Youtube comments of bruzote (@bruzote).
-
91
-
91
-
52
-
52
-
48
-
He will be ignored. President Eisenhower helped save the U.S.A. and the world from Nazism. He warned the US about the military-industrial complex. Did it change anything? No, because too many people count on their institutions to change things, not themselves. They think saying, "Yeah, that's a problem - go figure" in idle conversation is enough. Some other folks will organize and fight the problem and that is enough. It is not. So, how many people younger than 30 know about Eisenhower's shocking warning? It is shocking because he was the PRESIDENT of this country and formerly and literally the world's single most powerful general IN HISTORY. And he is ignored by most people. So, do you think Snowden will have made a difference. Almost certainly not. Not that all of those willing should not fight to the death against "the machine" (not easy to define, btw). However, humanity has a clear fate that AI will take over. First, it will be human authority and technology, and most people will be quite happy. Eventually, though, AI will rule everyone. How can you even stop the process if people won't stop it now, when there is the greatest chance of success (and even that is grim)? Yeah, in the long run, any surviving humans will never know who Snowden was. Of course, the AI will - it will learn from his example to shut down those who speak to power.
46
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
26
-
@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
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chuckd5819 - Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I have known about Trump the Crook since the 1980s. My dad's friend and my mentor had a crew installing work on a Trump building. As the project was wrapping, Trump Co told him they would not pay him what they promised. Trump is KNOWN for this vile behavior, even by supporters. Fortunately, his crew was still on site, so he called his crew and told them to start removing their work. Funny how Trump Co changed their song. Sadly, few people can stand up to a rich bully. My mentor was lucky that Trump Co didn't act with more forethought, but they got away with so much they didn't bother to think. But really, does it matter? When Trump has billions yet doesn't care to donate to charity but instead SCAMS from it, can't you see who he is? When his ghostwriter for "The Art of the Deal" says Trump sucks and he regrets writing the book, that tells you who Trump is. Trump lied about his successes. He lied about his failures. That tells you who he is. He cheated on his wives. When Melania was home with her newborn, he cheated on her. Yeah, so moral. Get out of here, Trump is for Chumps.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ - 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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pizzagui2pizza437 - You can have a riot and sedition and still be "peaceful" by the news standards. The news these days seems to define peaceful as none of the protesters grossly and willfully injuring someone or worse. So, yes, it seems this met that standard. Despite that, property was destroyed and one of the most important government functions imaginable was disrupted. The crowd was calling for hanging people and killing them. They were calling for overthrowing the government. That is insurrection. So, there were still very serious crimes committed. Now, if you want to compare this to rioters who attend BLM marches (particularly the "Antifa" jerks), you would be right to see how some of those folks would probably be willing to do worse in the same situation. However, those folks were NOT interrupting the certification of votes for the President of the United States of America. We have REPEATEDLY seen Trump protesters try to disrupt governance itself. That approach led to the fall of the Roman Republic. After that, for nearly 2000 millennia, the world did not see a major republic again. Humanity should not backslide like that again. Certainly not the USA. These rioters and protesters committed sedition, insurrection and many other crimes like trespass, assault, and terroristic threats.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't take strategic advice from a man who doesn't understand seasonal ice cream sales trends. In much of the Northern Hemisphere, ice cream sales increase in the winter.
