Or his defensive reaction is just based on his improper assumption that someone is telling him how to play his music.

The idea that his reaction (guy in video) is based on race, says more about someone who thinks that, then the guy in the video.

That's disappointing. I thought/hoped you were being clever, playing off the misdirection of the video, but no, you were just being nasty.
Q: what makes you assume his assumption/reaction is racist and not ageist or sexist?
Edit:
Q2: why should we not assume your vitriolic reaction based on an assumption you made based purely on someone's race makes you a racist jackass deserving of the same reaction?

Did I say HE is a MAGA moron?
No, I did not, you inferred it, although it would be a relatively safe assumption based on his ignorant racist interruption and self centered disrespect paired with the inane irrationality of his question and blatantly racist comments.
Now who's making slanderous assumptions?

Your messiah slanders without (it's one word, Bob, not two) knowing daily. A bit hypocritical to denounce that when you so often applaud it, don't you think?

And my what is no better than the guy?
Your: possessive- belonging to you- "Your assumption is based in ignorance."
You're: conjunction- You are- "You're in desperate need of a better education because your English would fail a 3rd grade English class."

I might just WHAT another douchebag? You forgot the verb. You get an F for the day, Bobski. Nigerian princes have better English skills, and terrible English is an intentional part of their scam. (Or were you channeling Yoda but forgot the punctuation? As in "Look in the mirror, you might. Just another douchebag looking back.")

You need to watch some more school house rock and learn English better, then you might understand complex statements better and not jump to mistaken conclusions so often. Might I suggest starting with conjunction junction?

Also, I wrote MAGA, not MEGA, aside from MEGA making zero sense, I wouldn't ever insult MegaMan by conflating him with idiots like this guy. Besides an education, you seem to need glasses. Maybe that's why you can't see any of Trump's infinite character flaws?
Sad.

So he is a MEGA man?

How can anyone slander with out knowing?
You made an assumption just like the guy did.

Your no better than the guy.

Look in the mirror you might just another douchebag looking back.

Or maybe he's a bad ass skateboarder just fucking around (was my assumption).

So i looked him up and...

Seems like a pro skateboarder just fucking around
https://hypebeast.com/2016/10/jamal-smith-interview-jenkem

Really? Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer telecommunication innovations, or are you just assuming? Be sure to focus on pre '68 era, before American socialism was applied in large part (public funding/monopoly busting).

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately....so what's your point? Certainly not that Capitalism always beats socialism, I hope you aren't that deluded. Both have strengths and weaknesses, both ebb and flow. Neither are the sole determining factor for inventiveness, neither has a monopoly on invention.

Russia beat America into space even with their near poverty level economy at the time, and despite the fact that their scientists definitely didn't personally profit from their myriad of inventions required to make it happen.
I'm not arguing which is better, that's like arguing over which color is better....better in what way? I'm arguing against your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation. That's clearly a mistaken assumption imo.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

You "warned" me by calling me dumb for assuming something that I didn't assume, at all, in any way, shape or form.

If the second amendment prevents the government from doing anything relating to bearing arms then why have they repeatedly been able to do things related to gun and weapon control?

You're going to hazard a guess, seems a bit like assuming something to me...

"it would be dumb to make any assumptions"

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

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.

Yeah...I was joking.
That said, if you wear the colored bandanas in your back pocket while dancing with other men, you shouldn't be surprised if someone makes an assumption.

That's why I said "assume", and listed the "parameters" etc... if the hiring commission is for that type of video, then it's a fail. Is that not reasonable?

Conversely, if the commission is to just make a cool video for marketing, then it's a win if you like it Different assumption, different purpose, different perspective. I have no problem with that.

To me, the "corporate" guys seem/might not be that happy about the execution, but the Drone Racers Team sure are ecstatic. I can understand that, of course, it's a rare opportunity for them.

I take professional photos for architects (banks, high-end restaurants, retail & offices, etc). They set out what I need to capture: furniture, electrical outlets, height and space relation... all need to be in-frame, properly and neatly placed; garbage & plants, office supplies hidden, staff out of the picture, etc...i.e. parameters. Photos that I give them are often different from what I would take in the scene from an artistic perspective. Perhaps that warped by perspective on this video.