Less a save than just picking the dog off the leash. Like taking off ornaments off a Christmas tree.

How he didn't spot the dog while walking towards the elevator is beyond my comprehension.

Oh no! It would have been interesting to know if the Christmas tree person was wearing a mask under the costume... although actually I'm not 100% sure it would have been enough to stop this.

I wouldn't have previously considered these costumes to be a large risk.

I love this. Also--did anyone flash on the inflatable Xmas tree costume at Kaiser Hospital San Jose CA which is now thought to be responsible for over hundred cases and a death? The person WEARING the soon was an asymptomatic superspreader---and as they walked around the ER, they were blowing contaminated air under pressure out every outlet into the rooms...

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/04/she-was-just-spreading-joy-kaiser-nurse-reveals-details-of-suspected-christmas-tree-costume-covid-superspreader
/

https://abc11.com/kaiser-outbreak-san-jose-christmas-tree-costume-covid-permanente-medical-center/9620178/

Happy christmas everyone 🎄

🎄 Merry Christmas fellow sifters/ friends 🎅

Wtf? What happened to the line.... "Mr Hankey the Christmas poo, he loves me, I love you, therefore vicariously he loves you, even if you're a Jew"?!

I still have a Mr Hankey plush I use as a Christmas tree topper.

Your video, Christmas tree trimming, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 35 Badge!

*promote christmas trees and good times

Your video, Water your Christmas Tree. Really., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

only because they illuminated the octopus like a christmas tree...for sealions. The prime directive violated!

*quality *parody ... don't light a match over by Christmas Tree Corner!

At the risk of starting the usual cyclist vs. motorist discussion (as if people are never both):

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study)

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found...

Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

...police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases...

...80% of casualties happened during daylight hours.

So the product looks interesting (I'd like to get some), but putting the focus on the visibility choices of the cyclist probably doesn't make too much sense from a statistical point of view.

You can be flashing like a christmas tree, but if a driver isn't looking in the right direction, or you cycle under a bus, it won't really help.

What it does do is position your company as trying to help, while also re-inforcing the idea that your customers are not to blame.

Also when he said Timex Christmas tree I thought he said SkyNet Christmas tree.

For anyone that hasn't followed what this is about...

For the problems itemized in this video.
Loss of :
- power brake assist
- airbags
- power steering.

This affair was actually about 1 specific issue :
The detent in the key socket rotator was not as strong as it should have been.

What that specifically meant was that :
IF you had a large heavy keychain on your key, and you jerked it, or knocked it such that it swings hard, the keychain could pull on the key hard enough to turn the key to the OFF position.

So when the car would turn off, you'd lose the power brakes, power steering, and airbags would be inactive.

Under "normal" circumstances, this wasn't a problem.
But for the folks with a christmas tree hanging off of their key, it was a chance to turn off their car while driving.

(side note : Crying about the power steering and power brakes really misses the big issue : The steering lock can kick in while moving... which apparently no one gave enough of a crap about to think for the 2 seconds it takes to notice that elephant in the room)



In this case, the contention over whether or not the core problem with the key socket was negligence boils down to semantics.

Car companies buy their parts from sub contractors.
They spec out the parts, and sub contractors manufacture the parts 'to spec'.

The spec isn't a 'hard' requirement.
If you say "5 Newtons of force", that doesn't mean that 4.999999999999123 Newtons is unacceptable.

Actually, it's standard for ~all parts to not be exactly the spec. They just have to be 'close enough to work right'.

And for that matter, many of the numbers in various specs are 'off the cuff' values that are 'generally known to work fine'. Getting hung up on a specific number isn't salient - what matters is 'does it work right?'.

So the question becomes, what is "good enough to work right?".
In practice, that ends up being a judgment call. Often made by engineers that try out the parts.


Here's where congress and GM differed.

Congress said : The ignition socket wasn't 100% exactly what GM had in the spec that they sent to the subcontractors, so it was wrong from day 1, and they knew it wasn't 100% the spec since pre-production. Hence, GM was negligent.

GM said : Of course it wasn't 100% exactly the spec. That was to be expected. At the time, we had no indication that the actual provided part was so far out of spec that it would not work right.


My personal take :
If this was something as simple as 'actual malfunctions/breakages of parts', then it would be black and white.
But in these cases, nothing was actually broken or malfunctioning.
So you had to rely on statistics and analysis to identify the issue.
Statistics require data, data requires evidence, evidence requires time to collect.
Seeing as how the vast majority of cars had no problem, this isn't the kind of thing that just leaps out at you.

Since any given car, when made in massive quantities, will have all kinds of multiple complaints about multiple systems, you can't just go back and point at incident(s) X and Y and say that it was the smoking gun - because if it was, then you'd have a pile of smoking guns for every other part out there.
Every instance of every part has a small chance of going bad, and with enough cars, you'll have a lot of 'item A went bad' reports to sift through.
You can't jump to the conclusion after the first couple reports that the part is improper, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to immediately make that conclusion.
In order to make an informed determination, you simply need a pattern to emerge.

(I listened to the CSPAN coverage of the hearings while driving.)

-scheherazade

Seems like some people on YouTube can't tell the difference between CGI and real life... I thought the man made Christmas tree between two airplanes is a dead giveaway