search results matching tag: breakdown

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (173)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (9)     Comments (409)   

CGP Grey grades state flags

Hoover Dam Collapse from San Andreas

ant (Member Profile)

Social Media and the Infinite Dread of the Internet

The Matrix Resurrections – Official Trailer 2

Trump, GOP To NUKE Reps Who Voted For Biden's Bill

newtboy says...

Derp.
Here’s your class for the day, Bobby.
To start with, >1/2 goes to preexisting transportation spending…and you just accounted for the rest…..wrongly. New transportation funding accounts for +-$280 billion. +-$240 billion for water, electric, broadband, and resilience.
Only one category grew in the final bill, cleaning up mines and superfund sites, now $20 billion. Funny how everyone can agree to spend tax dollars to clean up after corporate pollution instead of asking the polluters to pay.
100% of funding for schools, housing, home health care, r&d and manufacturing, and clean energy tax credits….gone. Not a penny left in the final bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/28/upshot/infrastructure-breakdown.html

Better go back to math class, the bill is $1.2 trillion….$540 billion is almost 1/2, not 1/4, not 24%….the rest is funding pre existing costs like road and bridge maintenance. Duh. Don’t you ever get tired of being so wrong so often?

bobknight33 said:

Infrastructure improvement of bridges, highways, roads, ports, waterways, and airports—accounts for only $157 billion, or 7%, of the plan’s estimated cost. The definition of infrastructure can reasonably be expanded to include upgrading wastewater and drinking water systems, expanding high-speed broadband Internet service to 100% of the nation, modernizing the electric grid, and improving infrastructure resilience. That brings the total to $518 billion, or 24% of the plan’s total cost.

The rest mostly for buying votes via pork.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

bcglorf says...

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

JiggaJonson said:

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

1000 Year Heatwave Becoming The Norm

newtboy says...

"Climate scientists are increasingly concerned that global heating will trigger tipping points in Earth’s natural systems, which will lead to widespread and possibly irrevocable disaster, unless action is taken urgently.

The impacts are likely to be much closer than most people realise, a a draft report from the world’s leading climate scientists suggests, and will fundamentally reshape life in the coming decades even if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under some control.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is preparing a landmark report to be published in stages this summer and next year. Most of the report will not be published in time for consideration by policymakers at Cop26, the UN climate talks taking place in November in Glasgow.

A draft of the IPCC report apparently from early this year was leaked to Agence France-Presse, which reported on its findings on Thursday. The draft warns of a series of thresholds beyond which recovery from climate breakdown may become impossible. It warns: “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems … humans cannot.”"

Britney Spears Conservatorship Explained, and It's ATROCIOUS

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Nothing more dangerous to the black than Democratic government policies and "enlightened" white Liberals.
99% black on Black murders 1% cop on black murders. Fix the big issue and the 1% will fade away


2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police.

403 were white,
210 were black,
148 were Hispanic, 3
8 were classified as other, and
199 were classified as unknown.

Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 were unknown.
948 victims were armed

newtboy said:

He should have just cooperated with the police, then he wouldn't be dead. That is what you've been saying for years. What, doesn't that apply to white people?

You are so delusional you don't understand this is precisely what you advocate against non whites.....repeatedly.

🤦‍♂️

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

SpaceX Starship Test Flight | SN10 sticks the landing

Ashenkase says...

Check out Scott Manley's breakdown of the landing. There where 2 wee little landing legs that did not lock, which meant the skirt hit the ground on the hard bounce. Damage happened, leaks ensued, kablooey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM&ab_channel=ScottManley

SFOGuy said:

Landing rockets is hard. Really hard. Make your brain hurt from thinking hard. I wonder what actually happened? Sounds like the post-landing fuel venting--created a pool of explosive vapor and stuff came in contact with an ignition source?

Next time it lands, I'm sure we'll see it bathed in a fine aqueous mist.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

point of clarification

"lack of standing, meaning the campaign failed to show that it had suffered an 'injury in fact'"

Or in these circumstances, if there WERE a handful of people lets say 100, lets say they legit found 100 votes that were 100% fraudulent. In a space where they lost the vote by 20,000, 100 votes would not have caused injury or would not have changed anything.

Still if you look at even the numbers that they are claiming are frauds
(see below)
-----------------------
-----------------------
Here’s the breakdown of the ones they could verify and have been provided to the public.

42,000 people voted more than once
1,500 dead voters cast ballots
19,000 non-Nevada residents voted (number doesn’t include students and military)
8,000 people voted using non-existent addresses
15,000 votes were cast from commercial addresses or vacant houses
4,000 ineligible foreign nationals voted


that brings you to 89,500 votes

STILL you'd have to chop that 42,000 in half, because 1 of their votes would still count, so 89-21= 68,500 that they are even CLAIMING are fraudulent

Here's the problem
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2020-us-presidential-election-results-live-map/

even if u shift the 68,500 away - you can't assume that all of those votes that they're claiming are fraudulent are FOR biden - it's likely a mixed bag. HENCE the no injury-in-fact.


------------

But that's also assuming that the evidence they present is actually substantial and holds up to scrutiny

"[The judge] summarily dismissed its claims of voter fraud and request for an overturn of election results in a ruling on Friday, writing that the campaign’s evidence provided “little to no value” based on questionable or “unsound” methodology, adding that the evidence failed to show any “credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”





-
If the evidence is so compelling, why can't i find it anywhere? "washed away?" Can't be that washed away, there's a court transcript that's easily readable. There's bits and pieces published on news sites, but the judges in 50 different states in the USA (many appointed by trump) and the supreme court too for that matter, didnt find anything presented to be compelling.



--------
SIDE NOTE
Did u watch Lombardi's ghost or whatever speaking at the super bowl? What do you think he meant by "...the courage and teamwork to triumph" The phrase jumped out at me, because it's not very encouraging. I mean I personally find it encouraging. But i guess a lot of people don't find talk like that encouraging, it's just a weird quote that doesnt make sense. It's like how do you get to the word "triumph" with the word "courage" --- that's just not very encouraging,,,some might say. It's like, what does he even do all day, TALK to the players to get them to do things? everyone knows that's not possible. Not encouraging. pffffft sorry i can't keep it up, yeah he incited the riot through encouragement.

newtboy said:

Some were tossed for lack of standing, but most for lack of merit, which means their claims were baseless, had no evidence, no proof. The administration was given dozens upon dozens of opportunities to present evidence and proof in court to save their cases, they NEVER presented a single verified fact about election fraud, nor have they presented ANY to the public.

BSR (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Excellent breakdown.....*points!

BSR said:

de·plor·a·ble

✔️ Donald J. Trump

adjective
deserving strong condemnation.

Similar:
✔️ disgraceful
✔️ shameful
✔️ dishonorable
✔️ disreputable
✔️ discreditable
✔️ unworthy
✔️ shabby
✔️ inexcusable
✔️ unpardonable
✔️ unforgivable
✔️ reprehensible
✔️ despicable
✔️ abominable
✔️ base
✔️ sordid
✔️ vile
✔️ hateful
✔️ contemptible
✔️ loathsome
✔️ offensive
✔️ execrable
✔️ heinous
✔️ odious
✔️ revolting
✔️ unspeakable
✔️ beyond contempt
✔️ beyond the pale
✔️ egregious
✔️ flagitious
✔️ asshole

Trump Says COVID “Affects Virtually Nobody”

simonm says...

So, if these (very soft) numbers are taken into account and this (highly infectious) disease continues to spread throughout the whole of the US, there's going to be this rough breakdown:

0-18: 2217 dead
20-49: 23,840 dead
50-69: 417,000 dead
70+: 3,029,400 dead

Total deaths nearing 3.5 million. And this is considered something to dismiss without concern?

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that there can be long term implications for people who are infected, but survive, too.

bobknight33 said:

The US govt last week updated the survival rates (i.e., IF infected) for Covid19:

0-19 99.997%
20-49 99.98%
50-69 99.5%
70+ 94.6%


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html



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