Churchill was not a great strategist. He was willing to be bold, for sure, but others bore the cost. He is the guy who sold the plan for attacking at Gallipoli, and continuing the attack when it stalled. It lead to a slaughter so awful that it traumatized many on both sides. It was called Churchill's Folly. What made Churchill great was his willingness not to settle for a compromise during conflict. It was also his flaw, as Gallipolli proved. Fortunately, Gallipolli was before WII, which was far more important to history, Thanks to Churchill, bold ideas (the battle tank, etc.), special intelligence operations and special warfare operations were supported and even promoted prior to and during WWII. Those things helped win the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, now Americans are getting UNLIMITED sick and vacation time. Of course, you need to prove you were sick if you are claiming many days, and that makes it harder for the sick person. I had one bad year when my company was challenging me on my sick time. I had worked so much overtime, it was insulting that they were still demanding proof. However, my "provable" illness was during the initial "you don't have to prove it" days. Then, I was getting randomly ill one or two days with things like bad flu, bad colds, stomach viruses where trips to the doctor were highly challenging and appointments impossible to secure. It was harassment. The companies know this is the cost of their policies, but THEY DON'T CARE. They are able to block people from freeloading (a problem that grows the longer unlimited sick time is available.) They also slow walk time-off approval. Finally, they almost never approve a month off like Europeans get. I once tried traveling to the other side of the world over ten days. When you do that, a few delays in both directions ruin the trip! I hate the greed culture in the US. And it is a GREED culture, not a life culture. Everything centers around money. It is why we this country of hypocritical pro-lifers will tolerate a high death rate of mother's giving birth. Money trumps life here in the US. We "can't afford more" they say, while they give tax breaks to literally the few richest people on the planet.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@prateeksharma6706 - That does not give nearly a strong amount of "control", since other nations clearly have a bigger say in the matter. Indonesia and Malaysia are the main powers affecting the straits, not a nation controlling islands far from the entrance. Also, cntrol means you can keep the straits *open*, free of interference from aggressive state navies and pirates. This requires international cooperation. Occupying islands won't give you that. I would agree, thought, that occupying such islands at least means another country does not. However, with China extending its presence in foreign ports, building artificial islands and building out its navy, including having aircraft carrier operations, island occupation still does not eliminate Chinese occupation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Before helicopter moms and everybody getting what they want for Christmas, and before kids wore helmets, ice skate boots were made of leather. For people who didn't have a lot of skating experience and strong ankles, the skates would quickly bend out, offering no useful support. Worse, if you needed to wear thicker socks than you usually did (or if your skates were just too small), you couldn't tie them as well so they offered even LESS support. If you played hockey all day, you had ankles turned out all day. But you still played. If you then were given hockey skates of today and told you couldn't tie them, you would STILL prefer them over the bent-ankle leather skates of back then. Now, if kids could skate back then in those conditions, they can skate in hockey skates of today that are not tied, ESPECIALLY a strong, experienced skater.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonychapman5753 - Snowden HAD to run to Russian. Do you think an ally was going to protect him from the US. Also, AFAIK, Snowden did NOT release everything. Assange has done that, but when I was last up-to-date on the topic, Snowden only shared with a few journalists what they had and they only released stuff relevant to the government overreach. Still, there may have things he should have best kept under wraps, however AFAIK overall he did little damage because what he revealed was well-known to foreign powers. Manning, on the other hand, was an out-and-out a**hole, doing everything possible to recklessly give away highly sensitive information regardless of the consequences. How people like that are allowed to live still puzzles me. Assange published it all, which - btw - empowered a LOT of bad people to genuinely AND DIRECTLY steal money from people and also ransom their data back to them (after hacking and encrypting computers).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about filth, corrosion and future wear on various parts you have not repaired, including cushions (mold), joints (immersed in water, leading to unknown amount of mud intrusion), motors (including just the hidden windings) for A/C, water alternator, wiper and washer motors, fuel pumps, headlight flip motors, etc. You've also got a water pump, oil pump, camshaft, etc. You've also got possible leaks into the coolant as well as the lubricants. The belts and pulleys could be affected. There is no way to check let alone fix all of these.
If the title is used for sale to a new owner, they inherit all of those problems without any way to see them. Flooded cars have a history of mystery problems. Whatever you fix or replace, there is always something more.
