My comments just happened to use computer users as an example, as I see them every day. I specifically said I'm not referring to any lack of experience with computers, or any particular subject. I'm saying some people naturally get it and some people don't get it, when viewing things through others' perspectives.

Some people realize that if they just refer to "it", that is potentially ambiguous to someone who wasn't "there", and they realize that someone has a different perspective that doesn't match theirs, and they need to be clear and include more information.

Whereas other people who were "there" refer to "it" and see the object in their mind's eye, but don't seem to realize that "it" could refer to any number of things to someone who wasn't "there". And that's just one fucking pronoun in one fucking sentence.

And then you have to drag out the pertinent information with 20 questions. Nothing to do with computers or mental defects.

I've always said this "Sally-Anne" scenario doesn't just reveal something about the autistic mind. I see it in people every day, particularly as an IT tech. Some people just don't have an intrinsic understanding that others are not seeing the images in their head when they are describing something, using vague pronouns and ambiguous terms that make sense in their head. They are incapable of "reading my mind" to know that I can't read their mind.

They don't seem to understand that others were not in the room experiencing their computer problems along with them, and then act put out while I ask 20 questions to ask them to describe what the hell is going on. Usually with an impatient air of "why am I asking all of these redundant questions? "

And it has nothing to do with being computer literate, and everything to do with not recognizing that I don't share your perspective without some more info. I work with many techno-phobes who don't have to be coached like that.

BTW, repeating"I can't log in, it won't let me" has been used to describe countless scenarios, you might as well ask me to guess which card you just picked out of a deck.

Actually, @ChaosEngine's comparison to online banking is exactly analogous to this situation. Her pics were hacked from her account. Thus, the day that your account is hacked and your identity is stolen...why are you online banking? That's a great way to get all of your money stolen. You really should have known better. If you end up homeless with no money, it really was your fault for not protecting yourself better.

You and others are correct that it does indeed present some level of risk to take nude photos of yourself at all, but all things in life present risk. If you don't want bad things to happen to you, maybe you shouldn't ever leave your house, log on to the internet, or talk to anyone. Of course, that's wildly unrealistic. The way that you present yourself makes it seem like you're callously taking this argument too far.

In contrast, @SDGundamX has taken a pleasantly moderate viewpoint on this, and I feel more enlightened from reading his posts and considering the moral ambiguity. I just wish he didn't get snarky at the end, and be 'dismayed' that people would criticize those who take the opposing stance =P.

All of the arguments aside, I appreciated her rebellion against this negative situation, and I hope that this tasteful video does good things for her.

@oohlalasassoon
This is what I really enjoy about the video. It's emotionally powerful but it's ambiguous. So we each project our own experiences onto the performance. The artist's intention is nothing more than an interesting footnote.

I also saw a struggling relationship between a father and daughter. For me it was about the changing relationship as she grows older. That's a deep personal experience for me and the video made me feel all the feels. That's why it's an amazing video, because it evokes your own life experience and whatever you're seeing in the performance, you're feeling it hard.

These two performers obviously had a great time making this video. Objectively, there is nothing inappropriate going on between them. If someone is seeing something sinister going on there then they brought It with them. And that's ok. That's your own experience. Feel it.

Seriously, if you are unable to read between the lines and understand even rudimentary irony. If everything has to be so precisely worded that no ambiguity of thought, or meaning, can enter your thought process, maybe you should not comment until you can do so. Or maybe all you crave is argument for arguments sake. Whatever the case, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain a comment which is, to the vast majority, self explanatory.

Not quite what I said but re-reading it, I can see the ambiguity.

Uhm, am I the only one who still doesn't get it? What is a "cassette bomb submunition"? Those words don't seem to belong together. Still, I almost prefer the ending to be a little bit ambiguous.

I think it's neat that despite having red/pink and blue characteristics, the human characters are of ambiguous gender (as are the umbrellas), so it could be 2 men, 2 women or a man and a woman.

@AeroMechanical, actually I'm with you. I seriously doubt the Foundation stories would work on film or even in a long form mini series.

The problem with a lot of sci-fi literature is that it doesn't conform to the standard 3 act movie structure. There's often an ambiguous ending which doesn't neatly resolve (like real life!). Asimov, Clarke, Banks, Reynolds, Morgan (to name a few of my favourites) fit this pattern.

There are two things happening, IMO:
1. The journey really is more important than the destination. It's about the story, not the outcome.
2. In some cases, story above character (Asimov and Clarke in particular). The idea is more important than the puny humans caught up in it.

Both of these are hard for studio execs (and to be fair, mainstream audiences) to grasp.

How is this a myth? What is the supposed content of this myth? And the video? Some people throw like girls, then throw even more like girls with their other hand. Then this lady comes up who can throw and is commended for throwing like a man. What?

If you are a man and someone says you throw or run like a girl everyone understands what that means. It means they want to find out if you also fight like a girl.

