dude...(>ლ) just because there's a car in a frame doesn't mean this video is about cars. You might as well tag it with space because there's a sky in the shot. You might as well tag with with science because there's a streetlight.
Such tags are not helpful...

Why bring it up? Because the flop was far less violent than the other crashes. The energy it took to flip the jeep used up kinetic energy the other trucks put into stopping hard and fast. Having experience with rolling, I know they aren't as scary or violent as people expect.
My speed at the start of a couple of my rolls was up to 80mph, not controlled and slow. They were faster than this test. Like this test, the act of rolling slowed the vehicle considerably. My seat was not much deeper than many seats I see in cars, but slightly. My interior, however, was bare metal everywhere, not padded pleather. Because there are zero crumple zones, the impact was absorbed by the frame, so transferred throughout the seat to me.
As for whiplash, I think the heavy helmet I was wearing would multiply that, not protect from it. I had no hans device, no helmet straps.

Edit: rollovers like this are less likely to cause whiplash or spinal injury than coming to a dead stop like the trucks did.

Is it exactly the same? No. Is it significantly similar? Yes. Do I have a decent idea of what a violent rollover is like. Yes. Better than around 99.999% of people.

I'm a game graphics coder, going way back to PS2 and Dreamcast. This video overstates things a bit... Somehow, with a little bit of programming, memory is unlimited, bus transfer speeds are infinite, drawing 10,000 triangles onto a single pixel is worthwhile and doesn't result in swim, etc.

The real version of this video would have said that they have new procedural LOD and batching technology that minimizes the content creator's work to get into game at a good frame rate.

Yep, it is though....evidence of his attempt to frame a citizen.

Maybe for average cars, but that's not true when it comes to old Broncos or Jeeps. In the early 70's, they built them like tanks (heavy and slow), especially with the roll bar option properly installed, Broncos even had a thick full tube frame, not just a C channel, not unibody, and definitely no plastic.

Granted, the safety systems were lap belts and nothing more and the steering column would spear through your chest in a head on crash while the bare metal dash cracks your passenger's head, even stock they tend to roll, the fuel economy is non existent, and top speed is well under 2/3 what modern cars can produce (good thing since the brakes are sub par), but the cars themselves are nearly indestructible (I have one of each). I've dropped my jeep frame 3+ ft onto solid rock, it chipped the rock (and maybe my spine). ;-)
Late 70's early 80's that all changed, mostly for the worst.

I love all this stuff. I think she's brilliant.
I don't ever use this stuff, don't get me wrong. But there are more people than you think that is into all this stuff. They don't care that it's Psudo. Sex, Natural and just frame of mind. It's not available on Goop, they will buy it somewhere else. So why not make a few bucks. It's entertainment. It''s a growing sub-culture.

I can't take most of it seriously as if it's scientific, but let people who want this stuff be, and live in their own bubbles . live and let live. I'll bet 85% of the people know very well what they are getting is just novelty, but they are having fun, and enjoying their best lives .

this is a great song with an absolute shit animation. I have seen rule 34 with better animation. Actual animation frames replaced with tweening looks hella awkward. Also the story of the video..

I dont get it. There have been MANY music videos that have replicated the exact same setting. A music performance in a mad max post apocalyptic world. But instead of actually showing a performance they throw a ton of scenes that make no sense, no reasoning. Why would a performance be held with so few people? Why would a performance be held near a riot situation where people are lobbing cocktails? Who the hell would do such a thing?

And yet here we are, another music video who thinks they can pull the same story board and creates yet another ridiculously believable video. Many videos feed off the energy of a live event and synergize with the crowd, and they rock. Then there are those videos who think they are a 4 minute movie and F_ it all up.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

From NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/this-is-why-uma-thurman-is-angry.html?referer=https://t.co/3KI4YYryAt?amp=1

In the famous scene where she’s driving the blue convertible to kill Bill — the same one she put on Instagram on Thanksgiving — she was asked to do the driving herself.

