Youtube comments of John Luetjen (@jehl1963).

  1. 490
  2. 325
  3. 297
  4. 244
  5. 212
  6. 168
  7. 153
  8. 129
  9. 113
  10. 111
  11. 97
  12. In regards to Patton, you failed to mention the dedication and loyalty that he elicited from his men. My father was an enlisted man in an artillery unit in the 3rd Army, and he and his colleagues loved him! I remember that as a child, my Dad and his best friend (who served in the same unit) made quite an event of going to see the movie Patton when it first came out. If my memory is correct, they went with many other veterans from their unit who lived in the area. He also told me how so many of the troops who served under Patton volunteered for the honor guard at his funeral, that they couldn't all be accommodated. Never the less, they willingly lined the route of his funeral from beginning to end. Patton is often remembered by how he was portrayed by George C. Scott in the 1970 movie "Patton", but this movie was made with extensive input from Patton's rival Omar Bradley, and obviously none from Patton. The resulting movie played up Patton's eccentricities and downplayed his successes, especially when compared to Carl Madden's portrayal of Bradley. In hindsight George C. Scott felt that the movie didn't do Patton justice, which prompted him to reprise the role in the TV movie "The Last Days of Patton" -- which has a far more nuanced performance. Note that no one has ever made a movie about Bradley and the battle of Hurtgen Forest. Long story short -- my Dad never had a bad thing to say about Patton. Quantitatively Patton did advance further, with fewer casualties per mile than his rivals. If you look closely, you'll also see that most of Patton's critics did not serve under him. Many didn't even serve in the Army. I think that these points need to be mentioned in addition to how you described him.
    91
  13. 87
  14. 81
  15. 69
  16. 68
  17. 59
  18. 56
  19. 54
  20. 54
  21. 52
  22. 49
  23. 48
  24. 43
  25. 42
  26. 42
  27. 39
  28. 39
  29. 38
  30. 37
  31. 34
  32. 33
  33. 29
  34. 28
  35. 27
  36. At about 11:00 when you're talking about going to 3rd, or other upper gears -- the thing that I have learned is to not try to over-control the gear shift lever. By this I mean a lot of people grasp the lever with their full hand and then try to feel 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th gears. Even worse, they grasp the knob with their palm over the top. This may work with Ferraris and other cars with exposed gates, but most cars have a boot, and you can't see, and may not be able to feel a gate -- because there may not even be one. The way around this is to use the palm of your open hand to move the lever. So from 2-3 in your car would be done by pushing with your palm straight forward. By not grasping the lever you won't apply any lateral force on the lever and potentially put it into the wrong gear. Instead you allow the spring to do it's job and gently move the shifter from the 1-2 plane to the 3-4 plane of the H. You shift from 3-4 by cupping your fingers around the lever (while NOT grasping it!) and pull the lever straight back. To shift from 4-5 you would use your palm (open hand) to push the lever toward 2:00 o'clock. To shift from 5-6 you backhand (open hand, thumb pointing down) the lever toward 4:00. To go from 6-5, you push the lever toward 2:00 again. From 5-4, you use the cupped fingers of your open hand to pull the lever straight back. From 4-3 you use your palm to push the lever straight forward. From 3-2, you use the cupped fingers of your open hand to pull the lever towards 7:00. To shift into 1st, use the palm of your open hand to push the lever towards 10:00. I learned this technique decades ago driving a Formula Ford, because they don't have gates on their shifters or anywhere else in the linkage. So you shift by pushing the lever in the direction of the gear that you want. It works every time in every car that I've ever driven.
    26
  37. 25
  38. 25
  39. 25
  40. 25
  41. 23
  42. I came across this story a few years ago and found it fascinating. A detail that Drach didn't mention -- across all of the Seeadler's engagements -- only 1 person died. Kapitan Luckner did what duty demanded of him, but apparently he wasn't a huge supporter of the war. More of a gentleman naval officer than gung-ho hero or hard-bitten professional. Another interesting factoid -- there are at least 3 very different accounts of the Seeadler's war. Confusingly, all of which where titled "The Sea Devil". 1) Seeteufel (literally the "Sea Devil") by Graf (Count) Luckner) published in 1921 by K. F. Koeler in Leipzig, Germany. To me the best version since it is the most contemporary. Based on the style and contents, it seems to be heavily based on official after-action reports which the German military commonly published between WW1 and WWII. It contains detailed maps and a large number of pictures which did not make it into the other editions. The downside is that you need to be able to read or translate the German which is printed in a Franken font which was the norm for the period. 2) The Sea Devil by Lowell Thomas and Count Luckner, published in at least 25 printings between 1927 and 1932. A fairly straight forward translation, but many of the pictures from the German edition disappeared, and the maps were reduced in quality. If my memory is correct (it's been a few years since I last read it) it was abridged slightly during the translation. 3) The Sea Devil by Sam Jefferson, published by Osprey Publishing, 2017. This version varies the most from the previous two. The account has been significantly abridged, and extra material has been added by Jefferson. If my memory is correct, he had a relative who was on the auxiliary cruiser HMS Patia which stopped the Seeadler as she was breaking out into the Atlantic. This version of the story is very much a 21st century history narrative. There is relatively little first-hand account left in the book, but there is also considerable backstory and author analysis added. I'm lucky to have all 3 versions, but prefer the 1st two for their 1st-person narratives and details.
    23
  43. 23
  44. 23
  45. 23
  46. 22
  47. 22
  48. 21
  49. 20
  50. 20
  51. 20
  52. 19
  53. 19
  54. 19
  55. 19
  56. 18
  57. 18
  58. 18
  59. 16
  60. 16
  61. 15
  62. 15
  63. 15
  64. 14
  65. 14
  66.  @fordprefect5304  I'm not sure if you are inaccurately attributing the modern idea of a border to the ancient world. Borders in the ancient world tended to be a geographic feature like a river, with occasional guard-houses on the main roads. Nothing like the the Berlin wall. Also, just because politically the Egyptian government didn't get along with the Hittite Government didn't mean that they removed every last Hittite who might be in the land when the boarder moved. There would be traders, nomadic farmers and others who would move around. The Bible doesn't suggest that there were cities of Hittites are anything like that, but rather individuals -- which is why Abraham was referred to as negotiating with Ephron from " the sons of Heth" ( חֵֽת׃ לִבְנֵי־ ), and later in that section Ephron is referred to as "THE Hittite" ( הַחִתִּ֤י). He wouldn't be referred to as "THE Hittite" if there were thousands of Hittites around. Not to mention, as Gilan wrote in his article "Hittites in Canaan", there are relatively numerous Hittite finds in Palestine dating to the empire period, which is unlike other areas outside Anatolia, where their traces are few. For example Hittite cremation burials have also been found near the modern Amman airport -- cremation was unknown among the Canaanites. Hittite jugs were found in a Megiddo tomb dating from about 1600-1200 BCE. A 14th Century BCE Hittite document titled "Deeds of Suppiluliuma" recounts how the "...sons of Hatti, and carried them to Egypt". Note the expression "sons of Hatti", paralleling the Biblical "sons of Heth". Archibald Henry Sayce in 1905 also found Hittite "Trichromatic Cappadocian Ware" in Gezer, -- dated to the 12th Dynasty of Egypt. So the archeology actually does support the Bible in regards to Hittites in Palestine during the 20th to 18th centuries BCE.