If you are a girl and you do something like a girl - that doesnt actually merit conversation. Or insult. Ambiguity overload. Could mean anything.

Throwing with your left hand. That has more to do with your favored hand and favored eye than practice and technique. My younger son is right handed but has a dominant left eye. He can hit a target equally well with either hand, same "form". He can probably throw a bit farther with his right hand but not by much. Not so good trying to aim a gun - try holding a weapon in your right hand and aim with your left eye. He shoots like a girl (yes I know there are many girls who can shoot) but he can throw like a man with both hands. For basketball, tennis, ice-hockey, soccer - very useful to be ambidextrous. Probably also skiing, snowboarding, surfing, because you care less about which way you are turning.

Why would you want to take practice and technique out of the equation anyway - throwing like a girl is not just about strength, it´s about attitude and motivation and will to compete. And technique.

And girls very obviously have different techniques to men in sports that rely a lot on strength and aggresivity. Some girls practice with men and apply masculine techniques, others try to find their own way. No one tells Sharapova that she hits the ball like a girl - but that is certainly exactly what she does, compared to Nadal, no insult intended.

Andy Murray now has a female coach, I am sure he will be very careful not to appear to be hitting the ball like a girl.

If you have the same equipment and strength matters you cant help having a different technique.

If all that matters is skill (lets say youre throwing a light ball a short distance at a target) I would expect not much gender difference.

There is. It's the telegraph, who are ideologically opposed to global warming and just so there's zero ambiguity here...

THEY ARE FUCKING LYING

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"Hahaha. It's so funny that these guys are making enlightened, meaningful statements that appeal to a greater society and make other people feel encouraged, because it's all bullshit because they're hungry, and really they're a bunch of sexist misogynist pigs."

That's definitely how it's most easily interpreted and how I interpreted it, but @harlequinn is probably right that Snickers intended the message to be:

"Normally these kind, broad-minded, gentle fellows are considerate and thoughtful like this, but you don't want to know how they are when they haven't had a Snickers."

If that's really their message, they need to make it a fuck of a lot more obvious.

Or maybe they meant for it to be ambiguous so they can appeal to both kinds of people. Quite the politicians you are, Snickers.

Hello again,

Just commented to a video and later noticed it was one of yours. Would've just commented to you instead had I noticed first. I have to say I still don't entirely understand where you come from in all this. Plainly and rightly you mistrust any American claims of humanitarian concern. However, in my view you seem to be misreading Obama's cues. If anything he's appeared very reluctant to go into Syria, as it'd be domestically very unpopular. As far as the Kissinger type pushers in America go, seeing Al Qaida sponsored rebels bleeding themselves out against Russian and Iranian backed Syrian military forces and even Hezbollah forces seems like a dream come true. I can hardly see cold hearted long game analysts in America wanting anything but to just grab popcorn and enjoy the show as their enemies mop each other up. I also see Obama's reluctant attitude as exactly what is being read by Assad and Putin in their responses and almost willful scorn for Obama's red line and apparent giddy eagerness to abandon the threats he'd tied to it. I just don't see the eagerness and enthusiasm for a march to war from America that you do. With an agreement to remove chemical weapons from the area, America is freed of the only possible concern it had about anything happening in the area. That seems evidenced by America's seemingly eager acceptance of it, and tacit recognition of Assad's control of the country out into 2014 in order to implement the agreement.

As for the angle I care about, what is your assessment of the UN inspection and their report? Unless you count them to be on the take of Western powers, or duped and stooged within the war zone where somehow America managed to influence them more than Assad I don't see any ambiguity to the findings. Samples from rockets, soil, and victims alike all tested positive for Sarin gas. The rockets found with Sarin on them had Russian engravings and the craters they could project trajectories from pointed towards a Syrian military base. I'm not sure how you reject all of that by pointing at 'counter evidence' gathered and presented solely by Syrian and Iranian sources.

Schedule 7 seems horrendously ambiguous. They can hold you for nine hours without a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in any criminal activity...but it must not be used arbitarily and is solely for determining if somebody is a witch. err I mean if somebody is involved in terrorism.

I'm not really sure how you can detain somebody without suspicion and simultaneously demonstrate that it wasn't arbitrary or unconnected to terrorism. Where exactly is the accountability here. Oh. There isnt any. Hearing the Home Office dismiss this whole affair by saying that it is up to the Police to decide how they use (misuse?) their powers is quite frightening. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Have to double post.. If a US citizen communicates with another US citizen thru a server that resides, let's say France, NSA is fully qualified to read your mails up to the ambiguous point where both parties can be confirmed at 100% certainty to be US citizens. That means literally analyzing the conversation, identifying the participants, checking their status...

In reality, they gather everything up, use algorithms to determine whats "cool" and whats not. By NSAs own accounts the certainty of it's identifying this is somewhere around 51%, just above flipping a coin.