search results matching tag: Runaway

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (105)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (23)     Comments (182)   

CSX I031 lead locomotive after hitting a Cement truck

Tesla driver loses control as car speeds down street

newtboy says...

It absolutely looked like auto pilot taking control to me, I’ve never heard of someone mistaking the gas pedal for the brakes for 1/10 that timeframe, it’s usually under 1 second before they crash.

Hate to tell you but Tesla has denied fault every time auto pilot has failed. For instance, last year autopilot was involved in 273 crashes but only 35 had been reported since 2016, so clearly Tesla under reports. NTSB found that Tesla automatically turned off auto pilot just before it was going to crash to hide auto pilot involvement. New rules force reporting if auto pilot was in use 30 seconds before any crash, and cases increased exponentially overnight.

70% of all driver assistance involved crashes were Tesla.
5/6 fatalities were in Teslas, and the vast majority of serious injuries. (Now 7/8)

There’s a reason Tesla is under congressional investigation for killing people.

China does not trust Tesla to read the data without erasing or manipulating it. Reports I read said they were using a third party to go over the data because they believe Tesla will cover it up….as they believe Tesla has done before.

If you want to believe Musk when he again says “not my fault”, that’s your prerogative, but it’s not your prerogative not to tell others that’s the truth. Autopilot malfunctions are a documented issue….but occur far less often than driver malfunctions, it’s true. This is not the first reported runaway Tesla, just the first caught entirely on external cameras.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/15/tesla-autopilot-crashes/

https://tickernews.co/tesla-crash-leaves-two-dead-in-china/

Wait for the third party report to be sure, but all indications are this was an auto pilot malfunction, and Tesla doesn’t know more than we do right now because China isn’t giving them the car back.

bcglorf said:

And, not sure of the reliability of the site, but at least at link below is being reported Tesla's China branch is reporting exactly that:

https://electrek.co/2022/11/13/tesla-china-responds-to-dramatic-crash-that-kills-two-video/

“Don’t Look Up” in Real Life

newtboy says...

19 of the 20 hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 21 years.
8 of the hottest 8 years ever recorded were the last 8 years.

Black is not white. Up is not down. Hot is not cold….no matter how many times you say it, Bob. Being too dumb to even understand the science or its implications have you just denying it….like if you don’t understand it must not be true. 🤦‍♂️
It is well known that the right’s MO is to just lie about what their opponent claims, then debunk their own lie, ignoring the actual claims. It’s the best you can do, and the right’s constituents are so intellectually absent, incurious, and not just willing but wanting to be spoon fed propaganda that you buy it without ever investigating a thing. I know this to be true, because everyone who actually looks at the data (and doesn’t just misrepresent it completely) comes to the same conclusion (unless they’re selling something).

2030 did not come from Greta. It came from multiple climate reports, except for those who said we had less time.
It’s a purposeful intent to mislead the public to say the reports say ultimate disaster happens in 2030, they don’t, and the right knows they don’t say that and knows that’s not what climate activists say either…it says at current rates (when the report was written) by 2030 1.5C rise would be locked in, unavoidable. CO2 can last 300-1000 years actively in the atmosphere. Stopping adding CO2 and methane when we are at the line of 1.5C rise is planning for disaster with no backup and no margin for error when the stakes are literally survival of the species and civilization. In fact, rates have increased since the data was collected, so 2030 is too late….2000 may have been too late to stop runaway climate change, but we can still minimize or slow the impacts.

1.5C is when we lose control and feedback loops (likely) take over our ability to have any control. It’s too bad so many idiots are too dumb to comprehend that yet still have the resources to effect the outcome. “Mea culpa” isn’t going to restore the planet when they finally admit the undeniable, neither is their heads on pikes nor their children being used as food, but that’s where we’re going. Too bad we aren’t there yet, it would save a hell of a lot of problems if we just eradicated the irresponsible money worshiping morons in favor of people who put a livable planet above record quarterly profits.

bobknight33 said:

Climate change denial

Trump’s Maralago Home Raided By FBI

newtboy says...

Still think it backfired?
Republicans are #runawaying from Trump, Fox is turning on him (again). These protests for Trump, at least those I’ve seen footage of, have under 10 people each.
This is NOT helping your party, it’s just riling up the lunatics that get 100% of their news from far right propaganda outlets….propaganda outlets so unpopular they’re disappearing from the airwaves in droves because they’re totally unprofitable.



It did poke the nest of crazy anti American terrorists who have taken it as a sign they should attack the FBI with AR15s, and made hundreds or thousands of credible death threats against FBI and police agents, judges, families, young children, and many many others. America can handle a few thousand nut jobs. We did on Jan 6…and this time the orders won’t be “handle the attackers with kid gloves”.
So far, those going too far are the same people who went too far for Trump on Jan 6….a bunch of loud nutty Karens throwing tantrums that convinced themselves they represent the majority despite their meager numbers.

bobknight33 said:

Yet more BS fuckery by deep state to keep Trump from running 2024.