    14
  67. 14
  68. 14
  69. 14
  70. 14
  71. 13
  72. 13
  73. 13
  74. To be honest I had a very similar experience with my 986 2.7 (bought with about 100k miles). Knock in the suspension -- by the time I got done, I had pitched everything in the suspension. Replaced everything with stock pieces except the rear toe links, where I bought the adjustable threaded pieces. The replacement parts were not that expensive, and trust me -- pitching the lot was way easier than trying to get some of the old bolts out which had seized from galvanic corrosion. I learned the hard way! But now the suspension is dead straight and completely knock-free. The plastic rear window was nasty so I replaced the roof. I also replaced the stock radio, did the air/oil separator, starter and serpentine belt, and the micro-switch for the roof and the roof's controller. I did all of that work myself which saved a ton of money. Than the clutch went, and that was a few thousand to have replaced, which I paid to have done. Next project is replacing the seat skins. Sure, I've most likely spent as much as I paid for the car, but that is really kind of irrelevant. I've now got a really nice convertible for driving during the warm 9 months ( I also have a hardtop btw). Nothing beats driving the work commute with the roof down and the stereo up. Sure I could have spent 2x my purchase price for a newer or nicer Boxster, but then I'd just have a more expensive car with many of the same issues waiting to be fixed. BTW -- the good news about a Boxster versus various Honda and Mazda drop tops is that the Porsche bodies are galvanized. Barring accident damage to the body, they will not rust! Porsche pioneered the process in 1974, and relatively few other manufacturers (VW/Audi and BMW) do this. Hondas and Mazdas WILL rust. It's just a question of time. Porsches? Nah! (Although the galvanized bodies may contribute to the steel parts corroding in the suspension. Those pesky ions will try to find a place in which to start oxidation. Aluminum oxide is really nasty in bolt holes!)
    13
  75. 13
  76. 13
  77. 12
  78. 12
  79. 12
  80. 12
  81. 12
  82. 12
  83. 12
  84. 12
  85. 11
  86. 11
  87. 11
  88. 11
  89. Very interesting and well presented. Having been a "Travelling Salesman", and managed inventory in warehouses, I think I'm qualified to provide a real-world response to the idea of using quantum computing to calculate the ideal solution to those problem. Yes, it can and and will do so, "...but at the end of the day..." it's most likely not going to make a world-changing improvement? Why? Because of diminishing returns, and the corollary to the idea of "diminishing returns", which is "other factors". Diminishing returns: Having planned my daily sales routes using different software packages, I quickly came to the conclusion that it is far simpler -- and just as effective -- to avoid planning bad routes. Mathematically -- if there are N! possible routes for N stops to be made, there are usually just a few "bad" routes. For example always moving from one stop to the furthest available next stop. Don't do that! Once you have eliminated the bad routes, the rest of the routes often have very similar values, and the downside risk of picking any of them is very small. So "at the end of the day", it doesn't matter which you pick since the difference between them may only be a few minutes of travel time. And given that any particular customer visit may have a variance of 10-15 minutes, saving a minute in travel time will not make a difference in the time that you arrive back at the hotel at the end of the day. This brings me to the "other factors". In a world where optimization yields diminishing returns, other factors can quickly trump the benefits of sophisticated optimization techniques. In the example given above, a talkative customer, or maybe some unexpected news of a potentially big deal (which is why I was visiting customers in the first place!) may cause me to chuck my day's plan in order to spend more time with that customer. In the case of warehousing, you may spend countless hours calculating the ideal locations for parts based on their size, weight, value and projected activity level, only to be faced with stocking the next fad product (Look! Pet rocks! A Mood ring! Slime!!!) which will suddenly cause you to throw the whole scheme out and start again. It is impossible to predict the next fad product, in either the commercial realm, nor in industrial products. There is a world of unknowns out there waiting to jump up at some unpredictable time and ruin your ideal solution. So maybe the best solution is to not get too heavily invested in any solution, and instead focus on avoiding the stupid solutions. This could be summed up by saying "Just don't do anything stupid". There are evolutionary benefits to just not getting yourself fired/killed/eliminated, and living to fight another day.
    11
  90. 11
  91. A Maroon '89 XL with a 5sp manual transmisision, 2WD and the limited slip option was the first new car that I ever bought. To my taste, it was under-sprung in the rear so I added some helper leaf springs (which cost maybe $50 at the time). These went a long way to preventing the rear end from falling over in sharp turns, and kept the whole car more stable. Even with the 2WD, it never got stuck in the snow thanks to the Limited slip. It had the same interior as this one. (Oh! The happy memories!) To me, with that set-up it had fairly sporty handling (for a front engine, rear wheel drive vehicle with a solid rear axle and leaf springs) as long as you didn't do anything completely stupid with it. Folks! It's a short wheelbased vehicle with a higher center of gravity than your average hot-hatch! Don't try to drive it like an MR2!!! The engine was an improved version of the Cologne V6 which was used in numerous Capris. If my memory is correct, I would get mid- to upper 20's over a tankful. I even towed my FF, or the family's boat with it, although a sway control was needed due to the short wheelbase. Ultimately I wore out the transmission and ended up donating it to charity after ~120K miles. The ride was very comfortable over rough Boston city streets and various dirt roads. Everything except for the transmission was still in fine shape. Also the small footprint made parking it in Boston surprisingly easy. I loved that vehicle! As far as the stability, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Ultimately the reputation of roll-overs killed it even though I'd be hard pressed to believe that it was any worse than the Samurai, CJ-7 or the Toyota 4-Runner, and other similar products of the time. I suspect that there was a bit of momentum generated, just as had occurred with the Audi sudden acceleration syndrome and other vehicles that caught up in crowd stampedes. Don't be confused. It was a great car!
    11
  92. 11
  93. 11
  94. 10
  95. 10
  96. 10
  97. 10
  98. 10
  99. 10
  100. 10
  101. Maybe they were talking specifically about British Knights, but a couple of other points (possibly more relevant to continental knights where I've done more reading)... 1) Knights were also required to provide a specific number of infantry for their liege from their district. So they were recruiting and training resources for their superiors. No knights, no infantry. In some cases these infantry could provide mutual support to the mounted knight, much like infantry support tanks (and vice-versa) in a modern battlefield. 2) Through-out history, warfare is a constant "game" of Paper/scissors/stone. The thing that knights had which infantry didn't was battlefield mobility. For example, a mounted unit could quickly move to attack an uncovered flank. Mounted knights could get there and do significant damage while infantry were still trying to move into position. That being said, having the right types of troops (cross-bowman or soldiers trained and equipped with long pikes) could defeat knights if used properly and if they were in the right location. But as you mention, if those troops were used improperly or were out of position -- knights could defeat them. 3) Also charging knights used a concept of "shock action" against unmounted troops. This was a combination of intimidation (Oh my - I'm about to be run over by a charging knight!) and physical inertia (1200 lbs of horse and rider travelling at 20mph = 6.0432 watt hours of energy) to break a line of unmounted troops. Once they had penetrated an opponent' lines, they could move laterally to "roll-up" the defenders, continue forward to attack the opponent's rear areas and support resources, or else turn around and make another attack from the rear. Many of these concepts still applied even into the 20th century.
