forces others out of self-employment and then they have to work for the same greedy contractor who was often simply better at getting and retaining customers, not better at actually doing the work. Then those who work for the "winning" contractor earn less, lose their independence, and become more exploited. That, fundamentally, is how the American Dream works. Get other people to work for you by basically ensuring they can't compete with you as self-employed people. And big companies work the same way. Large corporations ensure small ones can't compete. The whole system is geared to minimize independence and maximize exploitation. And the hardest workers out there, the ones like my cousin who just once were told they were loved in their whole youth, work the hardest in a miserable quest for elusive validation. Everyone else must either work at the same level of misery or lose out in competition. So, do we eliminate those greedy people, the success stories who make everyone else miserable? Good luck being morally consistent on that one, let alone finding a path that remotely produces maximal happiness for the WHOLE population, not just the rapaciously greedy people who will work 12x6 and never enjoy two weeks of their life away from work.
    1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. I don't think so. I thought of that myself. However, the sails that are tacking through the wind are fixed to the boat. In this case, if you think of the windmill/propeller blades, they are moving with respect to the boat as well as the wind. That breaks down analogy. Put another way, the only way to capture energy FROM the wind is have it do work. The wind CANNOT do work if it is not pushing so that a COMPONENT of the wind's vector is aligned with a COMPONENT of the sail's equal-and-opposite "resistance vector". (In fact, the two arise from each other.) For a tacking sailboat, the downwind may push on the sail, but the component of the downwind that is pushing is actually just the part that is perpendicular to the sail (the part doing the basic pushing, as the problem gets more complex when you treat the sail as an airfoil). The pushing component of the downwind is thus not completely aligned with the downwind's overall vector. In fact, that component may be nearly zero if the angle is extreme, BUT IT IS STILL POSITIVE FORCE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE SAIL. That pushing component of the wind transfers to the sail. The sail then transfers that push to the boat through its own force vector. However, just like the wind, the sail then has a pushing component that aligns with the boats forward direction and part of it aligns with a cross-course direction. The direction of the sail force component that is pushing the boat forward can be anything less than 90 degrees from the overall force vector direction from the sail, which itself can be anything less than 90 degrees from the overall force vector direction from the wind. Thus, the boat can move in ANY direction less than 180 degrees from the wind (assuming enough energy is captured to overcome resistance losses)! Of course, since the boat is only using a component (part) of the sail's pushing force which is itself only a component (part) of the wind's pushing force, the boat is going to capture less POWER from the wind than a boat moving downwind. However, a boat going downwind may have more power and approach the windspeed in shorter time, the downwind sailboat that reaches downwind speed will have ZERO more power available to accelerate. It cannot exceed downwind speed. Meanwhile, the tacking sailboat will capture much less power from the wind and it will accelerate more slowly. However, it will also but continue to accelerate until it is going FASTER than the windspeed (assuming the ocean waves don't slow it down too much). It is a trade-off of speed vs power, as counterintuitive as that sounds.
    1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. Your bamboo idea is actually a deception to most people. It requires the bamboo to SPREAD. The tree only needs to be one tree! Your comparison is thus highly specific to artificially limited situations where someone is ridiculously limited to planting one tree or they can plant bamboo that spreads out over a large area. I agree bamboo grows quickly. That is really not going to matter. The CO2-induced warming is going to keep going for centuries unless hyper-radical methods are invented and employed to reduce it. Finally, bamboo is extremely invasive and deprives wildlife of life-sustaining ecosystem! Walk into a bamboo patch and look at how few things are living there. It is like a perfectly kept lawn. Almost nothing exists there but the bamboo. It is a life-form diversity desert. I hope people don't want a boring world like the one you propose. [edit: I saw your response to someone else. Here is my response to that.] Yes, btw, adding vegetation to an area can typically help to cool it. The vegetation provides evaporative cooling. If the vegetation is tall enough, it can provide shade. Also, if the vegetation is massive enough (like a forest), it adds "thermal inertia" (increased heat capacity) and may slightly reduce temperature variation. This last part, though, is not as important as the first two things. So, yes, for quick solution in a city, bamboo can help. However, outside of its native areas it is a robustly invasive species. And it eliminates the diversity of wildlife.
    1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. One should not gamble with costs one cannot afford to pay. If you can't afford to lose your health or your home, don't risk it. Consider that scientific studies have proven that humans make terribly poor judgments when it comes to accepting a low risk of a disastrous event. Using Expectancy Value Theorem would show a decision to get foam is a bad one, but people choose the foam because they think a low risk means they have controlled the risk. They have not - the risk is the risk, period - full stop. The cost of the risk is not worth from a pure analysis standpoint. Arguing its the peoples right to make a choice is like arguing that playing Russian roulette is a good choice if you really enjoy the "game". The reality is that high odds in your favor do not necessarily make a gamble a worthy choice. *The cost of failure must be considered independently of the reward of success**. If your foam installation has only a in 1/30 chance of affecting your health and ruining your homes livability, then for a $300,000 home, the choice to install foam is basically a decision that will average you a $10,000 cost *AND 1/30 of the remaining healthy years of your life! Those are awful costs for a "cost-saving" choice! If your home is worth $900,000, the effective dollar cost goes up to $30,000, plus you are still forfeiting 1/30 of your healthy years of your life! Think about that! That is just for the excellent odds of 1/30. With a low-cost contractor, that chance might increase to 1/5 or more!
    1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1