Interesting skillful call and I agree. He's read a difficult situation and helped defuse it without having to say anything.

watched the whole thing.
grover was a smug douche and if i had to take a drink everytime he vomited a repub talking point i would be wasted.
he stuck to his propaganda..*cough i mean "public relations" creed:
deflect,defuse and obfuscate.

he did settle down some after being repeatedly called on his tactics.though those folks did it waaaay more nicely than i would have.

>> ^offsetSammy:

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.
It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!
So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).
p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.
>> ^Friesian:
My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.



Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, but there's something about it which makes me sit back and question it.


Interestingly, 3% seems really really low for getting 5 heads in a row (oh, I know it's correct, but it just appears low). There are 2 to the power 5 different combinations of heads/tails from 5 coin flips (32). As you've got to have at least one combination, 100%/32 (as they're all just as likely) = 3.125%, which is the same as 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. I know I'm just reiterating what you said, but this helps me get it through my skull and into my brain.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, or maybe ever since I heard about the Monty Hall problem I've never trusted myself to be able to accurately figure out probabilities.

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.

It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!

So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).

p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.

>> ^Friesian:

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:

Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:

Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

My thoughts exactly>> ^BoneRemake:

" I sat on it.... why ?
So that I would know nothing of it if it went off "
Thats worth a promote.

Your video, Bomb Defusing in WWII, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^BoneRemake:

" I sat on it.... why ?
So that I would know nothing of it if it went off "
Thats worth a promote.


Fact!

Most of the time when somebody stopped for a routine traffic violation gets out of the car with one hand in their baggy jacket pocket instead of following the normal protocol, it's because they're going to pull a gun on the cop. That freaks the cop out understandably. The cop has a valid self defense reason for giving those orders, and you have to understand that he's having an adrenaline rush for the first couple minutes of the video because he thought he was about to get shot at the very beginning. Completely ignoring every single thing the cop says and disobeying all his orders gets you tasered. The cop overreacted, but guy who got tasered was a naive idiot who should have seen it coming. By 2:00 or so the cop should have realized what was going on and come to his senses enough to defuse the situation by talking instead of continuing down the same path that obviously wasn't working.

To presume anyone is unarmed is a quick way to die when you're a police officer. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
Utter nonsense. He didn't implore anything, he demanded and refused to comply with the policeman's instructions. Threatening behavior, refuse to comply with lawful orders. Put your hands on the car, then ask what you're pulled over for. better yet, stay in your fucking car until the cop comes up to you.
This douche cost his city a bunch of money.

I'd like to dig a bit further into some of these reactions. There were three moderately sized officers on the scene pointing weapons at a presumedly unarmed man. I agree that common sense should've told him to stay in the car, and certainly to comply with their orders if he wanted to get to where he was going that night.
But then again the same can be said for those who refuse to go through the porno scanners or be molested at the TSA checkpoints. Common sense says comply if you want to get to where you were going. But does it make it right?
I see two things happening simultaneously in this video. 1. The man wanted to know why he was stopped. 2. The officer reacted as if this man was a threat. I feel both are reasonable responses. The man did eventually comply with the officer's instructions until he was ordered on his knees.
Let's put this into perspective: he was stopped for a crooked license plate on the front of his car. It's important to consider why he was pulled over. Not for a felony, but what's probably an infraction. Is the crooked license a threat of any kind? A danger? What's the purpose of the stop?
When the man asked why he was stopped, and he had his hands out of his pockets, and the officer had his taser sights locked onto the man, at that point I feel it's reasonable to assume a simple explanation isn't too much to ask for. "Why was I pulled over?" "Your front license is crooked. If you'd return to your vehicle, I'll be over to discuss with you further and you can be on your way."
Another thing to note, statistically most female police officers don't have situations like this escalate further. I think it has to do with their approach. And I wonder if they're set on defusing situations while male officers want compliance.

>> ^gwiz665:

Utter nonsense. He didn't implore anything, he demanded and refused to comply with the policeman's instructions. Threatening behavior, refuse to comply with lawful orders. Put your hands on the car, then ask what you're pulled over for. better yet, stay in your fucking car until the cop comes up to you.
This douche cost his city a bunch of money.


I'd like to dig a bit further into some of these reactions. There were three moderately sized officers on the scene pointing weapons at a presumedly unarmed man. I agree that common sense should've told him to stay in the car, and certainly to comply with their orders if he wanted to get to where he was going that night.

But then again the same can be said for those who refuse to go through the porno scanners or be molested at the TSA checkpoints. Common sense says comply if you want to get to where you were going. But does it make it right?

I see two things happening simultaneously in this video. 1. The man wanted to know why he was stopped. 2. The officer reacted as if this man was a threat. I feel both are reasonable responses. The man did eventually comply with the officer's instructions until he was ordered on his knees.

Let's put this into perspective: he was stopped for a crooked license plate on the front of his car. It's important to consider why he was pulled over. Not for a felony, but what's probably an infraction. Is the crooked license a threat of any kind? A danger? What's the purpose of the stop?

When the man asked why he was stopped, and he had his hands out of his pockets, and the officer had his taser sights locked onto the man, at that point I feel it's reasonable to assume a simple explanation isn't too much to ask for. "Why was I pulled over?" "Your front license is crooked. If you'd return to your vehicle, I'll be over to discuss with you further and you can be on your way."