    9
  102. 9
  103. 9
  104. 9
  105. 9
  106. 9
  107. 9
  108. 9
  109. 9
  110. 9
  111. 9
  112. 9
  113. Speaking of "What most people miss about the Battle of the Somme", I find it curious and frustrating that even after 100 years, one-sided "histories" like this are still being created. It takes 2 sides to have a battle. In this video the German contribution to the battle is reported with about as much interest as the weather. Throwing out a round half-a-million casualty figure for the Germans when most German sources give a smaller number doesn't put the historicity of this video in the best light. The German regiments at the Somme are known, many of their histories are even available on-line, and many of them report the names and dates for their casualties. For example the German Marine Infantry Regiment fought at Courcelette during the month of October 1916 after being pulled out of the line in on the coast to reinforce the German troop resources at The Somme. They suffered 180 seesoldats killed, out of a 16 companies with a total nominal strength of most likely a bit less than 4000 men. The names, dates and places of death for those 180 men are are reported in the back of the regimental history. From a Historical Scholarship perspective, it would be good if the English would compare notes with their French and German counterparts so that a more complete historical picture could be compiled. At this point in time, I really expect more from an institution with the status of the Imperial War Museum. I'd say that this oversight is a "pretty big miss" on the part of the Imperial War Museum. On the plus side, the production quality of the video was well done.
    9
  114. 9
  115. 8
  116. 8
  117. 8
  118. 8
  119. 8
  120. 8
  121. 8
  122. 8
  123. 8
  124. 8
  125. 8
  126. 8
  127. 7
  128. 7
  129. 7
  130. 7
  131. 7
  132. 7
  133. 7
  134. 7
  135. 7
  136. 7
  137. 7
  138. 7
  139. 7
  140. 7
  141. 6
  142. 6
  143. 6
  144. 6
  145. 6
  146. 6
  147. 6
  148. 6
  149. 6
  150. 6
  151. 6
  152. 6
  153. 6
  154. 6
  155. 6
  156. 6
  157. 6
  158. 6
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 5
  162. 5
  163. 5
  164. 5
  165. 5
  166. 5
  167. 5
  168. 5
  169. 5
  170. 5
  171. 5
  172. 5
  173. 5
  174. 5
  175. 5
  176. 5
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. 4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. 4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. Well presented. It might also be helpful to look at the authors of the different gospels. The "synodical" gospels were written by people who we would now describe as "historians". The identity of The author of the Gospel of Matthew is traditionally associated with the apostle Matthew, although this has been debated even in the early Church. The early church leader Papias (c. 130) is referred to in Eusebius with a passage that he "collected the "logia" (oracles or gospels) in the Hebrew language (or potentially the "Hebrew style"). There are many parts of that Gospel which fit that description. But the implication is that he collected and collated a number of accounts from the Hebrew accounts. The author of the Gospel of Mark is also attributed by the same Papias. Papias claims that a man by the name of John Mark wrote the Gospel based on the reminiscences of the Peter. Keep in mind Peter spent his later years in Rome (after ca. 45), and the Gospel would been written during or after that time. This is most likely the same Mark who is referenced in the Epistle 1 Peter 5:13. The author of the Gospel of Luke is also not directly attributed, but the openings of the Gospel of Luke, and Acts makes clear that the two books are regarded as 2 volumes of the same work. There are a number of references to "we" in the books of Acts (Acts 16:10-17, Acts 27:1- 28:16) which can be cross-referenced to Paul's letters, and he was with him at those times. These point to a many by the name of Luke as the author. The Gospel of John on the other hand is a completely different thing. First, the author claims to have been an actual disciple of Jesus, and a trustworthy witness to the things that he described (see John 21:24). So this cuts the potential list down to less than 11 people. Secondly, the author of John consistently writes one of the disciple's name out of the account, instead repeatedly referring to "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This description was traditionally used to refer to the disciple John in the early Church. But in addition to that there are a number of details in John which don't appear in the other Gospels, the types of details which generally would be known only by someone who was there. After from the theological introduction, John's Gospel starts with an account of the actions of John the Baptist, and include a number of quotes. It then goes on to describe John the Baptist seeing Jesus for Jesus's baptism. Finally it describes that John the Baptist was at a place with 2 of his disciples -- one of whom is described as Andrew (Simon Peter's brother) and the other is unnamed. Via Andrew Jesus recruited Peter. Then the recruiting of Philip and Nathanial, but the un-named disciple remains un-named. But the Synodical Gospels all say that the earliest converts were Andrew, Peter, James and John (for example see Mark 1:16-20). So that would put the mystery person as either James or John. There are also other subjects in John's Gospel which are not covered in the others -- including the Wedding at Cana. This is significant because it is the first of many references in John's Gospel to personal events or conversations by Mary the mother of Jesus. Why are these points about Mary significant? Because by many accounts (and potentially some physical evidence) the Apostle John took care of Mary after the death of Jesus. For example, from the cross, Jesus looked at Mary and "The disciple whom he loved" and said "Dear woman, here is your son", and than to that disciple "Here is your mother". This is generally understood as directing this disciple to take care of Mary from that time on, and this exchange is not recorded in the other Gospels, but the author saw fit to include it in this Gospel. It's the kind of detail which would be remembered by the participants. According to the early church historians Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century), John and Mary lived in Ephesus until her death, and his. While her death is not recorded, tradition records her having a tomb there. Other traditions put her house in Jerusalem, but these also date to the 4th century. There is nothing that prevents her having lived in both locations at some time during her life. The the important point is her connection in later life to the disciple John, and as a result the inclusion of some details that only she would have known in the Gospel attributed to the disciple John. John also records the prayers of Jesus in the Garden, something that would only have been heard by Peter, James and John since it is recorded in Mark that those were the only 3 disciples with him when he prayed. So in regards to the timing of Jesus death, it's quite likely that the account in the Gospel of John 10:50 is a 1st person account. This would also explain the almost word-by-word account of what was said at the last supper and the evening of Jesus's arrest. (John 13-17) So I would potentially apply a little more weight to the Gospel of John for the date of Jesus' s death this he was most likely there in person for the event.
    3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. Lovely car. I have one just like it. Aside from technologically dated items (i.e. the ignition system) the cars were very well put together, and the engines were pretty under stressed. Most of the issues that I've found with my car were inflicted by a previous owner (or myself!). The clutch was most likely one of the weak links (although adequate), and was redesigned to a completely different concept ("push-type") in 1970 to deal with the increased torque of the 2.2 liter engines. I suspect that the original owner would "ride the clutch" or rest their left foot on the clutch pedal, thus prompting it's failure in just a few thousand miles. If treated correctly, the clutch should be good for 10's of thousands of miles if not almost 100k miles. Being a Porsche owner, I have to nit-pick. Both the 911R and the '69 911E were both 2.0 liter cars. But the '69E's MFI system was specifically tuned for the E's engine configuration. It couldn't adjust itself to changes in the configuration (such as the different exhaust) without being specifically retuned. I doubt that the rich running has anything to do with the cold-start function which is completely unrelated to the exhaust. The original cold start enrichment feature was fairly nasty, and just pours raw fuel down the intake trumpets. What could go wrong with that?! Most were quickly deactivated. The '69's are actually very easy to rig a manual cold start enrichment (just like the factory race cars). Manually applying 12v to the enrichment solenoid will peg the MFI rack full rich and allow the car to start easily, and then disconnecting that 12 volts will allow the MFI to return to it's normal tuning after the engine is starting. Starting in 1970 the MFI was updated to do away with the raw fuel feature, and used a completely different cold start concept.