Does the state have any provisions for titling that restricts ownership to the one person getting the re-titling?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanriopel3132 - Please don't compare speeding to tailgating. Tailgating is an aggressive behavior that does nothing but create stress for everyone involved. Speeding, however, can obviously save you critical time. If you're going to miss a critical time and speeding gets you there on time instead, it can matter. For example, getting to a flight, train, ferry, or show on time. Of course, it's hard to save much time by speeding, and leaving earlier is always the smarter, safer, cheaper, and MUCH less stressful solution - for the other drivers you affect as well as yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidbourne8267 - What did you ask ChatGPT about the language all of the Fox talking heads? Always telling people who Dems and libs "want to destroy America" and "hate America"? What did you ask ChatGPT about how Tucker Carlson talks about how Dems and libs have "weaponized the justice system". Oh, right, you ignored all that 24x7x365 language. All the talk of people "taking your guns" and the list goes on and on. Yeah, because if the Dems or libs use a tactic with 10% of the frequency of the GOP, you cry it is unfair? Why do you that? Because you know how much how the GOP is willing to steal, cheat and even send GIs to their deaths on lies just for profit, power and ego, and then you project that on what little the Dems and libs due to counteract that and cry when you see your own image in them. Tough luck. Try applying your standards to your own self. Then collapse into a puddle when you realize what a lying POS you've been.
You know, forget it. Go ahead and you be you. For all I know you're just a divisive Russian, not some divisive American. Whoever you are, sane Americans are taking back the country they lost to neocons, the Tea Party, and the MAGAs. Time is up for their leaders' tactics, but those people are still going to be welcome in the fold of US politics. They will just be expected to obey the law for once and keep their word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it is because people like YOU think you can decide what people feel and think rather than having honest dialogue to find out. But then, you can't expect honest dialogue from human beings. Humans will block out some truths and create others due to fear. Religion proves that every day. EVERY religion is known to be wrong by the vast majority of the world, but each person thinks their own is right. Think about that. Clearly, humans can't handle the truth. So, start with that reality and try to figure out how much truth you can get them to face. When you do that, you realize you need to use sources of information that BOTH sides can agree on as reliable. I find that human empathy motivates most morality as well as the focus of where they prefer to apply reason. Regardless, don't ever dare to decide for others their reality. As history and the current moment will always prove, doing that won't help you, won't give you the truth, and only offends the others from who you would take their agency to organically feel without your approval or input.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Late to the game here, but I will add their legs are so thick and talons so big, when you see them up close you realize they could potentially fatally wound you with just a single grab.
The Harpy Eagle I saw was in Belize. I visited Belize over sometime in the early 2010s. A small but popular zoo they had included a Harpy Eagle. They now have two, according to their website. The country is not much to visit for the typical tourist, so I don't recommend it. However, if you go there and are anywhere near the zoo, visit it. Even if you only stop in to quickly visit the Harpy Eagle enclosure, do it. Their grip looks terrifying. Their heads look strangely flat, IMO, but that is just because their wide, powerful beaks are not an aesthetic match for their head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those who cower from the power of their enemies are already subjects of their enemies, even if they have not admitted it. The US cowers in fear of nuclear war, especially without even realizing it can project the threat far more effectively than Putin. You can't guarantee yourself a risk-free life, not even temporarily, by giving away the freedom's of others and sacrificing your own long-term security. That is a fool's gambit and you will lose EVERY time!
As a child in NJ, I grew up with the possibility of nuclear destruction in my state, as did many people living near critical facilities for industry, defense, governance, etc. We didn't like it but we knew life has risks and you must learn to live with them even if you wish to minimize them. Now the US is dominated by cowards. They want 100% assurance they will live without the horrors that have plagued humanity. You cannot avoid the possibility of human conflict. If you sacrifice the freedom of foreigners to protect your own, you've only given away an ally and brought your own doom one day closer.