Another thing to note, statistically most female police officers don't have situations like this escalate further. I think it has to do with their approach. And I wonder if they're set on defusing situations while male officers want compliance.

No problem. I can see how it might have been interperted as demeaning, in which case I would have deserved it. Regarding the bias, I know this is a community made up of mostly atheists. If you were posting on a Christian site, I'm sure you would see the bias there too. It's human nature I suppose. I don't upvote atheist videos so I guess I am a hypocrite. I'll just shut up about it..I think it's attracting more downvotes.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
Oh, alright then. I retract my "you're a douchebag" comments.
I forgot about my avatar.

good day to you.
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
Say what? I was just commenting on your avatar..trying to defuse the tension. I didn't mean it that way and I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't even know if you were female.

Say what? I was just commenting on your avatar..trying to defuse the tension. I didn't mean it that way and I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't even know if you were female.

>> ^peggedbea:
you say something stupid and whiny and get told it was fucking stupid and whiny .... but its because i have lady bits, not because you're actually just a fucking douche?????
maybe there is a downvote bias and maybe you fucking deserve the persecution you receive.
douchebag.
>> ^shinyblurry:
yeah sure, i still see the bias. lets just see how it goes..on another note, your reproductive system is showing
>> ^peggedbea:
there are a lot of people of faith on the sift, several of them. more than you think apparently. and they're generally well-liked. it probably has a lot to do with them not carrying a cross on their backs and whining that their shitty testimonial sift didnt fair too well in a community that values empirical evidence and logic. there are a lot views because there is a lot of discussion happening and thats attracting people, but what this man said wasn't any good, isn't anything new and astounding, and isn't worthy of an upvote. so the votes are low. you've prompted a great discussion, be grateful and quit taking the fact that a community thats mostly non-religious and values evidence and logic over testimony didn't like what this man had to say.
"if i were more popular people wouldn't be jerks and downvote me"
this is the most irritating thing to me. i have yet to see the downvote bias in action here. but there always seems to be someone carrying around a persecution complex, sifting crappy videos and blaming their low vote totals on some imaginary popularity contest. there isn't a popularity contest. one of the dudes with one of the highest vote ratios i know of has barely left any comments whatsoever and speaks to noone. noone knows who is. "popularity" does not translate into upvotes. nor does it even mean youre necessarily "well-liked" whatever that means since this is, after all, the fucking internet. i'd say the screenname "peggedbea" is fairly well known because ive been pretty vocal and active for years. i have made "internet friends" here, but it certainly doesn't help my videos get sifted. and it doesnt get my comments upvoted. sometimes i say something relevant and people like it, mostly i say something bitchy and people dont read it. its not personal.
and you just called anyone who didn't like what this guy had to say "jerks". thats the point of the sift, if you dont like it.. you downvote it. its not personal. at all. its how the site works.
people not liking this video has more to do with the fact that its lame than it does to do with you personally. this titty baby persecution complex is fucking lame. get over yourself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't mean it's rigged..I mean that even though we had a good discussion going and it's popular enough, people withheld their vote or even downvoted because of their opinion on the subject matter..it's not that the subject matter is of no interest, which it obviously is..it's because they disagree with it.
It's also because I am not well liked in the community, for whatever reason..if I was more popular, people wouldn't be jerks and downvote me (6 so far)..I mean this is my first published video..quite a welcome right.
I think this video proves the bias here at the sift..you'd probably be hard pressed to find another video with such high views and comments and few votes. Of course I don't think there is any disagreement there is a bias against theists here..but its worth noting in any case.
I mean here is a video that gets people talking and makes people think, even if they don't agree with it..yet I would probably get into the top 10 instantly if I posted yet another angry atheist railing against God. Maybe I am wrong but it doesn't seem like it.
>> ^dag:
Ha. "artificially suppressed"? Now I think I'm being trolled. You know how voting works here. It's 100% human - ain't nothing artificial about it. >> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^dag:
Wow. 96 comments and only 12 net upvotes. That's sort of unusual for around here.

Yeah, I think it's kind of telling..I mean according to the statistics..now 110 comments and 1100 views, it should have easily made it to the top 10, just based on its popularity. It's pretty clear it is being artificially suppressed.

I don't think anyone here is "glorifying" Casey. What we're saying is, in this specific situation, from all we can see in the video, it looks like he had no choice - and that he actually did the best thing to defuse an escalating situation. Obviously, body-slamming the other kid seems like an overreaction - but when your fight or flight response switches to fight, you just react and do what needs to be done.

Obviously, in the best of worlds, this whole situation would never have escalated to that point. An adult would have intervened previously...another kid would have stepped up and stopped it before it got to that point...but that didn't happen.

He did all he could to not fight, trying (hoping, probably) to walk out with just that first hit...but when it became obvious that it wouldn't stop, and that he was at risk, he reacted and handled the situation in a way that would make sure that this wouldn't happen anymore.

While we generally don't condone the use of force, we gotta realize that in some cases, it becomes justified.

>> ^dag:

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm starting with the man in the mirror - I'm asking him to change his ways - and no message could have been any clearer - if You wanna make the world a better place, don't glorify a picked on kid who body slams another dweeby kid