Nope, nothing wrong with sharing an opinion, it was his line "digital footage can look amazing but it has to be graded PROPERLY." so that means he's saying they aren't doing it 'right'. I'm saying that sometimes there are valid reasons for things that may not be apparent immediately on the one shot you're looking at... that someone made a conscious decision to grade this way for carefully considered reasons and it's not as simple as 'right' and 'wrong'.

i.e:
desaturating cg generally makes it feel a bit more photographic, so maybe Marvel thinks that it will balance all the crazy comic-book action and make things feel more real.

Also, maybe they want to mute things so that all the different films feel like they're in the same world, even if the color palettes are different.

I expressed my opinion because I've been a vfx artist for 15 years, and that was the topic of this specific youtube video! I'm not commenting on how he did with this video, but I'll do that now: "Pretty great first essay vid! look forward to seeing more!"

I actually prefer this guys grading more, and would likely do it that way if it was up to me. That's not the point. I'm countering his position.

Does that all make sense now Danny?

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

I'm in California, and i think dans in Thailand. California Is a Clinton state. If i was in a swing state i'd be more inclined to vote for that p.o.s. Clinton. I'm lucky i get to vote my conscious. I fucking hate Clinton but as horrible as i think she is shes still the only real option.

Alex Jones

That's his evidence.

The man who can't tell a jar from a can and thinks the government is breeding fish-people. As reliable as any source you'll find in Bob's Rolodex.

Clearly he's either A) Not right in the head, or B) Trolling us.

Either way he deserves our pity, but not our time or one iota of conscious thought.

Not far off, but it's all ok. My best friend - his dad - has gone to have a little chat with him. I'm sure it's all sorted by now.

As for the response speed (yes, I was tempted to wait a year or so before posting this), I do remember one night after doing well in a competition I kept being woken up by my right arm doing a parry-riposte. My muscles were acting completely independant of my conscious brain. It was one of the weirdest feelings I've ever had.

You are not alone in your thoughts:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/poll-unconscious-clinton-more-fit-to-be-president-than-conscious-trump

No, you've pointed out what you believe were adverse outcomes from slight dehydration. These are anecdotes. You didn't measure your level of dehydration, nor did you control for all the other factors that could have caused your issues.

If it was dehydration causing you to have muscle cramps and loss of consciousness then you probably didn't have "slight dehydration", you most likely had severe dehydration. And as someone has already pointed out, the evidence for muscle cramps caused by dehydration is slim (but that doesn't mean it's not true for you).

Studies don't take into account outliers. They look at large groups of people to generate explanations for human physiological conditions. You might be a one in a billion person and react differently to dehydration than almost everyone else.

no adverse outcomes? I've pointed out several adverse outcomes of very slight dehydration. In the video they use the example of sports and say hydration isn't important. So ya, if he's referring to clinical dehydration, he's basically side-stepping the fact that that's not what anyone is worried about when hydrating for sport, it's more about the intense cramping and loss of consciousness that we don't need scientific studies to confirm. Just like I don't need a scientific study to tell me to eat when I'm hungry.

Crabs dont care. They lack the mechanism to understand their predicament. There is nothing inside a crab that could give informed consent.

Ducks are different, they might not be the cleverest dinosaur, but my guess is they would consciously avoid the slide if they had the choice. The crabs just apply chaos theory.

Informed consent in this case (the crab video) is the human consent that this is funny.

Bryce: Most humans like waterslides. Or pretend to like them (peer pressure). I hate waterslides. Unavoidable if you have kids though. All humans stop liking waterslides after a variable number of consecutive slides (in my case 0). Crabs dont care.

Isn't it so much more fun to actually exchange information and points of view, rather than getting snotty? I love it.

Maybe we are talking a bit at cross purposes. (Like, that has never happened before on teh intertubes, right?)

I try not to "re-edit" or "re-imagine" videos. I'm sure I do it -- I often do things that I later complain that other people do. This comment goes back more to your first response to me, however it applies to this comment, too. The idea that the video would be better if it this'd, or that'd, or it fails to do this other thing that it wasn't even trying to do. The concept of being conscious of "the bigger picture" is what I am addressing here.

However, isn't it just YOUR vision of what the bigger picture is that you say is missing? Because for me, I see a bigger picture being addressed quite nicely -- the vision that the video maker set out to address.

I wonder if the nebulous nature of your instinctive dislike to this video is indeed EXACTLY what the video maker was setting out to illuminate? Or rather, decided to be not obsequious to? Like women have been taught to be obsequious for eons?

I notice that you are sure that your difficult-to-describe instinctive reactions are "correct." What if it is actually your own internalized and unexamined sexism? I know you say thunderfoot bugs you, too. I also know that all my impassioned information about how women across cultures and time are expected to "tone it down" wasn't addressed in your response to me.

That is the elephant in the room here, as far as I am concerned. Sure, "condescension" is gender neutral. The whole video, though, is about sexism and the unconscious ways that it leaks out. I don't see you addressing that in your response -- except maybe, MAYBE, it is this nebulous and difficult thing you are struggling to understand and maybe, MAYBE, it needs to be examined and understood.

