I agree with 99% of the examples, but there is one glaring error. Katinka Hosszu was the swimmer from Hungary and the commentary was quite valid. She swam in the 2012 Olympics and did very poorly. She asked her boyfriend at the time to replace the swimming coach she had been with since college. After he took over as her coach and changed her regimen, she destroyed her competition in the World Cup and her dominance carried over to this Olympics.

He is now her husband, but seriously he deserves credit for turning her into a better swimmer in competition. Other than that, I fully agree that the video is quite accurate.

Well I'm glad she added that Pokemon Go has a fairly reasonable model, I feel like that was the strong hand of Nintendo.

If you take away location differences, which there is a glaring issue with at the moment. Two players in the same reasonably supported area, the major difference in needing to spend money is how much you want to walk and that's the core of the game.

So if you want to play the game as designed (with no false limitations), you can generally play for free.

She's also not wrong that because of all that, I actually was inclined to make a purchase, it was small and I spent it on the non-expendable upgrades but I've been pretty anti-freeium in the past, so it was a big step for me to give such a game money.

I think Pokemon Go has certainly obliterated that 1-2% pay money statistic. I'm positive reports will eventually show it had a much higher stat.

It's not a saint, you can still gain a sizeable advantage by spending a lot of cash and these elements are still very much targeting the addiction of whales (expendable, short durations, element of luck with egg hatching). But it is a refreshing change for how they treat the "other" group of players.

@newtboy,
Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

If you count your numbers by production it's probably more than 99% fall under your idea of 'industrial'. If you want to count old school methods as no chemicals for pest control and harvesting by hand then you need 20 some old school farms to match the quantity of food produced on one thousand acre family farm.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive.
Can you explain the ecological mitigation costs you imagine are associated with farming a thousand acres of grain by hand versus using modern equipment and some round-up? The round-up breaks down within days of application and the equipment doesn't impact the land any more than having 20 some people marching through on foot. For bonus points include the ecological foot print of everybody required to work the land in both scenarios. Including that makes it glaringly obvious that the efficiency of what you class 'industrial' farming techniques is on the whole much better on the planet. Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise producing double and triple the amount of food from the same land with a fraction of the manpower means less overall demand on the environment.

As for the propaganda in the vid, you claimed I misrepresented the Manhattan presentation, I quoted the video verbatim. I'm not interested in doing the same for every point they ran. The video is propaganda of the purest form and I stand by that.

That look is pure Never turn your back on a cat... level glare.

That turn and glare was straight out of Enter the Dragon.

With the glaring exception of 2001

The new star wars is flawed...but you have to realize the original trilogy was extremely flawed too. Just because you first digested it as a little kid and those memories are still with you does not make those movies perfect.

The new star wars was fun...something the prequels failed miserably at (effing politics is the root plotline). The characters were appealing and full of charisma.

Despite its over-hypedness and glaring flaws the new star wars is an excellent restart for the series. I look forward to the other movies coming.

Cheer up guys.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

I was surprised to hear John Oliver discussing the "Get Rid of the Penny" topic in the USA, not because the subject is uninteresting, but because he failed to point out the glaring anachronism that Americans still call their one cent coin a "penny".

Do they not realise that they started a revolution in 1765, declared independence in 1776, and started making one cent coins in 1793?

Why do they still call cents pennies? After more than 200 years, I would have thought that even the most parochial or remote American would have heard the news.

The Canadians aren't much better. The penny finally dropped there in 2012, when they stopped minting one cent coins. The first Canadian one cent coin was struck in 1858. One strange quirk is that the word penny in Canada used to refer to a two-cent coin, even though they never issued any 2 cent coins! It is possible they were referring to US 2-cent coins, which were issued from 1864 to 1873, but more likely because a French sous was worth approximately half a (British) penny, therefore a two sous coin was the near equivalent of a penny.

In Euroland, the Irish recently started to phase out the use of one and two cent coins, but most of their discussions were also about dropping the penny!

One solution could be to emulate Zimbabwe, where high inflation means that one US dollar is worth about 360 Zimbabwe dollars, or about 520 to a British pound. This neatly avoids the need for any fractional denominations.

Talking about fractional coins:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrence_chard/7145393421/

...which also reveals a surprising etymological link between coins and anatomy, as does this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrence_chard/6390568191/

Perhaps the guy he mentioned getting a cent stuck in his anus was going for the closest alternative.

Sweet zombie Jesus! What an insanely violent douchebag.
That is the official response to a child sitting quietly?!? That this behavior is sanctioned by the force is another glaring piece of evidence that there are no good cops anymore, a good person would not work for an organization that supports this behavior.

I hope this girl never has to work a day in her life, and that officer friendly never has another dime to his name when the lawsuit is over.

It seems daily we are given more evidence that, when confronted by an armed thug on a power trip, the only right thing to do is defend yourself with force as if your life depends on it, because it just may.

This crap boils my blood.

Let's father the shit out of each other. *disapproving glare*

@bobknight33

Talking at you is like playing fetch with a really dumb dog.

I throw out a ball. You come back with a pile of shit in your mouth.

Discussions don't work if you can't be logically consistent.

So for the purposes of this game of "comeback with anything that contradicts a liberal"..

Please stick to the rules:

We're on the Bobknight Logic-Train to Conservatopia.


Now.. your logic states that Minorities rights shouldn't take precedent over the thoughts, opinions & beliefs of the Majority.

If you're being honest - which you never are cause then you'd have to admit you're wrong on most things - wouldn't the logical conclusion to your argument mean..

You shouldn't have any rights on Liberalsift?

I know it hurts your tiny angry racist 53 yr old brain to admit glaring truths.

But try, okay hun?

@robdot

You're either trollin' or just real thick.

Yes, the simulation could in start an arbitrary place.
Yes, the devs could pre-programmed our knowledge of historical events.

That's besides the point, you're missing the point.

One philosophical tool we humans use to analyze the world is called - Occam's Razor.

Meaning, hypotheses that are overly complex should be simplified to their bare minimum in order to draw the best conclusions.

You COULD make a simulation with pre-programmed historical events.. and procedurally generated galaxies..

but that's even complex than simply setting up a few simple rules and variables.. and letting that simulation play out.

THE EVEN MORE GLARINGLY POINT THAT YOU KEEP GLOSSING OVER is..

It's much more likely that any civilization advance enough to create such simulations...

Would probably be extinct or too busy living in utopia to do so.

AGAIN, a point the author of the video concede MANY times.

I'll disagree.
Non-racists don't make racist jokes. Period. They are disturbed by racist speech, they don't play around with it with friends for fun.
Perhaps you aren't overtly racist, perhaps you consciously make an effort to not discriminate against other races. You could still be racist.
There are many levels of racism.
I think what you describe is a form of what's called 'tacit racism', where (at least publicly) you don't say racist things, but aren't disturbed by others saying them, certainly not enough to say so.
Consider....when someone makes a bad taste, but funny, racist joke in public, do you glare at them, or smile at them, or both? If you find humor in degrading other races, even in private, that's a form/level of racism...IMO. (I think most people will fall into that category of being 'slightly racist', including myself to be perfectly honest, while trying to not let that make them discriminate against others or act on that racism)
Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's how it sounded to me.