    3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. All in all a very well presented discussion of the subject. There were a few places where I was going to stop and start typing a rebuttal, but then you got to the point that I was going to say anyhow. In the end, I think this subject represents a microcosm of all of our existences. As someone wiser than me once pointed out: "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." Keeping this universal plight in mind, it's also important that we refrain from trying to remove the speck from others' eyes when we are blinded by the log in our own eye. It's easy to preach to others about making greener choices that they should make -- as we look down on them from our SUV that is carrying merely a driver. Coal miners do not risk their lives deep in the earth merely because they don't care about the environment. They are also serving others who cannot access an affordable form of energy with which to heat their homes in the winter. Many of those involved in the realm of "Green causes" are more concerned with being seen as being a great person in front of a great cause, while they knowingly hide lies and deceit in the calculations that they know others won't or can't check. In the end we are sharing a journey on this small planet travelling through a vast and inhospitably universe. When we have the opportunity to help others, please do so. Don't willingly hurt others. Don't be greedy. Be loving and supporting of those you find around you, and appreciate others who do the same.
    3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290.  @fordprefect5304  Hermann Genz has documented how the Hittite finds in Palestine from the Hittite Empire period are comparatively numerous compared to other areas outside of central Anatolia. Amihai Mazar also notes several artifacts in his book "Archaelogy of the Land of the Bibile: 10,000-586 BCE". In 1976 a mortuary building was excavated at the Amman Airport which appears to have been used for adult cremation. The structure dated to the empire period and showed Hittite influence. Cremation was unknown among the people of Canaan, but was practiced by Indo-Europeans, including the Hittites. Other artifacts also have been found. There is for example "The Deeds of Suppliluliuma" which tells of how in the past "the storm-god took the people of Kurusutamma, sons of Hatti, and carried them to Egypt". Sayce also documented via "trichromatic Cappadocian ware" the presence of Hittites in the Southern Levant as early as the 12th Dynasty of Egypt. Fundamentally, you seem to base your conclusion on "the complete impossibility (of Hittites in the Levant) as Egypt controlled Canaan and they were mortal enemies". But were they? We all know about the battle at Megiddo, but the conflict between the Egyptians and the Hittites occurred over about only 200 years in time. We're talking about a 1000 years of history. You seem to exclude the possibility of individuals living in each other's territory before or after that period. You also are assuming water-tight borders, which I'm not sure the evidence supports. In fact there are later Hittite texts that suggest that they had issues maintaining control over borders. Certainly after the treaty of Kadesh there were friendlier relations between the two powers. There are also numerous attestations of individuals or small groups migrating to another territory -- whether it be Abram moving from the Chaldean city of Ur to Canaan, all the way up to Roman times. For example Joshua and Judges describes that the children of Israel dwelt among the Cannanites, the Hittites, Amorites, Periizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, and took their daughters to be their wives and gave their own daughters to their sons. Whether it be traders leaving a delegation in a foreign land, to farmers looking for new land to settle, ancient people seem to have been far more mobile than we give them credit for. Given the archeological evidence I mentioned earlier, it seems clear that there were certainly some culturally Hittite people in the Levant at that time, even if they were a minority. Going back to the biblical references, there is also a subtle story arc of the Hittites recorded in the biblical texts -- something that it's doubtful that myth-writers 1000-500 years later would have included. For example, during the time of the patriarchs (and only during this time) the Hittites are referred to as "children of Heth", "sons of Heth" and "daughters of Heth". Note that this name "Heth" is recorded both biblically and in Egyptian hieroglyphs. This aligns with a time before the Hittite Empire had fully consolidated, even though they were the predominant ethnic group on the Anatolian plateau. Later in the Bible during the mid-17th century Old Kingdom era, they are referred to collectively as "Hittites", which aligns with the height of the singular Hittite empire. Then later in the 1st millennium, Solomon is described as interacting with "all the kings of the Hittites", which aligns with the fragmented late Hittite period. So there seems to be considerable written and physical evidence that is at odds with the statement upon which you based your conclusion.
    3
  291. 3
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300.  @joel2421  Thanking about this further, I agree that ON THE FACE OF IT, the 3/5 compromise sounds like the slaves were only 3/5 of a human -- which sounds aweful. But if you look past the title of the compromise, you'll see that it was actually a clever way to limit the ability of the slave states to claim the political power of their slave populations in the new government without allowing the slaves to actually vote. Thus if slaves had been counted as 5/5 of a person, the slave owners in the slave states would have effectively had the power to vote 100% of the slaves' votes. Ideally the non-slave states wanted the slaves to be omitted from the population when apportioning members of the House of Representatives since at that time the slaves had no political power in the slave states, and there was nothing that the non-slave states could do about that (each state was responsible for its own laws). So in a clever compromise, they reduced the impact of the slave population when apportioning representatives, which reduced the power of slave states in the new government that they were negotiating to create. This gave the non-slave states MORE POWER, to ultimately reduce the institution of slavery. But we digress. The 3/5 compromise only had a knock-on effect on the Electoral college in regards to the number of electors apportioned to each state. The creation of the Electoral College had everything to do with getting the smaller states (4/5 of whom were NOT slave states) to sign-on to the constitution, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be steam-rolled by larger (largely slave owning) states. So in a back-handed way, the creation of the Electoral College actually reduced the power of the slave states. Maybe we're in violent agreement, but I'm not getting that vibe from what you're saying.
    2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. It's amazing that when you learn, and start to use math -- you can suddenly start to see through many of these schemes. The point of controlling carbon emissions is not to save the planet. In the planet's relatively recent past (lets say that last 10s of millions of years) the carbon content of our atmosphere was far higher, and it wasn't the end of the Earth. In fact it eventually came down to current levels without human intervention. The point of controlling carbon emissions is that it is an excuse for some people to tell you and I what we need to do, and along they way they can indulge their fantasy that they are saving the world -- from us. But I digress -- back to math. Now that you understand the math, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian civil engineer, sociologist, economist and political scientist. Along with introducing the world of economics to rigorous math, he also left us with a certain profound observation which bears his name: The Pareto principle. This simply observed that in an economy -- any economy -- that 80% of the wealth belonged to 20% of the population. This applies as much to modern Sweden or Cuba as it does to the US and 19th century Italy. But this observation holds true far beyond the realm of economics and political science. If you are looking at carbon emissions for example, as you observed -- 80% of the emissions come from ~20% of the emitters. If people were actually serious about cutting carbon emissions, they would focus in on those 20% of the emitters and see that we get a change from them -- say a 50% reduction. This is far more effective and doable (and cheaper) than trying to restructure the world's economy to eliminate internal combustion engines. But it's not very glamorous since it involves the detailed study of the mechanics and economics of container ships. Such study would require once again -- lots of math! And math tends to scare off the political types.