But she had been led to believe by a teamster, she says, that the car, which had been reconfigured from a stick shift to an automatic, might not be working that well.

She says she insisted that she didn’t feel comfortable operating the car and would prefer a stunt person to do it. Producers say they do not recall her objecting.

“Quentin came in my trailer and didn’t like to hear no, like any director,” she says. “He was furious because I’d cost them a lot of time. But I was scared. He said: ‘I promise you the car is fine. It’s a straight piece of road.’” He persuaded her to do it, and instructed: “ ‘Hit 40 miles per hour or your hair won’t blow the right way and I’ll make you do it again.’ But that was a deathbox that I was in. The seat wasn’t screwed down properly. It was a sand road and it was not a straight road.” (Tarantino did not respond to requests for comment.)

Thurman then shows me the footage that she says has taken her 15 years to get. “Solving my own Nancy Drew mystery,” she says.

It’s from the point of view of a camera mounted to the back of the Karmann Ghia. It’s frightening to watch Thurman wrestle with the car, as it drifts off the road and smashes into a palm tree, her contorted torso heaving helplessly until crew members appear in the frame to pull her out of the wreckage. Tarantino leans in and Thurman flashes a relieved smile when she realizes that she can briefly stand.

Uma Thurman said she didn't want to drive this car. She said she had been warned that there were issues with it. She felt she had to do it anyway. It took her some 15 years to get footage of the crash. (Note: There is no audio.)
“The steering wheel was at my belly and my legs were jammed under me,” she says. “I felt this searing pain and thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m never going to walk again,’” she says. “When I came back from the hospital in a neck brace with my knees damaged and a large massive egg on my head and a concussion, I wanted to see the car and I was very upset. Quentin and I had an enormous fight, and I accused him of trying to kill me. And he was very angry at that, I guess understandably, because he didn’t feel he had tried to kill me.”

Even though their marriage was spiraling apart, Hawke immediately left the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky to fly to his wife’s side.

“I approached Quentin in very serious terms and told him that he had let Uma down as a director and as a friend,” he told me. He said he told Tarantino, “Hey, man, she is a great actress, not a stunt driver, and you know that.” Hawke added that the director “was very upset with himself and asked for my forgiveness.”

Two weeks after the crash, after trying to see the car and footage of the incident, she had her lawyer send a letter to Miramax, summarizing the event and reserving the right to sue.

Miramax offered to show her the footage if she signed a document “releasing them of any consequences of my future pain and suffering,” she says. She didn’t.

That's why I said "assume", and listed the "parameters" etc... if the hiring commission is for that type of video, then it's a fail. Is that not reasonable?

Conversely, if the commission is to just make a cool video for marketing, then it's a win if you like it Different assumption, different purpose, different perspective. I have no problem with that.

To me, the "corporate" guys seem/might not be that happy about the execution, but the Drone Racers Team sure are ecstatic. I can understand that, of course, it's a rare opportunity for them.

I take professional photos for architects (banks, high-end restaurants, retail & offices, etc). They set out what I need to capture: furniture, electrical outlets, height and space relation... all need to be in-frame, properly and neatly placed; garbage & plants, office supplies hidden, staff out of the picture, etc...i.e. parameters. Photos that I give them are often different from what I would take in the scene from an artistic perspective. Perhaps that warped by perspective on this video.

Maybe not a well framed video, but a thousand times more entertaining than just another demolition video. I thought it was awesome to watch as far as demo videos go.

@TRRazor That was exactly my reaction...

THIS is the footage you got??? The edge of the screen showing something happening off screen, lots of empty idle ground mid-frame, and the very tail-end of the tower hitting the ground?

SUCCESS! not so much

I was on Mr Rogers once in the mid 80's when I was about five years old. You can see me for about ten frames on Picture-Picture going down a slide at Frick (or maybe Schenley) park. So you know, I got that going for me.