But that did poke the stick at the hornet nest of the republican party.

Boy did this BS back fire

Australia's Honest Government Ad | COP26 Climate Summit

newtboy says...

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

Woman sparks fire trying to unfreeze gas pump with lighter

Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....

bcglorf says...

I think it's super important people recognize that Bob's point here is actually very correct.

A huge part of Trump's support IS reactionary against runaway liberal ideals.

The most blatant was on University campuses:
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score as a 'liberal' ideal
-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in

All of that filth was and still is almost universally wide spread through Academia as 'liberal' good ideas.

People need to very seriously wake up and recognize how many of the quiet folks who openly detest Trump, are also going to silently still vote Republican because of their disgust and push back at the above ideals.

newtboy said:

65,844,610 votes compared to Donald Trump’s 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974. That was the mandate by the people to stop bat shit crazy conspiracy theorists from power. The electoral college overrode the people.

Trump got a mandate from 306 people, not the American people.
🤦‍♂️

Capitalism, the enemy of Freedom and Democracy

Mordhaus says...

Disagree. There is a difference between unchecked capitalism and capitalism that is controlled by law.

Even the narrator states that we are in a hyper-capitalism situation. That is runaway capitalism. Properly contained capitalism does not suppress freedom and democracy.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

Walking backwards to simplify, my main point is that simply blaming ALL fossil fuel usage on the company providing the fossil fuel is stupid and misleading in the extreme. We don't see millions of people willingly abandoning fossil fuels and living in abject poverty to save the world, instead they are all very willing and eagerly buying them and this video lets all those people off the hook. This video lets everybody keep using fossil fuels, and at the same time pointing the finger at Shell and saying it's all their fault. It's an extremely detrimental piece of disinformation.

"explain what, specifically, I claimed that's not supported by the science."
-Complete collapse of the food web
-Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees
-Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea
-Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2
-Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land
-Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

bcglorf said:

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Diatoms: Tiny Factories You Can See From Space

newtboy says...

Trump, and all other people.
Even then, it's going to be a tough time for life if trends don't reverse quickly. Far more than an inconvenience. I heard (unconfirmed) data that suggests Iceland will lose all of it's ice even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today. Enough feedback loops are kicking in sooner than expected that we may be in a runaway situation already no matter what we do.
This business will get out of control, it will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.

BSR said:

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is, Trump needs to go?

The 7 Biggest Failures of Trumponomics

newtboy says...

Interesting suggestion.

I believe that with 1/10 the population, near today's per capita resource usage would be sustainable....although there would be a necessary time period with net zero or better emissions required to return the atmosphere to "normal" before runaway greenhouse effects and feedbacks turn earth into Venus 2.0. After that, there is an amount of emission the planet can absorb, so resource usage need not be curtailed excessively, but it wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for the lottery system if everyone draws straws, no exceptions except those willing to just move to the reservation voluntarily.
Even a lottery system simply for procreation would do wonders, but remembering the outrage at China for just allowing one child per couple, I doubt that would fly either. Also, it does leave the possibility that the lucky procreators might all be imbecilic morons incapable of following/continuing the plan...we don't want to become a species that is dumber than our pets....or do we?

I think the priorities should be reversed too, what's best for life on earth first, humanity second.

moonsammy said:

It's an extreme solution certainly, but not without merit. I doubt there'd ever be a willing acceptance of such a plan though, so a slightly more realistic solution would need to be moderated some. How's this for dystopian-but-not-quite-genocidal:
Worldwide lottery, a small percentage (total of 500M - 1B maybe) wins the right to live in what will be the new model of the world: something like what we have now, but with drastically reduced usage of non-renewable resources (until they can be replaced completely) and a target of zero negative impact on the environment as a whole. Still some version of democratic (generally at least), freedom of whatnot and such, open travel to the degree that sustainable transportation options allow, all the (again, sustainable) mod cons. I suppose different countries / regions could still run things according to their preferences, as long as the net-zero goal remains.
The other lottery entrants, the non-winners, don't need to die, hooray! They will however live on something akin to reservations, as serfs, without the right to further reproduce. These poor bastards, in exchange for not being outright murdered to save civilization, are to be consolidated into agricultural communes to do whatever they can to regrow the world's flora and fauna until they all eventually die. Their goal is not net-zero, but as far into the positive as possible. It would all be overseen according to some grand scheme(s) to be as beneficial for the overall future of humanity and life on Earth in general as possible.

Probably also unworkable, but preferable to megamurder?

newtboy (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)

Dutch motorcyclist helps woman with loose horse



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon