Best bouncer fight ever?

You have a low bar for what you consider bar fights. Around here, this is what happens every 10 minutes after 9pm until closing.

It happened before video phones became a thing, but the "Best bouncer fight" I ever watched was between two bouncers from competing clubs hanging out at a third club. Both were over 6'6", both had years of experience in their chosen martial arts, and each was built like a brick shithouse. Epic. Purely Epic.

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

This attitude is prevalent in Nordic countries. As the article states, there has been some slight movement away from Janteloven, but not very much. It is precisely this attitude that allows for people to accept drastically higher taxes, not just for the 1%, but across the board. The social culture is dramatically different in the USA, possibly to our detriment.

Per capita means nothing. All NATO states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of their GDP towards defense. As I said, Norway spends around 1.2% of their GDP, if the USA did the same, we would have a massive amount of money for social programs. Again, I must stress that I am not slamming Norway or other Nordic countries for not reaching the 2%, I am simply pointing out additional reasons why they have more money available for social programs than we do.

I don't see what developmental aid has to do with anything. I am sure Norway spends money in other places as well. I am pointing out why socialism works in Nordic countries and why it would be a hard sell in the USA.

I understand that you are happy with your situation. In a perfect world, we could all follow a similar rule. Unfortunately to fit into that type of situation you need a population that is of relatively the same mind. In most larger nations that is impossible, there are too many different groups that have competing ideals.

Hubris.

WW2 japan had fighters that flew faster, climbed quicker, had bigger guns, and turned quicker (a6m vs f4f). And we had intel reports that told us, but we ignored them because "we have the best stuff and nobody else can compete".

You see the same stuff today with China. China makes all of our microchips, all of our microelectronics, most of which are designed over there anyways (companies here just ask for a widget that does X and Y, and Chinese companies design+make it), yet we act like as if they are some technologically retarded place that only knows how to steal ip.

Russia has been at the forefront of rocketry since ww2. Nobody has systems that compare to their consistency and reliability. Not even the U.S.. The idea that Russia can't make a hyper sonic missile before the U.S., because it's Russia, is a non sequitur.

Also, Russia broke up as a country because guaranteed government jobs for all citizens, where you can't be fired and performance is not important, is going to destroy any economy. No one will produce, shelves will be empty, and money will be no more than paper. Combine that with making private business illegal (preventing people from economically helping themselves), and you have a recipe for economic disaster and social discontent.

This missile exists to swat down carrier groups on the cheap.
We're gonna need some powerful lasers, or our own hyper sonic interceptors, or else proliferation would instantly leave us isolated in the Americas (vis-a-vis power projection via conventional weaponry). Our only option for projecting power would be reduced to nuclear or nothing.

-scheherazade

*Doublepromote

Guess what, this just became true.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html

Holding global warming to a critical limit would require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."

Based on the report, we are absolutely going to hit the critical limit now. No stopping it. The best we could do, literally the best, is to prevent from going too far above it.

So, we are definitively fucked. Now we just get to compete for how bad it is going to get by the end.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

That only works if there's equality in lower/mid level education, giving all students a reasonable opportunity for quality education before that SAT testing, and there is not.
Low income district schools are at a distinct disadvantage in funding, facilities, and availability of assistance, as are low income students. Female students have, historically, been discouraged from pursuing science and math, especially at high levels.

Equality of opportunity at least to a reasonably competent base level of education is considered a civil right. Because we are still far from reaching that ideal, rolling back programs designed to address the continued shortfalls IS a rollback of civil right protections in the same way rolling back civil right protections in our election system was a rollback of the voting rights for a large, specifically targeted population which led instantly to attempts to return to old, clearly discriminatory practices designed to deny voting rights.

Skills and competence saves the day.

You lost me there, dude. We haven't had a decent president since Carter, nor a competent one since Eisenhower.

