Chomsky is a scientist in a limited field. Žižek is a philosopher (yes, indeed, what exactly does he DO?).

It is difficult to compare them (and it is not a competition). Chomsky has a body of work to back his views up, Žižek has interesting insights if you can keep up with what "..and so on and so on" means in a specific context.

Most often I find that I agree with what Chomsky says and am entertained or puzzled by what Žižek has to say.

Quite refreshing to see him acknowledge the concerns of Trump voters instead of throwing feces at them like lots of pundits and media figures have done since the election.

No chance of gaining any insights into their motivation if you demonize them from the get-go, no chance of gaining some impressions from outside your own bubble...

Nina Turner pretty much nailed it: "We should have been speaking to peoples' hearts and not trying to shame and boss grown folks around"

There's a followup video to this one, where Brian Nagel discusses the functions of hops in the brewing process as well as some additional historical and scientific insight into this valued plant blossom.

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

Your insights were really interesting!
Thank you!

Oh my. I love how jovial this fellow is!

And the insight into how blind people navigate is fascinating.

*quality

That was fabulous such a smart young kid...so insightful.
I gotta go watch the other video...

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

One of my favourite movies and a great insight. Scorsese also does not shun the edits, the hard cuts. Other directors preferred or still do prefer the "hidden" edits, Scorsese turns this around and makes edits just when you think something is off or as visible as possible. This is imo why the different scenes all appear to be encapsulating their own little comedic story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg

In just over four minutes, Mark Blyth provides a more insightful interpretation of Brexit than talking heads manage in a week's worth of circle-jerks.

Thanks Dostoyevsky is one of my favourite Russian authors. I didn't 100% agree with everything this video said about Crime and Punishment, but it was still interesting, and certainly provided some insight into his other works like The Gambler, which he didn't even mention.

The problem is that we don't measure our government programs. It gets big because we make programs and then just leave it there like a rotting turd because... well, it works? Right? Or the other party is able to rail against it and destroy it, wasting all the money making it happen in the first place -- because that program doesn't work! Right?

We have amazing technological and scientific abilities to quantify and measure which programs work and which don't. But we don't give a shit.

I found this rather insightful.

That guy is ONLY saved if a HUGE volcano goes off or a good-sized meteorite hits us...

Or, you know, nuclear war.

I fI was Bill Nye I would amend these bets with atmospheric readings of ash @ so many parts per million (at the point it really is WAY too high!). Or also amending it for debris consistent with a large meteorite hit (a few different choices in the ring to measure to see if it's a meteorite too); so if "x" per milllion is too high in the atmosphere, again the year is bunck (the decade may become bunck all depending the levels of both events).

But, the worst, nuclear fallout from what "may be" WWIII or a smaller "civil conflict", like Pakistan and India could top the meters pretty high with worldwide fallout if they drop a good ten or so (again this is based off the material used to create the bomb and once more it's parts per million in the atmosphere combined with, how much?)...

No matter what Bill Nye is right, and even if these type of "small-term" events slow it down momentarily, after the planet helps to clean to out of the atmosphere we have a big issue on hand because some of that stuff WILL stay and then Bill Nye can show you how in two years (and as we know, it could be much longer), or the time it truly takes to clean it out leaves us with an atmosphere that is now even worse...

AIM FOR THE PARTIAL WIN BOYS AND GIRLS!!! I know you all want zombies (radioactive, Japanese spiritual based demons and shinigami here to try to kill us all until every boy and girl 15 years old or so become shounen trope mystical power holders made to save our world from the oncoming onslaught of Donald Trump and Putin phantasms and demons, truly horrific--college students may apply; grownups may gain insight into how to pull off the most powerful abilities that they must teach to the "chosen ones" to use it to defeat either Putin or The Trump (spiritual fighter, capable of killing people even with his TERRIBLE "slams", fighting power: 0, defense: every fanboy on Earth!)--or how to use "super tactics with the "main-group" who'll have stories written about them in their local High Scool Paper every week: in the American, Japanese, Russian, and European branches (needed for Putin, since he writes great stories explaining how each of us suck ass and even though we try it is ALWAYS Putin, riding in on a Velociraptor with a railgun that's able to drive those evil bastards out, especially when he gets off the horse and makes the wrestling techniques and signature move, crossing his arms in an "X" and slamming down over the side of his genitals (causing all watching to be confused and easily dismembered in twenty minutes... The glory of dawn continues in the next 4-6 hours before dawn...

SO... What exactly do you guys believe you should vote for? I say Vote Bill Nye and Vote often. Did you know that in both those "metaverses" Bill Nye becomes akin to Dr. Strange. Great because he protects ALL of us from this world with an extremely powerful spell--as he IS the only person here that knows just what in the hell is happening.

All hail the kid's scientist, through Sarah Palin on the "happiness tour bus" to Putin. He LOVES her. Especially listening to her talk. Ceaseless entertainment...!


I decided to list this as "sarcasm", BUT there is SO MUCH that isn't. Sometimes you have to hide the truth in reality...err...not reality...