    2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. I'm not sure if you really answered the question that you started with Sabine. Given the entropy of the universe, I get how their can be eddies of lower entropy (galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) which over time will decay down to fewer microstates. But Humans seem to stand uniquely in opposition to this (at least in the short term). Somehow, in spite of the entropy in our solar system, life formed on earth, which was managed and controlled by about 6331 proteins. Somehow, the random and chaotic order of these 6331 proteins arranged themselves correctly to initiate the process which produces hemoglobin. As improbable as this sounds, it happened over and over again, and eventually we went from this improbable microstate to one where there are now 3.2 billion base pairs arranged in such a way as to repeatedly produce humans -- how probable was this micro-state over a billion years ago when those first genes were producing hemoglobin. As improbable as humans are, consider the Australian Lungfish, which has 43 billion base pairs. What were the chances of this microstate occurring? How about of both Humans and Lungfish occurring at the same time? I find these statistics very daunting when people argue that we exist due natural, random processes. If this was the case -- where is everybody??? Thankfully, our 3.2 billion base pairs somehow arranged themselves into a Sabine Hossenfelder, who seems to be uniquely equipped on the internet to present science in a language that others can understand. This should be my mic-drop moment, but instead I'll tip my hat to Sabine for all that she does to raise the quality of the discussion of science.
    2
  389. 2
  390. I feel your pain Sabine, and respect your opinions. But many of these discussions are just getting out of hand as far as the fear mongering. If it's any consolation, let's start with the basics: in the long run we're all dead. Let's just deal with the stuff that we can deal with today -- love one another, help each other out. Don't lie, murder, steal or take what (or who) isn't yours. Now scientists and "learned people" since at least Thomas Malthus have been predicting the end of civilization for about 250 years. He's been wrong every one of them. We're still here and doing better than ever. People adapt and adjust. They work together and invent solutions. We always have since the dawn of time. Ironically it's when people try to reorganize free society to put themselves in charge so that they can lead us to the only safe future that things go wrong. Inevitably they get ahead by selling a fearful future and creating anxiety. History inevitably shows that they didn't know the future, they were just greedy to get their hands on other people and their stuff. Take a moment, hug your kids and be happy that you've been given today to spend with them. None of us knows what tomorrow will bring. Life is too short to be angry all of the time. Let's use the brains that we've been given and rationally look at facts. This whole idea of "climate consensus" and "aggregating competing models" is hogwash. You've said so much yourself. If this model that you describe is better than the rest, let's discard the rest to start with. Then let's let the great minds get to work on testing or disproving this new model until it's either broken or improved. In the meantime the rest of us will read the papers, stick our hands out to determine if it's raining, and put-on or take-off a coat if today will be warmer or cooler than yesterday.
    2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. I think that the fundamental problem is that to date, Lotus has been "bringing a knife to a gunfight" in the business of selling cars. By way of explanation, let me first point people to the semiconductor industry where people may know some of the the big names like Intel, Analog Devices, Qualcom, Apple and so on. Do these companies make the best products? Not necessarily -- but they do have a constant stream of products coming out so that if one is a dog, another one will be out next month, and another next quarter. Yes. Software companies work the same way. So the secret is not being able to come up with the best product, but to be able create a process for developing successful products over and over again, and managing that product line. Moving back to the automotive world -- 26 years ago Porsche was a company with one and a half products -- They had the 911(993) and the placeholder 968. Really not much better that Lotus today. But when Wendelin Wiedekin took over, Porsche started to take an modern view of product management. It's not about coming out with a hit product, but having a managed pipeline of products stretching into the future. First Porsche took the clever approach of developing the 986/996 together to share development costs. They staggered the release dates and set each on a 3 and ~6 year cycle. While everyone complained that the Boxster/Cayman products were being held back, they missed the point that the goal isn't to build the perfect car, but a platform onto which could be hung improvements which would be released on a regular cycle. Meanwhile the 911 had the same thing happening on it's product line. While neither car was perfect, they sold a lot of them which generated revenue to develop new models. More importantly they continuously keep getting closer to perfection. If you don't like this year's model, wait until you see the next update! This way when Porsche misses the mark a bit (no-manual transmissions, 4-cylinder turbos, etc) it's not the end of the world. They just assess their options and fix the issue on one of the future releases. It gave them options. Recognizing the electric writing on the wall, they made the 4-cylinder turbos so that they could fit a hybrid motor into the existing space. Now they have the best of both worlds with the entry level 4-cylinders ready to go hybrid and they can now charge extra for the 6-cylinder motor in the GTS/GT4 line. On top of this you can layer the support that they provide to the Porsche owners clubs, the new product line for legacy parts, Porsche corrals at motorsports events, clothing and accessories and so on, and you wind up product development juggernaut that is Porsche today. This is how Lotus needs to be thinking about their upcoming products while they still have time.
    2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. You make the assumption that "Capitalists" are a few super-rich people, as Marx always imagined them. The fact of the matter is that we're all capitalist. Anyone with a retirement account, (in the US) a 401K or an IRA, or even people who are invested in pension funds are capitalists. Also Capitalists depend on people willingly buying their products. If there are no customers, then there will be no capitalists. You also tend the make the traditional Marxist assumption that absolutely everything depends on workers getting paid, but you ignore the impact of price reductions for the goods that everyone consumes. In the end, people don't get paid because they "deserve" a job, but because they earned a job. Value is created by what people contribute. Things which are created at little or no cost end up having little or no value. Does anyone think twice about how they acquire or use a toothpick? If AI can manufacture widgets cheaper than any other method, then the marginal costs (and prices) of widgets will plummet and they will become ubiquitous, if not valueless. This is why just printing money doesn't help people, it just devalues the money (aka: Inflation). A "Universal Basic Income" is the same as printing money and giving it people. The more money you give out, the less value the money has. So the value of that money when you exchange for a good goes down, meaning you have to spend more money for the same good. Inflation! The solution will remain the same as it always has: find a job where you can contribute, save your money and invest it wisely. You'll be OK. And by the way, take Sam Altman's (and other "Thought Leaders") musings as a grain of salt. They are opinions. Everyone has them. Kind of like (fill in your favorite body part). They take no effort to create, and they are ubiquitous, so economically speaking they have little marginal value.
    2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. Hi Matt; a long-time viewer of your channel, with good reason. You've done some great work with charting. But to paraphrase Queen Gertrude -- "The narrator doth protest too much". If you have to spend 1/3 of your video explaining to the viewer why they need to toss the bronze age bible out the window as a historical reference, you might be trying to hard too explain your own biases. For example, there is a glaring omission in the check-marks on your chart at 8:24. This omission is the bronze age Hittites. The Bible accurate describes the arc of the Hittite empire(s), including names of some of the leaders, the geography of the empire and many other things. Prior to the mid-19th century there was no -zero, none, zilch - historical attestation of the Hittites. Neither the Latin nor the Greek texts mentioned them. It was only in the Bible that they were mentioned. That is until their sites were finally excavated, and their texts translated in the late 19th and 20th century when we discovered that the biblical descriptions of the Hittites was indeed accurate. It's important to note that the biblical references were also not specifically about the Hittites, but generally mention them passing. So the biblical writers wrote about them as supporting characters. They didn't really care about the Hittites. But the names, geography and the arc of the Hittites culture matches the biblical references. This is an example of where the Bronze age history as recorded in the Bible was nuts-on , without even trying. So to dismiss the Bronze age history as recorded in the Bible out-of-hand displays a bit of modern hubris. Even if it was written in the Iron Age, those writers were 3000 years closer to the events than modern historians. So the failure of modern historians to confirm the bronze age events in the Bible does not mean that the records of the Bronze age in the Bible are failures.