Really, he's competent enough to escape from multiple armed kidnappers, several kids and at least one adult who all just left him alone and unrestrained while they all went into another, non adjoining room so he could escape unnoticed, but he can't show police where the property full of racists, guns, and torture devices he escaped on foot from is? And local police don't know the fat ginger racist in a red truck with "I hate black people" tattooed on his forearm by name?
Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Inappropriate channel assignments, so
*nochannel
Maybe *news (likely fake news) *equality and *controversy, but certainly not for kids and not related to the military war on terror. Also not a lynching.

I've always found it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as a new "fuel", especially when they're referring to hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Using electrolysis means that the theoretical limits are that you can get as much energy -out- of burning hydrogen as you put into splitting the water. The traditional meaning of fuel is the exact opposite, that you can get more energy out of combustion than you have to put into creating the fuel.

TLDR - Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a fuel. It competes against batteries, not against carbon fuels.

Companies need to be able to compete, and if they will do better with fewer employees then that's just unfortunate reality.

Eventually we will have to face the fact that we need a citizens dividend, there is not enough useful work to be done and people still need to live.

She holds the U17 Formula 4 lap record for Okayama International Circuit with a time of 1 minute 32.8 in the under 17 category, despite being too young to actually compete in F4 races (she needs to be 16 to enter).

This looks like a game of high-stakes chicken. There are a set of international collision regulations (COLREGS) that every cadet all over the world has to learn by heart to gain a certificate of competency.

Sometimes these rules are inaccurately reduced to "right of way" rules. In fact, the rules oblige actions on all ships in a potential collision situation: one will be the "stand-on vessel", and the other will be the "give-way vessel": obliged to make an early and obvious maneuver to avoid the collision, in a prescribed direction (generally turn to starboard). The ships involved can instead get on the radio and negotiate a different plan, but absent that, these are the rules.

One rule governs overtaking, where the vessel being overtaken is the "stand-on vessel" and the vessel overtaking is the "give-way vessel". Another governs crossing, where in a crossing path situation the vessel which has the other ship to port (on the left, looking forward) is the "stand-on vessel" and the other is the "give-way vessel".

So in the situation we see in the video, the ship in which we are standing is clearly to port of the other vessel and so would be the "give-way" vessel. It should have made a slight starboard turn much much much earlier to pass behind the other vessel.

Except what if the other vessel overtook this ship and passed in front? This happens sometimes, where a vessel in a hurry and in the "give-way" position decides to make an early change to put it in the "stand-on" position and force the other ship to move. This is what's known internationally as a "dick move" and probably criminal.

Unless we have the full radar track for both ships we can't know who was at fault. Since they thankfully didn't collide, the MAIB won't have to figure this out and send anyone to jail.

I'm sure you could do the exact same clip from MSNBC showing the praise for Obama being willing to talk and condemnation for Trump doing the same.

To be even more fair, Obama being grossly more competent than Trump makes it a lot easier for MSNBC to be a bit more subtle in their hypocrisy.

Da comrade.
Bob, when you can't speak English it becomes impossible to have an adult conversation, and clearly evident you aren't American, but not a bit clear what you're saying.

Individuals break the law on occasion, that does not a secret cabal or deep state conspiracy make. Most of what you complain about is Trump being opposed for ignoring the law and constitution. Consider his administration is on track for the most indictments and most convictions ever, barely in his second year, most of which are tied to treasonous activities against the United States, so I get that you have to believe the entire world is conspiring to destroy his presidency, otherwise you must admit you support the most criminal, least competent president ever. Even Regan's administration averaged under 20 filed indictments per year, you can find that many from multiple single individuals in Trump's administration, I think you can actually find an unprecedented over 20 charges plead guilty to in year one, which kind of destroys the 'witch hunt' conspiracy accusations.

Baselessly accusing the organizations that are investigating him for treason of conspiracy would be laughable if not for people like you who back him up. Because of people like you, it's incredibly harmful to our government, laws, and nation, another indicator you live in Kiev and work for Putin.
I could be wrong about where you live, but I'm not wrong about who your stated views benefit.