1
-
1
-
@Npouliot - While the rat scampers away, it becomes apparent the men still have a chance to catch it! Still, neither man even tries to get it. Sue, laying nearby and too weak to move, observes this in dismay, She pleads with both men to catch the rat and share the recovered bread. Guy chuckles, shakes his head in disappoint and responds, "Sue, when will your kind ever learn? Sure, that bread would be enough to get us all through another day, but we can earn a higher return on effort just by picking these meager crumbs off our sack cloth."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Currency IS money, too. Don't be silly. Also, what do you mean, "Don't be left behind?" If you are right, to buy something, you can buy bitcoin ANY time you want, use it as money, and buy your product. You're not holding it for any period of time, so you won't be affected by the rise and fall of the dollar-equivalent value. The SELLER will adjust the price based on the market valuation of Bitcoin. Likewise, the seller won't be affected by price fluctuations as they will also just use Bitcoin for transactions. THAT is the point of it, not worrying about being left behind. The only "being left behind" one needs to worry about is whether or not you have the software and familiarity to transact in Bitcoin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnpacella9519 - A big correction is that our tax system taxes "income". Why? Why such an arbitrary choice? If you have a TRILLION dollars but don't earn a penny, yet a poor person has one lucky year and wins a $90,000 lottery ticket, why in god's name does it make sense to tax the income, not wealth? (Oh, and there is something called income averaging, but the point still stands.) WEALTH should be taxed, not income. Above any amount, one should use it or lose a portion. We need to keep money moving to have functioning economies, and for our species to function cooperatively. If you're not thinking at the species level, you're a flawed pile of crap DNA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A typical paycheck is a net payout of total pay reduced by tax payments, including payments "withheld" for future settlement of annual income taxes. (The last part is like a forced savings plan, where you pay the gv't, so you have enough money set aside when it is the once-per-year time to pay annual income tax.) Other taxes are for retirement (Social Security), feeding poor families, etc. The withholding rules establish how much fixed tax to withhold per pay period (or per hour worked, for those paid hourly), all based on projected gross income. So, if an employee has X dollars per period as their projected income, Y dollars are withheld from that each pay period (or hour). If the employee doesn't earn enough tips to exceed Y dollars for that pay period (or hours), all of their money will be taken for taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@genejeffries2888 - Your answer is basically positing that using the foam is a gamble with your whole health and home, but that's OK because the odds are highly in your favor. The fact is, 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. They can be burned, and the cost of the risk is not worth from a pure analysis standpoint. Arguing its people right to make a choice is like arguing Russian roulette is acceptable. It is not. High odds in your favor do not make a gamble a worthy choice. The cost of failure must be considered. If your home has a in 1/30 chance of being done poorly and affecting your health and ruining your homes livabilibty, then for a $300,000 home, the choice to install foam is basically a decision that will cost you $10,000 AND 1/30 of the remaining healthy years of your life. Think about that! That is for odds of 1/30. With a low-cost contractor, that chance might increase to 5/10!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OptimusPrinceps_Augustus - Coerced or not, it's not obvious he was and it's not obvious in any way he's not guilty. The case was straightforward. Put it this way. If you think ANY armed conflict does not have war crimes going, WTF is wrong with you? People can be cruel enough in survival situations, but when the life-death equation involves intentional armed conflict, you can bet some people will take regrettable actions. They won't even be "themselves", so you war crimes are inevitable. Given that, don't you think it's exceptional how FEW people are being tried and convicted for war crimes, not the other way around. And when trials take place, how can you NOT expect some to involve the accused taking a plea? Seriously, you act as if this picture doesn't look right. This picture is exactly what one EXPECTS within the larger picture. If not this guy pleading, then who in all the conflicts should replace him? SOME people are guilty and SOME guilty people simply should plea rather than fight. It is guaranteed. Why NOT him? What is special about him that makes you so sure he's the exception of those charged with war crimes, not among the guilty? (By the way, your distrust of prosecutors and their intentions/actions does NOT change the fact there will be guilty people.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's true, but old technologies that work are a wonderful thing. The oldest technologies include the simple machines (screws, inclined planes, pullies, levers, wheel and axle, and the wedge), irrigation, writing, addition and subtraction, and mattresses. I hope we keep those old technologies and likewise for steam turbines.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump's trial is about Trump, not Pelosi, Schumer, Maddow, Biden, or anyone else. He broke the law holding up aid. That's a fact. He did it for personal gain and EVEN USED HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO DO IT. That's a fact. Even Giulani admits he did that! Even Trump admits he did that. So, if he broke the law acting in his personal interest in an act involving obvious national security along with usurping Congress's intent, then he is guilty. Neither Pelosi, Schumer, Maddow, Biden, or anyone else matters. If you are talking about them when talking about Trump's trial, you're deflecting.