    2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. For the first time I've had to give you a "thumbs down".   I expected better from you guys, especially being "car-guys".1) In the United States there is the presumption of innocence.  You (or in this case VW) is innocent until proven guilty -- or have you forgotten?2) Have the test results claimed by the accusers (specifically some "Clean air advocates") been independently validated.3) Why are you talking about particulates?  A simple look at the exhaust pipe (and a wipe of a finger)will review that the average VW TDI is far superior to most cars when it comes to particulates.4) The accusation is about NOx.  Everyone throws around 10x to 40x.  Of what? When? 5) I have yet to see any facts about the accusation.  Under what conditions did the TDI's fail the test? (Temperature/accelerator position/load/engine speed/etc.)  6) Were the failures spikes or steady state?  Where the failures measured cumulatively, or just instantaneously?7) The standards that the EPA is enforcing -- how did they come about?  Are they based on an act of congress?  Most people don't know that the current standards are a 95% reduction in NOx since 2004. 8) Most people mention all of the VW/Audi 2.0 TDI diesels in one breath.   Actually VW has two different pollution control strategies -- the smaller cars (Golf, Beatle, Jetta) do not use Urea solutions (aka: DEF or Ad Blue), while the Passat and some of the Audis do because of the higher loads on the engines.   The DEF is specifically formulated to cause a chemical reaction that changes NOx into Nitrogen, Water and Carbon Dioxide.  Were the car(s) tested equipped with DEF? Was the system functioning as designed?Considering this who process is being managed by the EPA who caused the massive arsenic spill in your state of Colorado, I would be very cautious about taking their proclamations at face value.
    1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. I question the idea that global warming in the atmosphere could cause a breakdown in the AMOC. The math doesn't seem to hold up. Given first that the thermal capacity of air is 700 Joules per kg per °K, and the thermal capacity of seawater is about 4000 Joules per kg per °K (at 25°C and 35 g/kg salinity), or about 5.7x greater. Than you take into account that the atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10^18 kg, while the oceans have a mass of about 1.426x10^21 kg ( about 277x the mass of the atmosphere). Multiply both of these out and you will find that the oceans have about 1579 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. This would lead me to believe that an average 1°C increase in the atmosphere's temperature as claimed by many Climate Change alarmists (or even a 10°C increase) will have a negligible impact on the temperature of the oceans. On the other hand, even a small change in the temperature of the oceans will have a significant impact on the Earth's air temperature. You can experience this personally if you go to the shore in Maine in the summertime. Within a mile or two of the cool ocean the air temperatures can often be 5°C cooler than further inland. On the other hand, warm summer days in Maine don't make much of a dent in the cold water temperatures. This would lead me to believe that any warming of the Earth's atmospheric temperatures are most likely the result of changes ocean temperatures, rather than changes in the CO2 levels within the atmosphere. To put it differently, it would seem far more likely that changes in the AMOC are causing the recent temperatures seen on the land masses on both sides of the North Atlantic (warmer or otherwise), as opposed to the AMOC breaking down due to increases in air temperature.
    1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. I'm not so sure if this is as much a judicial issue (as opposed to executive or legislative as you mentioned) as it is a question of civil law versus criminal law. Criminal law relates to offenses against the state -- which are referred to as crimes. Civil law on the other hand refers to offenses between non-governmental entities (referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant). Long story short, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. It then goes to civil court to be settled. This is a massive improvement over the old system which generally required matching pistols, pointy objects or sometimes just bare knuckles. So the fact that scientists got sued should neither be a surprise nor offensive. It's just indicative of the fact that the dispute could not be resolved by other means. Keep in mind that civil law also has different rules for settling affairs, and different standards by which decisions are made. The "contempt of court" issue on the other hand is a criminal affair, and it's use to silence someone who is not a participant in a court trial would be a dubious act in the US, but may be different in other countries. In the US, this is being discussed in the case of Donald Trump being sued by the State of NY for a civil offense... (Yes, at least to a non-lawyer like me this sounds somewhat questionable since if it involves a State, but is not being settled via a criminal trial. It's clear that this venue was chosen as there are different rules and standards for evidence and decisions in civil court since it is nominally between equals as opposed to a state and an individual citizen. But I digress)...and a decision has been made by the court to restrain the odorous speech of Donald Trump, who is the defendant in the trials. Note that this injunction on his free speech is being applied to a participant in the trial, and has limitations on it. What you report of a British court reaching out to a non-participant in a foreign country (even though a subject of the British king) to restrain their speech is a totally alien concept to someone from the US. But as I said, your local laws may be different. Anyhow, the fact that a private group of chiropractics is suing a private scientist for defamation is not surprising nor alarming. What would be alarming is if these two parties were to try to settle the dispute at 12 paces with pistols.
    1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. Really -- this is nothing new. In the decades that I've been a Porsche fan and part of the market there are a few truisms that should be kept in mind: 1) A fool and their money are soon separated. There are always going to be some people (others may call them "suckers") who will wind up buying high and selling low. It's just part of free markets. Those people will inevitably end up selling out at a loss, and someone else can get a good deal -- let's call them the wise buyer. Note to self -- don't be a "sucker"! 2) Many (but notably not all!) Porsche sellers suffer from what I call "Holy Icon Syndrome". What is this? The belief that even though they bought something manufactured by Porsche for $X, that inevitably it is now worth $1.5X when they are selling -- as if they believe that any potential buyer was born yesterday. You see it on the 1-owner GT's, and you see it on on used parts on EBay. It's like they believe that there was some magic imparted on the piece by virtue of their ownership. So what to do? This brings me to point 3) Porsche is very good managing the growth in value and performance of their cars. They've done it since the 60's (although they are better at it now!). If you look at the progression you'll notice that (for example) a 996 GT3 has similar performance to 991 Carrera, although the 991 is going to have more weight as a result of the substantial increase in features. Looking at the (US, asking) prices, you'll see that a nice PCA member owned 991 Carrera can be found for $60K - $70K. A 996 GT3 from the similar market can be bought for ~$85K. There are a lot more 991 Carreras than 996 GT3s, but GT3s are also a bit more demanding to live with in regards to ride comfort, noise, features etc. So there is a performance price point - 0-100 kph in 4.5 seconds for about $70K (+/- $10K). The same applies to most models of 911 going back to the long-hood days. Many may not remember that there was a time when long-hoods were almost disposable because the Carrera 3.2's or 993s were so much better and faster. Eventually (decades down the road) the prices will start to go up again because of limited numbers of survivors, and nostalgia. If you want to get a good price (value) on a Porsche, buy them when they're about 20 years old. At that point even the "Hot" models will start to be eclipsed by Porsche's current offerings, they will be depreciated but still wonderful cars to drive and enjoy. They will be no worse to drive than when they were new if well maintained. If you "buy and hold" (always the best long term investing strategy), you'll quite likely make some money on selling it if you keep it in good condition. So unless your brother-in-law is a Porsche dealer, I'd argue that the most financially rational way to buy a Porsche is to deal in cars which are about 20 years old. At the end of the day, it's fans like myself who prop-up the bottom end of the used market which make all of the high prices for newer cars possible.
