Folks are coming out of the weeds to congratulate you and rightfully so.

congrats @eric3579

Let's see...

1. Subaru owner
2. Legal weed
3. Fry thieving seagulls with bowel problems

Going out on a limb and saying Seattle resident.

You can't pretend that all content is good content, though. Youtube needs to weed out the Isis recruitment videos and the kitten crushing, and they need to be able to reliably promise advertisers that their ads won't appear in front of that shit. YT has convinced creators that likes and views are actually what's important, but I bet YT can lose 100 large channels before they are willing to lose one large advertiser.

eric3579's link explains it, but there are options for advertisers who want to advertise on anything, regardless of content, and there are options for those who want to only stick to the approved material. Given the sheer volume of videos on YT, an automated system is necessary, and it's a good thing that they've now given users an option to appeal the non-monetization.

Youtube's advantage is not that they have content that isn't on tv, but that it's an established platform for viewing content on every device in existence. On the whole I think Youtube is still leveraging its significant power to provide a fairly open and unrestricted platform. If my company was being advertised there I'd probably want to have full freedom to choose the videos, and to demand, for example, that comments be turned off on every video with my ads.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Did not know that about the weed smuggling. Love the guy. If anyone says that Lost in Translation is a bad movie,I will fight you.

As is the case in many areas, good people do nothing, and the wrong type of people fill the void.
This is why good people need to speak up, and get involved, even if it's against their very nature. It's a simple case of keeping the wrong people out of the system.

IMO the whole system needs to change. A progressive society would have a committee of elite scientists at the top of the hierarchy setting out the overall agenda for humanity through evidence based reasoning. The scientists themselves would be elected through their achievements and contributions to humankind alone, as a way to weed out those who are doing it for power or money.

Political parties would still exist, but below the top level, and their role would be to choose which parts of the agenda to work on first, so that the general public can elect the political party that represents their own priorities. The politicians pay would depend on how much of the scientist listed agenda has been achieved during their term.

Politicians themselves would get paid decent figures, but they would never be allowed to work, receive financial or material support of any kind to ensure that they cannot be "bought".

Political donations would go into a central repository, accessible by all parties.

Your video, From a Seed to Weed - Stop Motion Cannabis, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Poison ivy has always been my kryptonite, although luckily I haven't had an episode in years. The worst ever was when I ran a weed whacker while wearing shorts, didn't realize I was hitting poison ivy. Both legs were a crusty, oozing mess for 2 weeks. My coworkers took pity and went out and got my lunch for me every day, knowing that walking was an ordeal. Good times.

Good video.

Even if you were to extend the definition to "Eurasia", as he no doubt does, it ignores something critical. The aboriginal Americans were masters of biotechnology. We have found the antecedents of maize, tomatoes, and potatoes, and they vary from utterly inedible to kinda poisonous. Over time, they transformed these noxious weeds into the crops that today keep billions of people alive. Imagine Italian cuisine without tomatoes. I would argue that maize was the Mezoamerican cathedral, a visible sign of their supremacy over the natural world.

Have you ever seen 2 trashcans talking, on weed?

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

One problem with your anecdote. Swiss citizens (men compulsory, women voluntarily) are required, by law, to become part of their citizen military, a militia if you will, and receive intense training and practice with weapons. The process also weeds out the whack jobs, who don't get to buy guns.

The Swiss procedure should be adopted by the US. It'd be a great way to use up the defense budget without invading anywhere...

Your video, Listening to a Radio Tower With Weed, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thinking further, the use of chemicals and fertilizers in orchards is more different than I'd first thought too.

If you take an apple orchard, every plant is priceless compared to a grain crop. Killing off insects, keeping exactly the right fertilizer amounts and irrigation are all absolutely required. In grain farming, pests like weeds or insects are measured and the cost/benefit is weighed to see if it's worth the cost of spraying. I'd imagine with a fruit crop, the benefit is almost always keeping your plants as healthy as humanly possible. With grains though guys will often estimate a 5% loss from whatever best is there and decide to leave well enough alone.

A bit of a side note, but the kinds of chemicals guys on the grain side use has changed a lot too. Plenty of chemicals used for killing insects when I was a kid where being replaced then. Farmers here universally remember a laundry list of different pesticides they remember as just nasty and downright scary stuff. The ones available today are far more selective, and for weeds round-up ready has allowed guys to abandon pretty much all other weed killers, and most of those were much more expensive and lingering than round-up.

@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.