Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. AI doesn't understand the MAD doctrine...
    5
  2. Well, he only spent ~1/3 of the video addressing the actual Lomi (doing a bit of cherry picking when he finally got to it) and his heavy focus on the bad reviews of other companies' products without using any reviews of the Lomi (which do exist) was an unfair and borderline deceptive inclusion to the argument. While I agree that the product is overpriced and far too inefficient to be as useful as it's promotional stuff makes it out to be, f00t's video really comes across more as a biased, poorly supported, possibly even deceptive hit peice than a proper scientific analysis of their product/claims. With his decent subscriber base and view counts, I might lean a bit toward legal action myself if I were them.
    4
  3. We won't be the biggest for much longer. The EU was catching up nicely and now that we've declared economic war on everyone, I'm sure a lot of our export business will get poached.
    4
  4. Neither are likely to be practical in the long run. For the sodium carbonate idea, he mentioned lowering the acidity of the oceans but overlooked that eventually that will shift the balance too far in the other direction and lead to conditions where CO2 will be start being generated as a byproduct (thus defeating the purpose.) As for anything fusion related, count on it perpetually being twenty years away as it has been for the last 60 ish years or so for at least an additional 60 years.
    2
  5. Sadly, they may have a bit of a case. Minus the obligatory intro stuff, you spent at least ~50% of the video addressing products from other companies (including bad reviews of their products without making a good effort to remind the viewer that they weren't Lomi reviews), went very light on the scientific arguments, especially in context (actual comparison to landfills when it comes to carbon footprint for example, would have been nice), and seem to have done a bit of cherry picking when actually addressing the Lomi itself (for example, you left out the third setting of the product which is the setting they claim can actually be used as compost for plants instead of just being tossed out like usual.) For a video meant to bust Lomi, you should have left the other companies out of it entirely, looked up Lomi's full claimed tech specs, and addressed them with direct scientific arguments and proper context (such as the aforementioned comparison with landfills etc.), While the product does appear to be hot garbage/a scam, the video came across more like an unfocused hit peice than a sound refutation.
    2
  6. Considering their goal is ~5,000 mph which happens to roughly be the escape velocity on the moon, that likely is their real goal.
    2
  7. The original video was so weak in it's argument that there really isn't much if anything to counter-debunk. Barely 1/3 of it addressed the actual product. It's one of the worst/laziest he's ever made.
    1
  8.  @theultimatereductionist7592  Actually, if you speak false about a company's product in a paid sense (asuming he's making money from youtube) that's not necessarily protected. That aside, the parts he picked out of their video, were actually honest advertising. If the consumer is simply stupid, that's not the company's fault. The term compost can have some very vague meanings and the third setting just barely creates a product that will likely be close enough for the law. I don't like defending scumbag companies like Lomi, but I also don't like watching a youtuber who used to be much better at what they did favor snark over proper scientific debunking simply because it gets more views.
    1
  9. "Fair use" might be questionable here. His use of their video had a bit of cherry picking to it (he left out the third setting which is the only one they actually claim can be used as compost for plants rather than just tossed out as usual for example) and made what might be considered deceptive edits (he cut some of the statements made off early which in some cases could be seen as having blurred the context a bit) as well. Not defending their product/claims, just that f00t's original video had it's own legitimacy issues.
    1
  10. It should be pointed out that Howard Lutnick's company owns what was once $300M in Tesla stock and his deadline to divest his holdings (required for his position) expires in mid April. I'm sure his little sales pitch on Fox wasn't an attempt to boost the stock price before he has to sell...
    1
  11. The powerful magnetic fields they use probably wouldn't play well with payloads containing electronics. Such could be shielded but it would likely come at a cost of greater weight/size.
    1
  12. I'll never understand how a scientist can say that we have no non life related method to create phosphine thus it must be a sign of life. It's created industrially through certain reactions between various metals and acids everyday. Two things that Venus most likely has plenty of. Granted, the phosphine detected on Venus was likely a false positive so the above doesn't really matter but for someone who should know better to make such easily debunkable claims is just sad.
    1