The car driver indicated before having a seizure and changing lanes?

I find it easy for the car to be hidden from the truck driver in a blind spot. I find it impossible that the entirety of the truck was in the car's blind spot.

If a truck was to keep all vehicles out of their blind spots it would be almost impossible to drive.

Humans have been using drugs since the first person ate the wrong plant and got high instead of dying.

If you look at most drugs in nature, it is almost impossible to OD on them IN THEIR NATURAL FORM.

It's only when we alter that using chemicals, heat, or modifying the plant's genetic code via cross-pollination that we get drugs that destroy people.

Conversely, drugs that have been distilled from natural sources have also saved millions from death or from chemical imbalances in their bodies.

Man made drugs keep me on a (mostly) even keel. Without them my life is hell. Not from addiction, but because my body's chemicals are out of whack.

Yet some man made drugs are poison and should not be used (or extremely rarely). Most opioids fall directly into that category. Still, it is the corporate greed and misuse of these drugs that make them an ignored epidemic.

I could go on, but TL;DR

Natural drugs are a gift to humankind. Man Made drugs are a mixed bag.

I understand, it would be almost impossible. I just don't want to remove that chance. I respect your viewpoint though.

200ish is our annual homicide by gun rate. 200ish is also our annual knife homicide rate.

I wish more people in both countries (especially the ones who have zero interest in guns) would take a few mins to learn what is and was is not true about them. It is almost impossible to find any unbiased pro or anti gun information, so when it's packaged well like this video, people should take advantage to learn. (but many just are not interested as I am.... I am pretty biased being an owner) *promote

Simply not true. Will you get some directors using cookie cutter sound templates? Of course... bad ones. Hell, Bay reuses entire shots in his movies (often in the same damn franchise).

But good filmmakers will hire good sound designers and they will create good sound with what they have available.

Computers are a tool, nothing more. Digital sound is no different to digital imagery... people say they hate it, but they only hate BAD examples of it.

Can foley survive? Short term, maybe; long term, unlikely.

Fundamentally, it'll come down to the same question as any other technique in any commercial artform... cost vs quality. If foley remains the best way to get a sound, you will find people willing to pay for it. As digital sound creation gets better and better, there WILL come a point where no-one can tell the difference.

If you don't believe me look at guitar amplifiers. For decades, guitarists have preferred old vacuum tubes (known as valves) to generate the sound they want in a guitar amp. Digital (commonly referred to as solid state) amps are cheaper and generally pretty crap.

But these days, even people who love valve amps (and I include myself in that) have to admit that it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a genuine valve amp and a good computer model of the same (side note for guitar techy people... I know modelling != solid state).

And that's not just in playback, it's in live performance too. A kemper or an AxeFX FEELS like a valve amp, and you can vary the settings like a valve amp.

I believe that foley will ultimately go the same way. People like Wes Anderson will continue to use it, but for most filmmakers on a budget, they'll go with the sound creation software.

I agree with Mass Bike that the truck driver was responsible. Not sure that he should be criminally charged, that's a really big hammer to use on someone that almost certainly did not intend any harm. But he wasn't even cited, although he left the scene. He called the Boston police many hours later, from New Jersey.

That said, I would advise any cyclists to avoid ever putting themselves in the position that Dr Kurmann found herself in. It is dangerous to ride beside large vehicles with limited visibility, as we see. Also good to note that semi trucks frequently swing left to set up a right turn -- I don't believe she realized the danger she was in until the truck was close to actually passing in front of her.

The symbol in the middle lane is a "sharrow", which really indicates that the middle lane is not a bike lane. The sharrow is supposed to indicate to motorists that bicycles may be expected in the lane, and to remind cyclists that they are allowed to use it. The Boston police report gets this wrong, irresponsibly making the driving public stupider. At the time of the crash the right lane was used as a turn lane, and there was a bus stop just before the crash site, making it likely that cyclists would use the middle lane.

It's fun to say that you never trust anyone, but that can't literally be true. For example, I trust thousands of drivers standing at red lights or stop signs not to charge out and run me over. It would be almost impossible to move in traffic without relying on most drivers to do the right thing most of the time.

Actually, it doesn't burst so much as it ruptures in a small tear. Doctors state you can actually 'feel it go'. The tear doesn't dump all the food, it just releases bacteria into your system which kills you in a few hours if not treated.

The video is correct that it is almost impossible for this to happen in normal situations due to the brain inducing a gag reflex if you continue trying to eat. There are some situations which prevent people from following that reflex.

Bulimia can actually train the body to resist the gag reflex and the constant purging can help a full stomach to tear. Documented cases exist where bulimics have died due to stomach rupture.

People who have been starving for a long period of time can eat more than they can hold. Numerous cases of POW's during WWII, that were presented with large quantities of food after being starved for long periods of time, were indicative of stomach ruptures.

Fortunately if the rupture is caught in time, apparently with emergency surgery and treatment it is not likely to kill you.

At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.

In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.

I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.

I find it almost impossible to believe Neil had no concept of autorotation. That's ridiculous. It's common knowledge.

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

They're nearly always towed in by the jet-skis. It's almost impossible to paddle into waves that size, and when someone does it's usually pretty significant.

Eddie wouldn't tow.

You're right, I assumed (bad newt), but I must say that now that I have googled it, I'm 100% correct, there WAS only ONE vegan Olympian listed, Murray Rose, a swimmer from the 50's. (I must say that's the earliest I've ever heard of a vegan existing and calling themselves 'vegan', apparently the word began in 44).
All the others mentioned are not vegan, they are vegetarian....and I was talking about TODAY's Olympians, who are head and shoulders above 1950's athletes. Today's swimmers eat over 7000 calories a day, almost impossible as a vegetarian, and even harder as a vegan. Vegetarians aren't the same as vegans.

The only recent top notch (but still not Olympic) athlete listed was Rhonda Rousey, who had to give up on veganism to train for fights.

So my statement stands you WILL never see a vegan Olympic athlete (not you HAVE never seen one), because the level of training and competition in today's Olympics makes it near impossible, at least in active sports as I indicated originally (and in fact, vegans don't seem to be represented in the less active sports either).

Whenever I see something as horrendous as slavery downplayed (by likening it to today's working class) I'm likely to find myself agitated, and I think that contributed to my tone when replying earlier, and I'm somewhat ashamed for overreacting.

I could be totally wrong with my interpretation of the video, however. I guess the best thing to do is present my interpretation before any argument ensues.

It seems to present the similarities between the relationship a plantation slave had with their masters and the negative parts of the relationship a modern citizen has with their government and employer and the influential elite.

By creating a character as odious as the slave owner, they are poisoning the discussion. Their grievances are with three separate groups of people, but they push them all into one. Then they tar him by making him the slave owner, making it almost impossible to have a real discussion about him. Furthermore, they dismiss any of the benefits they enjoy from the three groups they are demonizing.

Sadly, until the US's whitewashing of history was complete, it was pretty widely-spread that Japan had been attempting to surrender for up to a week before the bombs were dropped, but the US didn't want to lose out on its opportunity to show off it's new war-toy.
This is widely disputed today, but I honestly can't tell if it is for reasons of rewriting the past, or that it honestly wasn't true.
(I'd also heard several times in my life that Japan had subs spotted near Hawaii before the Pearl Harbor bombing, but it was 'ignored' so an attack would justify the US's entry into WW2).
So obviously it's almost impossible to determine facts from history when every generation tries to remove the traces of its mistakes, but I *do* know the Japan-surrender was a pretty widely controversial one, and potentially true. What I know of the US today, that detail is another one of those dark pieces of history I can look at and say: "...Yeah, they would do that".

The problem is that sponsors will yank support in less time than it takes to change the channel when an episode of 19 and counting comes on, if and only if, it involves an individual or small group.

Getting them to yank support from a sporting organization that has a larger fan base and that is more corrupt than the NFL is almost impossible. In fact, and I wish I could find the article, Budweiser already doubled down on their support for FIFA after the indictments became widespread knowledge.

Realistically, I think that Blatter could make a video saying he knew all about this and completely supported every phase of the corruption without any chance of sponsors pulling from FIFA. The only way FIFA will fall is if the top teams and countries leave the league to form a competing one.

Edit: found the article, it basically has a statement saying they will continue to monitor their partner. the article goes on to compare it to a much stronger worded scolding of the NFL over DV. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-wont-budweiser-scold-fifa-2015-05-29