Forgive my ignorance, but do deaf people go to MUSIC concerts? It seems kinda self-defeating.

imo, infinity war had the best ending of any marvel movie and they should keep it as the actual ending of the current MCU. the main story telling problem with most superhero movies is there is no real risk or threat to the main characters, only to the people around them. this makes all the action have much less impact as consequences to the violence and action are minimized. ending the series with real deaths from a foe they could not defeat finally gives the series the gravitas that it failed to have up until this point.

also, thanos was by far the most interesting and complex character in the whole MCU. the reframing of his motives vastly improved on his character.

Meh, padlocks are not for securing valuable property or for securing property against someone with any sort of tools at all. They are for preventing opportunistic theft. 30 seconds to defeat the lock is plenty long enough for that. Of course, that is a pretty stupid design, so good video nonetheless. If I owned one already, a little solder or permanent loctite on the inner screws would probably do the trick.

Mostly though, The lock company lost me at $100 for the lock. A traditional dial is not *that* hard to work and I'd be worried about false negatives and dead batteries even with a high-quality finger print reader. Just buy a $10 padlock at the hardware store to lock up your garbage cans, or proper u-lock or quality cable to lock up your $600 bicycle (ie, something that will require 15 minutes to defeat).

I'm surprised that he didn't think of a way to defeat a metal detector. Identifying hacks to solve skilled tasks with effort are an important part of puzzle making.

The face part opened up, but the "ears" pop open and uncover whenever they're trying to listen closely.

I any case, armored just means they have some resistance to small arms fire, like the bugs in Starship Troopers or xenomorphs in the Aliens universe. Unless the monsters in this movie are covered in adamantium, I find it hard to believe that they can wipe out the world's militaries in such a short time.

Also, they would have to defeat the world's armies first, as securing the food supply would be one of the top priorities of any army. No military is going to sit around waiting to slowly starve to death.

More spoilers:

I think the movie tried to show that they only opened up and became vulnerable when they heard the feedback sound from the hearing aid.

The movie didn't really go on about how they defeated armies, but really they only have to kill the farmers, everyone will eventually starve if they can't grow food.

Your video, How a Single Swedish Submarine Defeated the US Navy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

how to defeat relay attack with simple metal box https://youtu.be/SSNX4o2RGK8

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.

Kinda sad that, even with 37% of the planet's military budget and by far the most advanced equipment and techniques, we still can't defeat a militia or two after well over a decade of trying.

Satan is not a horned beast with a pitchfork, he is a fallen angel. The scripture tells us that he appears as an angel of light, and his ministers, ministers of righteousness.

Satan means enemy, and he is the enemy of both God and man. He has many names: the devil, red dragon, beelzebub, father of lies, prince of the power of the air, the god of this world, the accuser, the adversary, the tempter, the serpent, belial

In Heaven, he was called the "annointed Cherub who covers", as in the Cherubs that covered the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant. He was perfect in all of his ways until iniquity was found in him, and he was cast out. He was lifted up because of his own beauty and desired to replace God and be worshiped. Jesus said that He saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning.

He deceived 1/3 of the angelic host to follow him into perdition. With them he wars against God and man, and has deceived the whole world. The scripture tells us that the whole world lies in the lap of the wicked one.

Jesus Christ defeated Him on the cross, 2000 years ago. He took from Satan the keys of death and hell. The demons believe in Him, and tremble.

Every person who comes to faith in Jesus Christ, as having died on the cross for their sins and being resurrected on the third day, will be forgiven for their sins and receive eternal life. The devil will lose his power over them and they will be set free.

Defeated people seldom remain "in their place". I think this is true on a macro-scale as well as individually. "Occupation" is usually the remedy, as either the victor moves in & sets up shop, or you get Johnny to "get a job". The later invites screams of "police state" which has always been a dog whistle to most Americans.

I think the solution initially would have been very ugly and still be dealt with. You just cannot make people change the way they think...at least not yet.

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.