    1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836.  @andyjarman4958  Just to clarify regarding my comment on Doggarland, the Germanics that I was referring to were the peoples moving into the Continental European North Sea coastal area, as well as Norway and Sweden. The default position put forward by Bede is that these Germanics only made it to Britain in any number after the Romans left in the 400's. A couple of hundred years later it is well documented that a second wave of Germanic speakers (known as the Vikings) arrived. Andy; I'm still waiting for you to cite some sources supporting the position that you're taking. So far all that I've seen is an ad hominem attack on the "Venerable Bede". Given that he was living within a couple of hundred years after of the events that he was documenting, and had access to documentation that we do not, that is a pretty strong position to try to overturn. Sitting here 1600 years later, I don't yet see how your word is more conclusive than his. I'll grant you that there was undoubtably some biases in his account, but nowhere near enough to throw the account out wholesale. But if you are going to argue that we should, I'd at least expect you to provide some accounts from the Migration era that contradict Bede's. So far I haven't see any. You'll also need to explain how Bede was to write such a detailed piece of fiction, given that I'm not aware of any such literary style being known at that time. He gives names, places and numbers, which is very different than -- let's say -- Le Morte d'Arthur. You'll also have a difficult task trying to refute the DNA data documenting the migration of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians to Britain during the Migration period: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663#:~:text=The%20present%2Dday%20English%20owe,to%20the%20Anglo%2DSaxon%20period. I'd be interested to see what sources and evidence you can provide aside from merely citing gaps in the default position that the Bede is largely accurate.
    1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. Nowadays most big name car manufactures build cars that will long out-last most people's interest in owning them. Even after taking into account the current automobile inventory shortage created by the semiconductor shortage, a "recent" used car is still your most efficient purchase. Long term ownership is still cheaper and more efficient than leasing. Purchasing a new car will stick you with a large depreciation loss in value as soon as you drive it off the lot, which gradually becomes less meaningful the longer you own the car. Buying a car that someone else just depreciated winds up being the best deal. If you buy a recent lease return (AKA: CPO), you'll still even get a year or two of warranty on the car. But for even less money you can buy a ~4 year old car with maybe 50,000 miles/80,000 KM which will still have about another 100k miles (160k KM) of life in it -- but factor a few thousand dollars for repairs in the first couple of years due to deferred maintenance and hidden issues. As far as diesel versus gas, that has a lot to do with the price at the pump for each -- remember, a diesel gets about 30% more miles per gallon than a gasoline car. The price generally depends on how your government(s) chose to tax the fuel, some tax diesel more, some tax gasoline more. Hybrids seem to be about as efficient as diesels in terms of kw/mile. In terms of pure electrics, it once again depends on the price of electricity (which depends on the tax level) in your area, but they do haul around a significant amount of battery weight (sometimes almost doubling the weight of the car), which needs to be accelerated, de-accelerated and turned, all of which takes energy which other configurations don't need to expend.
    1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. Drawing long term climate conclusions from merely 32 years of data is absolutely meaningless! Comparing a year's specific numbers to a "Pre-industrial mean" doesn't make sense statistically either since there is no understanding of the pre-industrial variations. When analyzing data using SPC, it's important to have a good understanding of the variations before drawing conclusions. We already know that the Earth's climate goes through many cycles -- from the 24 hour day (give or take depending on your latitude) to the 3 month seasons, el nino's/la ninas, solar cycles of various multiples of 11 years, and the much longer cycles resulting from wobbles and variations of the Earth's alignment to the Sun. Layer on top of these cycles events like volcanos and forest fires and you have very noisy data. Until you've tracked the data over multiple cycles, you really don't have a good understanding of what a few data points mean. "Eye balling" the data won't work! Furthermore, the signal-to-noise ratio here is VERY low! For example: here in Boston area summertime high temperatures are generally about 75F +/- 20 degrees, with occasional forays outside that range, and it has been this way for almost 200 years. (BTW -- the data is freely available from the NOAA website). The night-time temperatures are generally about 15 degrees cooler, and have their own variations. Now explain to me what a 1.5 degree shift in a particular year means? The same needs to be understood for the water temperatures before conclusions can be drawn. Drawing conclusions out a 1.5 degree shift from heavily averaged data when the natural variations are much greater than 1.5 degrees is bad statistics. Even if there is a point which is out of the 3 standard deviations zone (6-Sigma) is not a reason to flip out. But notice that there was no representation of the natural variations on the chart or in the conclusions. There are mathematical rules which define when a process has gone "out of control" (which means changed in a statistically meaningful way). The charts shown do not seem to display that sort of rigor. Finally, the thermal capacity of the water in the world's oceans are hundreds of times greater than the Earth's atmosphere. This is why water is often used in heating and cooling systems. What this means is that the water temperatures have a bigger influence on air temperature than the other way around. Another thing that is not well understood is going on in the sub-surface water temperatures. This is another important variable which is ignored by the paper when drawing conclusions. This paper is really an excellent example of the "Streetlight Effect" which was described by Abraham Kaplan. This can be described by the joke..."A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is""
    1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. Rick Beato -- doing Chicago -- this just "Makes Me Smile"! Chicago was also one of my first albums in the 1970's. Their first "Greatest Hits" album as a matter of fact. As I've gotten older, I've come to appreciate some of what Danny Saraphine (who seems to be quite accessible via social media) was doing as a drummer. Many of the fills early in the song seemed to be based on the simple paradiddle -- a rudiment that is far more fundamental than it might seem. (Better drummers than I, feel free to correct me) It was very popular in the Big Band Era (see the song "Paradiddle Joe" for example), but seems less so nowadays. But than Danny always admitted to approaching the songs as a jazz drummer, and I believe that he learned from some of the greats. The other thing that I've come to appreciate is how the horn parts are accented like a good jazz chart. It seems almost every note has a different accent (<>^V) on it, which is challenging to play but provides a lot of energy and interest to the parts. Finally, I think you've highlighted why Terry Kath was such an important part of the band, and over time proved to be essentially unreplaceable. There were other excellent guitarists and singers, but they lacked the soulful tonality of his voice, and his touch on the guitar -- which I assume that you'll discuss in the follow-up video. I can hardly wait! If you'd like to get a sense of what they sounded like live, check out a concert from Leonid and Friends, who are touring the US as I write this. Having seen Chicago in the 70's (with the original line-up), and Leonid and Friends 2 years ago -- they've nailed it.