So maybe look at your feelings through that prism?

I say this as someone who has their own internalized sexism (towards men and women both) that I am constantly trying to identify and own and uproot. Racism, too. I so want to be the person who, like Stephen Colbert of old, who doesn't see race. And yet I do and I am mortified by it and I try to push through that lizard brain instinct and the training of my youth.

Something to think about maybe?

Or not. Maybe it just is as simple as you don't like the humor in the video, and I do. There are differences in taste, after all.

I suspect, though, that it is much more complex than that -- as you said, "maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway."

BUT.....
Average black men do not undergo racial sensitivity training to dissuade them from those subconscious and conscious biases....police do....and are PAID in part to not hold biases.

So lets get this straight...you admit there is a CLEAR, HUGE racism problem that permeates the police department, and all (or near enough to all to say "all") officers suffer from it, but you go on to say it's not acceptable to treat them like they're racists?!? I'll just say I disagree. They have consistently shown racist tendencies, and a willingness to stand behind those that act on them. Until that changes, I think it's acceptable to assume that, baring evidence to the contrary, they will not treat a black 'suspect' fairly...up to and including killing them for nothing.

Turnabout is fair play. I agree, it's not the best, most civil, or even productive way to see it, but when your option is 1)give each officer the benefit of a doubt that he/she might be that 2% completely non racist officer with the penalty of being wrong being possible death, or 2)assume the officer is racist and protect yourself as best as you're able, it's 100% understandable if people decide to protect themselves. I do not ADVOCATE people reacting that way, I do accept that some will, and don't judge them for that, in the same way you wish to not pre judge police for their past actions.

It's 100% on the police to rid themselves of this appearance that 98%+- of them ARE racist, as well as the organization as a whole. It's not it's worst members, it's nearly all it's members AND the system that monitors them. If it was 2% that was dealt with harshly when they surfaced, I would agree with you.

Let's get this straight. There's clearly a huge problem with racism in the police in the US. It's probably not even a conscious thing on the part of the officers. Study after study has shown that even other black people are more likely to fire on a black suspect than a white one.

The problem is larger than the police, it's cultural. I read a great quote the other day:

When a black man is killed, the media publishes his criminal record. When a white girl is raped, the media publishes her rapist's swim times.

The culture in the US needs to change. Unfortunately, it's heading in the wrong direction right now, as anyone who saw Trump's acceptance speech can attest to.

BUT ...

Treating all cops as killers and racists is no better than treating all black people as criminals. The cops that do this should face the full weight of the law, as should anyone within any ethnic group committing crime (particularly violent crime).

But tarring an entire group because of the actions of it's worst members is the exact same logic that racists use.

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

At first I thought he was overreacting slightly, looks like she was just trying to slowly, but dickisly force her way in.

But on second viewing she appears to have been completely ignoring the fact he was there, either deliberately or through ignorance. (I could't see her look at the biker even once and he was in the blind spot)

Either way that behaviour could easily prove fatal at higher speeds. And even at the speed they were going serious injuries are entirely possible, I nearly broke my wrist once merely dropping a bike (Yet walked away from a 40mph spill because life is strange like that).

I know motor-bicyclists may seem like whingy bitches sometimes, but we are absurdly vulnerable to ignorant assholes like this.
At the very least, this plays on the sub-conscious heavily and even minor slights can sometimes feel like attempted murder at the time.

Another time and place she might have caused a serious incident, so I'm glad she got a stern talking to at the very least.

But yeh, this is small fry in the grand scheme of things. I usually just move on, but had I been filming and then run across a police car.....I might well have done the same here. (Though I do make a big point to stay out of blind spots these days as most car drivers don't bother to check it)

On what @SDGundamX said, before I read his post I was going to say that passion industries are generally known for notoriously long hours, bad pay and horrible treatment. I was actually going to mention game developers (especially what I've read about crunch time before release), also chefs who often get paid less than the waiter staff, and of course most creative jobs where job insecurity and poor pay abounds.

It's simple economics. These industries know that these people are willing to put up with more to do what they love. There may not even be a conscious decision on an individual level for a given employer looking to hire, you simply know that you can find employees for X profession at X level of pay and can't really offer more if you want to stay competitive with your competitor. Meanwhile there are people streaming in who don't consider the pay or conditions beforehand and are just adding to a surplus of workers.

That's not to say that people can't be successfully, job secure or wealthy in these sectors but we know most notably from the arts that most of the money accrues to the top actors, top musicians. I do agree that when you see these people giving motivational speeches about 'never giving up' or 'always chasing their dreams', there are dozens who put in just as much effort but never got their lucky break.

The arts may be one of the worst examples, but I think this is true to a lesser extent for all 'passion' industries. It's textbook selection bias and our tendency to lionize success. On a related point, it's like how we idolize successful entrepreneurs and think their autobiographies contain the holy grail to success when perhaps the hypothetical book by a failed entrepreneur detailing their failings might actually be more beneficial to our lives.