The dome is spinning on a lathe, while the diamond cutter, takes off a this layer, removing the translucent outer layer, leaving it clear.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Totally expected him to take off the grandpa mask and be Johnny Knoxville.......

I bought 32 bitcoins throughout 2012. Now worth close to half a mil. I bought about 4 or 5 grams of DMT over the next two years... each 20 mg of DMT - in my mind - is worth at least $1,000,000. Regardless, even when I started putting money in, there was serious paranoia about the volatility that exists today but isn't as bad as it was back then. You could not trust any of the bitcoin banks or markets back then. A lot of them would just close down and take off with your motherfucking bitcoins, a lot of them would get hacked or say they got hacked, so I always just wanted to get the money transferred out of the bank to a market and released to a trustworthy vendor as fast as possible. So, if you're thinking woulda coulda shoulda - you too probably wouldnah. That on top of the fact that bitcoin transactions took dayyyyssss sometimes, it was fucking slow and a lot of it was through cold hard cash not debit/credit cards...

Counter-rotating propellers sparked my curiosity when I first saw them on a British Seafire Mk46 at a flight show in the early nineties.

So my amateur's answer would be that it's about the problem of turning the engine's power into thrust. With increasing power, you can either increase the propeller's RPM or its area. So you either a) spin it faster, b) increase its diameter, c) use a more favourable blade geometry, d) add more blades.

a) and b) both lead to blade tips moving faster, and once they approach the speed of sound, wave drag sets in and ruins your day. b) also runs into issues in terms of ground clearance. Thus the Kim Jong-un blades on planes like the An-70: short and fat.

c) is rather difficult to do in terms of manufacture -- that's why more pronounced blade shapes are a relatively recent development.

d) on a single propeller decreases the efficiency of each blade as it passes through the previous blade's vortex. That's why, for instance, German planes in WW2 almost exclusively relied on 3-bladed propellers with increasing blade size, whereas Supermarine went to four and even 5 blades rather quickly. You can work the issue to a certain degree by modifying the blade geometry, thus the 8 blade props on a modern A400M.

Adding more blades by adding another propeller gets around d), although the aft prop still loses efficiency compared to the front prop. On the other hand, counter-rotating props massively reduces problems with torque, which can be rather horrendous for single engine prop planes. The Bf 109, for instance, is (in)famous for being difficult during take-off as it pulls to the side quite violently.

A few years ago I had lunch at a restaurant with my extended family for some event (can't recall specifically), and as we were standing around talking in the parking lot afterwards, the AN-225 flew over us. We were pretty close to the airport and it was either landing or taking off, so it was quite low to the ground and surprised the hell out of us. We didn't have the slightest idea what it was, but the configurations of the landing gears and six jets made it clear it was damned unusual. Found out later that the beast was one-of-a-kind and a bunch of people were at the airport watching for it, which made it clear how lucky we were to randomly catch that.

I had no idea there was a propeller-based counterpart. I don't know enough about aerodynamics to understand how stacking the propellers like that makes any sense, so I'm just going to assume it's some sort of Soviet technomagic.

It's all fun and games until you take off like Spiderman into a log.

Congratulations! Your video, Flight Sim X - American 1337 Taking Off, Giggles Ensue, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 15 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Flight Sim X - American 1337 Taking Off, Giggles Ensue has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Flight Sim X - American 1337 Taking Off, Giggles Ensue, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I was with you up to this. I don't think this really makes much sense. The "abstraction" is taking individuals as a whole, that the US and China are separate entities. That's our interpretation. The facts are that we are all polluting individuals living on Earth, and we all have a footprint, mostly dictated by politics in the area.

Imagine you and 3 friends got on a plane with slightly too heavy bags, and a Chinese guy with 5 friends got on a plane with slightly under-weight bags, and the plane can't take off. It makes no sense to say "only the total weight matters, your 6 bags are heavier than our 4, one of you leave your bags behind." Or am i missing something here?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending Chinese pollution or manipulation of figures. But if most of the world lived in a particular place, you'd expect most of the world's pollution from that place. "The climate doesn't care" in fact supports the opposite point that you're making, i think - the climate doesn't care that you're two countries, you're all just individual people supplying small amounts of pollution which makes up the whole. Surely producing less pollution per person is a good thing for the environment and it is upon those who produce more individually to curb their use?

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Yep,

This is a difficult landing and there are tonnes of corrections happening, but you would see the same type of corrections on any landing (just not as many).

And it doesn't matter the size of the plane either. I have been in a float plane multiple times and the same type of corrections happen on landing with that aircraft.

Take offs are mostly a breeze. Get your speed, pull up and and you are on your way. Landings are what those guys are paid for.

I'm almost embarrassed to say it but, I was expecting his jet pack to light up and take off.