    1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. "Science without the Bobblygook" wonders into "Philosophy without the Gobblygook" and back again as you explore the limits of Science. Well done. The world doesn't change, nor does the nature of humans. Almost 2000 years ago Paul of Tarsus addressed a similar situation: (edited slightly for length.) 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. ... 12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Less there be any confusion of the meaning of "Love" in the passage, Paul defined it earlier... 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. What does this have to do with Musk and Longtermists? Beware those who claim wisdom and (false) humility, preach ascetism while immersed in plenty, make expansive moral judgements of and for others, yet cannot even manage to successfully love (as defined above) those immediately around them.
    1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. I think that you accurately captured 2.5 viewpoints. You might ask "why 2.5?" You mentioned Doomsters, Boomsters and Scientists -- that's 3, isn't it? But Scientist and Doomsters basically share the same zero-sum viewpoint, just Scientists have more detailed numbers. On the other hand you could most likely lump Christians and "Boomsters" together since both argue the basic value of human life. This also aligns with the current struggle over abortion in the US. Pro-abortion advocates align with Doomsters and argue that more lives are liabilities. On the other hand Pro-Life advocates (often Christians) align with Boomsters and argue that current and future lives will develop new solutions. The question of the fundamental value of a human life ends up being the shared dividing line in society today. At 17:45 you mention "killing off people...with a major economic crisis caused by climate change". Has such an event ever happened? History has shown that deadly economic crises are caused by heavy-handed governments executing stupid economic policies -- such as Mao's "Great Leap Forward" of 1958 to 1962 (estimate 30 million deaths), and Stalin's famine of 1932-33 (est. 3.9 million deaths). Both of these easily exceed the better known benchmark Nazi genocide. Notably, both of those economic crises happened long before the 1970's, when we are being told that anthropological climate really started to have an effect. So I think that it is fair to say that centralized economic decision making has killed far more people than climate change. And this brings me back to my earlier point about the value of human life. Decentralized (democratized) governments have proven to be far better at allocating resources and generating growth because they -- by definition -- leave economic decisions up to the individuals. Centralized governments, or those democracies which assume to know what is best for their populations inevitably end up suffering from "all of their eggs in one basic" syndrome. Given the plethora of potential solutions to any given problems, centralized governments inevitably put all of their eggs into a single suboptimal solution. Democracies on the other hand are characterized by many smaller, competing solutions being generated for a problem, some of which are often considered retrograde. They all are allowed to exist. Some of these "reactionary" solutions are not bad. For a different example of this check out "Eco-evolutionary significance of “loners”" by Rossine, Martinez-Garcia, Sgro et al. This is an example of where a society is allowed to chose multiple competing solutions, and thus ends up being prepared for multiple potential future outcomes of an unknown future. Doomsters and contemporary sciences both often insist on telling the population what to do based on their projections of the future. Boomsters and Christians both maintain that the future is unknowable, and so it's best to treat others respectfully and well today because we don't know what tomorrow will bring, and the singular life that we save today may end up helping us in the future.
    1
  957. What do I think? Diesels died as a result of a government hit-job because they were too tough of a competitor for the desired electric power-train. So (unelected regulators at ) CARB arbitrarily chose to implement massive reductions in pollutants (increments of 90%) which the diesel manufacturers couldn't successfully hit while maintaining the desired performance and margins. About half the other states pegged their standards to California's. Keep in mind -- no margins, no product. When VW (and later others) were caught cheating, the torches and pitch-forks were hoisted and VW fined so much that everyone in the industry took the hint and killed off diesels. Hydrogen fueled engines sound cool until you dive deeply into the process and economics of generating hydrogen. Currently (at least in the US) it's against the law to carry even a small tank of hydrogen in your car (without specific licenses) on the highway due to the dangers. The challenges of economically generating the needed volumes, keeping it in the tanks and safely handling it are significant. While it's easy to knock the Germans for removing the size limits, the manufacturers there (including I suspect Herr Piech) clearly understood that the margins on small cars will not support massive investments in a new technology. As I said before -- no margins, no product. Electric car technology would not have gotten as far as it did if manufacturers hadn't started with larger "prestige" vehicles. But at the end of the day, most people don't like having decisions made for them (aka: electric cars being forced into their garages), nor do they like being taxed so other people can get discounts on their expensive virtue statements. Economics is like gravity. It will ultimately always win.
    1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. I think it's fair to point out a few things. 1) EV's are not "Emissions Free" vehicles. The emissions are merely outsourced to a different location. So while this Tesla was not emitting any emissions while Tedward was driving it , the Covanta Haverhill power plant was emitting emissions generating the electricity needed to charge up the car prior to the drive. 2) Kilowatts per mile, electric cars are no more efficient than gas or diesel cars. You could argue that they are cheaper to operate than internal combustion vehicles because electricity is cheaper, but that is because (at least in Massachusetts) electricity is not taxed, but diesel oil and gasoline are. Specifically gasoline is taxed $0.24 per gallon by Massachusetts, $0.026 for a fuel clean-up fee and another $0.183 cents of Federal tax. None of them apply to electricity. The difference in the tax policy is because it's politically difficult to tax the way that people heat their homes. If you subtract out the taxes on road fuels, the dollars/mile costs of an EV are not significantly different than a gas powered hybrid or an diesel vehicle. Once people stop buying gasoline and diesel fuel, you can be sure that governments will start to tax electricity to make up for the last revenue. 3) Finally, as Tedward points out, this is a $70,000 plus car. The reality is that Teslas should actually be even more expensive if costed fairly, but instead US tax policy has chosen to use taxpayer money for subsidies to Tesla (in the form of tax credits for EV purchases), as well as mandating increasing the overhead costs of non-EV vehicles by forcing their manufacturers to buy carbon tax credits from Tesla -- even as I have pointed out above -- Teslas actually do consume carbon based fuels -- just not within sight of their owners. If these credits and subsidies didn't exist, this $70K Tesla would be even more expensive. Regarding the product, I think that a big oversight is the lack of a Heads-up Display, which should be "slam-dunk" for Tesla. Forcing the driver to take their eyes off of the road to pick-out information in a large, cluttered and constantly changing central screen is a big ergonomics goof. Even in the video ( for example at 4:00) you can see Tedward splitting his attention between the road and traffic ahead of him, and the touch-screen display.
    1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. It seems that it is not so much a map (with all of the navigational uses that this idea implies) than an image of the world from a particular viewpoint. First, it's obvious that large bodies of water were perceived as empty, and so not really worthy of mentioning beyond their existence. To a medieval traveler an ocean or sea was just a featureless expanse to pass through. Not to mention most maritime navigation routes were along the coasts and across narrows. They would have rarely sailed outside the sight of land. So these are minimized in the map, while the order that cities would have been reached in was knowable and important, so reflected accurately. It in some ways the Mappa Mundi reminds me of this picture of Felix Baumgartner looking over the earth https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/felix-baumgartner-standing-in-his-capsule-about-to-dive.jpg -- is the picture of the earth inaccurate? No, it just has a perspective. If you were to take an image of the earth (looking SE) from above Medieval Britain, it would look much like the Mappa Mundi. The medieval cartographer also was not able to validate or test what was told to him, so the further away a feature was, the more likely it was to have a traveler's tall-tail mixed in. It doesn't mean that everything at a distance was wrong, just that it was getting fuzzy to the cartographer. At some point the data ran out, and they extrapolated, much like we do today. Ask any astronomer about the shape of our Solar System.
    1