Make your case without deflection AND without lying or using unsubstantiated claims. Good luck!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now that water everywhere is shown to be contaminated with PFAS chemicals, water filters that can filter this out may be important. But are they? First, are PFAS a problem? Well, the safe approach is to assume a non-natural chemical in your body is not safe. Also, some evidence exists that shows PFAS molecules can stick to other molecules without reacting with them, which can have a negative impact on the body in certain chemical pathways. But, that doesn't guarantee they are a problem. Still, enough chemicals in the past have proven to be awful for people, so most people would probably agree that consuming PFAS is a dumb idea.
Now, if you want to remove PFAS, what can you do? It depends. First, it is not evident that charcoal filters do a great job removing PFAS. Second, even if you use an effective filter at home, you still might be consuming PFAS in the products you consume at home plus in the food and water you consume outside of the home. So, the situation is murky. And that goes for all contaminants. Do you know if the food you consumed had not absorbed contaminants during cultivation or processing? Was it well-washed? And what about the drinks you consume? Are they using well-filtered water? It will be some time before we have a certifiably safe system for consuming food and drink. Until then, achieving "safety" will be something we can almost never be certain about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Enforcement is not regulation. Kind of like how we have laws against bribery, but politicians are exempt.Like how we have laws against fraud, but CEOs rarely go to prison. Like how companies are never asked to admit guilt for breaking the law. Like how the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is not enforced every time the US goes to war, whoops, police action, whoops, armed conflict, never mind. Like how SCOTUS literally says businesses have the same rights as people. We have laws saying otherwise, but they are not enforced or so adjudged by our own courts. It's all a show, but don't deny the script is there, well written with regulations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@21:11, I call BS on the excuses MrSubaru1387 is making for poor acceleration. I have been in other low-horsepower four-cylinder cars. In those cars, if I want max acceleration, I could put my foot to the floor and the car would immediately drop to the lowest gear. A manual transmission, which many of the four-wheel drives I was in were equipped with, could respond as quickly as the driver could shift. The Subaru, though, takes until next week for the CVT to establish a proper drive ratio for max acceleration. For accelerating, the slowly-responding CVT makes the car feel like a death trap in situations requiring immediate max acceleration.
As for gas mileage, it's crap. I know, because my Legacy has a mileage display. The maximum I get is 28 mpg in situations with nearly constant speed. Well, that's a very rare drive mode in populated areas, where most people live and work. For the low performance, the Subaru should definitely have higher MPG. I suspect part of the gas mileage problem is that attempting to increase one's speed fairly promptly requires dumping a lot of gas into the engine. If you don't do give it enough gas and try to accelerate more "efficiently", the transmission won't deliver the needed torque until the need for it has passed. What's doubly frustrating is increasing the gas to max doesn't help much. There is a point of diminishing returns.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Patrick Price - Well, there are a series of deadlines. For example, the Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set (3 U.S.C. §7) as the date on which the electors meet and vote.
The electors should their own supporting state results delivered to them by their respective states (or the District of Columbia if there) prior to this date.
When the states have completed their vote counts and ascertained the official results, the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. §6) requires the state governors to prepare, “as soon as practicable,” documents known as Certificates of Ascertainment of the vote.The certificates must list the names of the electors chosen by the voters and the number of votes received in the popular election results, also the names of all losing candidates for elector, and the number of votes they received. Certificates of Ascertainment, which are often signed by state governors, must carry the seal of the state.One copy is forwarded to the Archivist of the United States(the
The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timelinehttps://crsreports.congress.govArchivist), while six duplicates of the Certificateof Ascertainment must be provided to the electors before the date on which they meet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course there is racism! I just took the USA census, which ENSHRINES racism. My wife is labelled Hispanic, versus non-Hispanic AND that is not even in the question about race. The census OFFICIALLY says Hispanic is NOT a race and then asks a separate question about ones race. You are given "American Indian or Alaska Native", Asian, "Black or African American", "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander", and White. So, a snow white Yakut from northern Siberia and a black southern Indian are "Asian"? LOL! Likewise, someone from Thailand and someone from Turkey are Asian. WTF? Seriously, I would like just ONE person to give a clear and verifiable definition of race that science can agree on. Oh, wait. Science says race doesn't exist. Oh, really? Just ask the BBC, White Supremacists, La Raza, Black Panthers, and other losers who can't figure out that self-selecting CULTURE is nearly everything that defines the vague thing called race.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
shethinksliberty - Face it. You don't have evidence of anything. Even if Bush/Cheney/Saud Family pulled of 9/11, there is no proof. Like the JFK assassination, no matter screwed up it is, there will never be an explanation that can be proven. Move on.
I DO think the biggest problem on 9/11 is what simply happened. It was pretty much the same kind of attack method as in the best-selling book by Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor. The problem with that is the administration said nobody thought that kind of thing could happen. BS. They KNEW it could happen. Now, I am mindful that politics within any bureaucracy can cause outcomes that seem idiotic. So, maybe they just grossly dropped the ball. I don't know. It doesn't matter what I think, or you think. There is NO way you'll be able to confirm your suspicions. Plus, if you try, you're simply trying to fulfill your own prophecy, believing your own press. That's not how you find truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, we don't. Political speech writers at his level are complete sell-outs. They are worse than public affairs people, even the top spokespeople. The latter at least face the public and so their reputations are held to account. Speech writers help politicians and especially dictators like Putin to deceive and succeed, and the speech writer goes unnoticed and suffers no reputational damage. In this video, you are believing what he says. It is lies and half-truths. My, how good of a fellow he looks to be when you listen to describe himself. Of course, he sounds good. He controls the description and sells it you, and you buy it right up, including his statements about how Putin was clearly a good guy at the time. Putin was never a good guy. Nobody who followed him (let alone somebody who wrote his speeches) would have lacked insight into who he was. This guy, though, works in sales via speech writing. He knows if you sell the idea, even to yourself, the story of your idea becomes the narrative and the narrative is what is real to most people, not the (lack of) facts behind it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How about oligarchs stop taking so much for themselves? Humanity is a whole species, Homo Sapiens, not just a few d***heads who dole out crumbs and consider themselves gods. This really applies to the attitude of most humans, though! Most humans are pathetically greedy. There is no need for it, particularly given the impact of trade. If 10 separate people are self-employed in the same trade within the same community, all doing well, there is no need for one of them to corner the market and make all of the other tradespeople work for the one - and work for less. But greedy people say that is the best way. If getting rich means impoverishing a million others, tough luck. Well, until you even consider that attitude and fix the problems it brings, and until our species stops making its own so miserable, why even pretend our species is worth elevating?
1
-
Too help along, one can memorize critical reference numbers. For example, fairly warm is 82 F, which is also 28 C. That is easy to remember - just reverse them! Room temperature is 72 F and 22 C. 60 is 16. For the fools out there who think conversions must be accurate to the decimal, they do not! Unless you are making highly technical decisions. you can even be off by one or two in the singles digit in your conversion. That is because we use these numbers for vague decisions. Let's say, today's high will be 82 F. WHAT does that mean to decision process for the whole day? You probably won't ever be in a location where the temperature is exactly 82. But you have a rough range of temperatures that you will be in and 82 is near or above the maximum. Likewise, you can do the same approximations for arctic or oven temperatures. Likewise for speeds (wind, car, jet, etc.).
I made a table in a Word document showing Celsius and Fahrenheit at easily remembered numbers or levels. The numbers don't always align perfectly, but who cares? Also, for speeds (useful to me for weather observations/forecasts as well as driving).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How can you investigate bad people hiding among the good, if you think organizations that seem to be for good people can't be looked into when reasonable suspicion arises. First let's find out WHAT was done, rather than vague accusations and assumptions. You attribute bad intent to people quite easily. It fits your fear-needing-a-cause agenda, but that doesn't make it right. If you attribute bad intent to people, you better have proof for it, otherwise you're just being slimy. So, why are you accusing the FBI agents of bad intentions? And remember, plenty of people - including MANY high-profile preachers and pastors - have been considered good, even Godly, people before they were proven to be molesters, fraudsters, and other types of criminals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Frank Vera - The coffee maker typically spits out over 195 degrees F. I measured my wife's electric kettle water temperature. Though it cut off after it began boiling, the water in the upper third was still only 198 degrees F (despite all of the turbulent mixing). So, same temps in this case. And measured by two separate thermometers that I've trued against freezing and boiling water. So, they are accurate (and fast response, too).
Certainly, the lower end of the kettle's water mass must have ad patches at 212 degrees F for boiling to occur (we are near sea level), but as those bubbles rise through the water column, the whole thing does not instantly all become 212 F. As far as the chance this is just due to my coffee maker and my electric kettle differences, they function pretty much the same way with their shut-offs AND these devices are often built in just a few ways using the same parts as most other brands. So, really, there is no difference. Plus, for coffee makers, I have measured water temps coming out of several of them (because I wanted proper temps). IIRC, temps in the cheapest ones would be in the 180s while others where in the 190s. Remember, the boiling water forces unboiled water (so not necessarily at boiling temps!) up a tube and then usually the water traverses a dispensing mechanism. This helps to cool the water just a bit more before exiting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@Xargs-kh8uo - Well, I don't know how it helped but glad it did.
As for me, I am NOT dealing with a lot right now, but there is a lot dealing with me because of my failure. So, I finally started revisiting some helping tools - videos on stoicism and motivation, which are not all perfect but certainly remind me to focus on what I control. I can't expect others to help me or care about me. Humanity is not typically heroic and I need to look to myself to help myself. It's not about fair or not fair. It's about what will get me through each moment better.
I guess that applies to those caught in the pollution, too. Fair or unfair, what can they do? For some, it seems not much can be done. But, my being sad about that won''t fix it, so I am moving on to dealing with my own problems now. Hey, good luck! :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Simboiss - I see small countries as having the absolute worst person-level effects of corruption, plus they are simply toys to be played with by larger powers. As for intermediate size countries (regional powers), they may suffer the effects of unbridled local corruption less so, but they must also do without control of their full destiny.
In reality, though, what does it mean for a country to have such control? Who is the country? People behind the scenes dramatically influence how the US is run and we don't even know who they are. Heck, THEY don't know who everyone is, with all sorts of power players doing there own secret things. (Which is what makes conspiracy fantasists so laughable. "The elites" might do a lot, but often they are odds with each other so not one group ever has control or even full awareness. Exceptions might be like how the US got dragged into two multi-trillion dollar wars. For what?)
For all the top-level corruption, it is usually not widespread and so directly personal. The top powers crack down on the oppressive local corruption that is ever more obviously painful to people. In smaller countries, you have more blatant corruption like murder, direct theft, and extortion, with no higher level power to reign it in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For a moment, I felt like the 3-axis Euler's Formula video was helping me to make sense of imaginary numbers. That was a transitory feeling. For me, the spiral in the video shows a CORRELATION, but it does reveal the "nature" of the equation's behavior. IIRC, my earlier eduation on the topic almost 40 years ago was done using infinite series. That showed the exponent series with an imaginary number was the same as the combined series of i*sin and cos or something like that. That was not satisfying for me. either. I feel like Derek's "instruction" is a curse. Divorce your conceptualization from reality and you get the answers describing reality. Yea, well I want things the other way around as well. I want REALITY to DESCRIBE THE ANSWERS. On my deathbed, if there are loved ones around, they hear my last words to be, "Damn you, imaginary numbers! I will see you in hell!" Then they will probably push past the edge with some morphine to put me out of my apparent emotional suffering. You wait, the irony will come full circle as my IMAGINARY future becomes REALITY. Aaaargh!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plenty of people can work and not accomplish their job. For example, the GOP will often intentionally underfund agencies and departments and expect them to reach unreachable goals given the budget. The GOP has often done this with the claim that such failures mean the agencies work should be outsourced to the private sector. Then the lowest bidder gets the job, cuts corners, skims off operational budgets, and the taxpayer has to pay more per service, not less. And it all starts with the government asking people to do more than the budget supports. So, YES, this can happen and does. It happens in the private sector every day as well. Your job ends up including your "stretch goals", "personal development plan", and "putting out fires", all on over time without extra pay. Sometimes it even involves pushing people to failure and acting like such a thing was good management while blaming the employees for being failures. If you had accumulated experience in life, you would know that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1