My biggest complaints about Covenant:

1. David killed ALL the engineers? How? Why would that be the only city on that planet? Makes no sense though I guess it can be implied that all life was *eventually* killed by the black spores.

2. The chestbuster morphing into a mini-xenomorph so quickly was retarded and looked so out of place. Also the gestation period was ridiculously fast.

3. No hazard/bio-suits when landing on an unknown planet with almost your entire bridge/command crew? Come on...

4. The stupid back/throat-bursters. I almost laughed when the first back-burster was revealed. Why even introduce them at all? More time could have been spent with David getting someone impregnated by a facehugger.

5. The whole premise of Alien is that no one really knows what the hell it is or where it came from. That mystery and uncertainty lends more weight to the terror of the xenomorph. Why do movies always have to try and explain every detail - leaving it up to the viewer's imagination can be so much more effective (e.g. see explanation of "The Force"...f.u. George Lucas lol...)

6. David creating the xenomorphs just doesn't make sense either. Why would he create something that requires a host when there is no life remaining on the planet and he couldn't have known that a ship would arrive carrying people to impregnate?

7. Having the xenos walk around in bright lighting doesn't make them appear very menacing. Alien and Aliens were all about claustrophobic environments, dim lighting, and surprise attacks.

8. Yes, let's do exactly what the clearly scheming android told us to do and walk right up to that slimy egg that just opened. You would think that these people should be smart, right? They are the custodians of over 1000 colonists, starship pilots, and scientists and clearly hold high ranking positions yet frequently make some of the WORST choices possible. Ripley might have just been a lieutenant of a simple cargo hauler but the idiots of the Covenant make her look like a genius.

When I rode 30+ miles a day, almost 30 years ago, I used to do something similar on downhills. I wouldn't take the toe clips off, but I would hang my ass over the rear wheel with the seat in my gut. This flattened my body and made me more aerodynamic (but not nearly as much as he is) and put my weight farther back and lower, meaning I could brake much harder without going over the front. His center of gravity probably goes higher in this position with his legs that high. Since my feet never left the pedals, I could still pedal if needed and get back upright in an instant.

I never raced, so I don't know if this would have been against any specific rules, but taking your feet off the pedals that way would make you far less stable, imagine if he had to brake or swerve, and reattaching at speed is no walk in the park either, so it's probably considered a likely hazard to others and banned...but that is just a guess.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I remember seeing the hazard lights flashing for hard braking in Erurope. Not sure if it's legal in the US or other regions as i've never seen it.

FYI, there are a number of high-end cars that have this built-in. BMW has different versions across a lot of their cars, and calls it the 'Brake Force Display'.

BMW found it was less distracting and more intuitive for other drivers if the brake force was indicated by a few stages of big lights going on (3 or 4), with the last stages also having one or all of the brake lights slowly flash in the 'hazard light' mode if you really slammed the brakes.

Motocyclists also commonly buy aftermarket flasher modules that indicate when they are braking heavily, which you can find on amazon.

If humans didn't eat and use animals, we would eradicate them as competitors for resources and hazards to our safety. That is the way of man, always has been.
No attempt to instill guilt will change that, it's more likely to spur it on out of spite for those dispensing the guilt.

All the indoor ranges I've been to (admittedly not many) are designed so even shots waaaay off target like this one won't ricochet. Usually there are at least a few holes in the ricochet-proofing. Loaded firearms should always be pointed downrange, so even though this guy f-ed up badly, at least he had that part right and the actual hazard here was minimal.

Shinyblury might be better at weighing on some of this now .

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death.
With how many different christian churchs there are in every single town having a slightly different view it's hard to give a singular answer. I'd hazard the most common explanation though is that the old school laws basically demonstrated one thing to humanity, every last one of you by rights deserves death. Everybody is, by God's standards, inadequate and the penalty is death.
That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find
Continuing what I think is the most common explanation, Jesus message was that the 'spirit' of the old school laws was to encourage humanity to love god and fellow man without exceptions. Strictly following the letter of the laws was to miss the point entire. Also, the punishment for failing to live up to the standard of universal love for God and fellow man was death, fire, brimstone and all the nasty old testament sentences.

So taking those as axioms you have God's law for humanity was and always had been love for him and each other. God's punishment for failing that measure, even in the least, was and always had been death and eternal damnation.

Again, I can't say all Christians are universally agreed on what to do from that, but I would say that the majority again follow Jesus teachings that the punishment for those that fall short was to be left to God and not to humans. As in, no more going around killing each other for breaking the law in letter or in spirit. Evangelicals are probably also universally agreed that ALL of humanity fails to meet the morality bar and thus was doomed to death until Jesus was killed. Jesus having met the bar of perfection required by the law, was thus payment through his death for the rest of humanity. So Evangelicals for the most part then take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and love God and everyone and in the humility that they are but for the grace of God equally deserving of damnation.

I know re-reading that it reads more like a sermon than anything, but it's also the most concisely I could manage to fit in how I understand most evangelicals to read the bible.

Water hazard.

I know. low hanging fruit. I had to bend down to pick that one up.

Because phreatic eruptions can be initiated accidentally by drilling or failure of a casing in a geothermal well (Bixley and Browne, 1988), these events must be considered potential hazards during the drilling and production processes.

Volcanology and Geothermal Energy

Kenneth Wohletz
Grant Heiken

It's not a guaranteed problem. But if proper precautions are not taken, then it could happen.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

It's my understanding that it wasn't just a fad, but they were outlawed in the US. Choking hazard, don'tcha know.
Wonderballs do exist in the US, but the surprise inside isn't a toy; instead it's more candy or chocolate.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

I don't think it is censored (possibly the complete drops are to redact names), but most of it is just not talking into the directional microphones.

That specific example you quoted? This is just hazarding a guess, but I think maybe she was going to encourage the lady to get a lawyer and consider a lawsuit. Then realized that that advice should probably NOT come from a judge. But that's just a guess.

Windshield is cracked.

From what I have heard from country drivers, you pretty much can't get any insurance coverage for your windshield because of all the gravel roads, so you pretty much drive with it until it is an actual hazard.

Broken comes later.

Oh calm down. I didn't say criminals don't deserve to be apprehended but police officers do need to maintain a certain level of professionalism. What if that officer had run over that *suspect* and killed him? Oops, no trial for him I guess? I'm certainly not suggesting that the guy fleeing from the cops in this video isn't a criminal but he isn't waving a gun around so ramming him with a car seems a bit heavy handed. The police in other countries can manage to apprehend suspects without going all Dukes of Hazard on them. That's all I'm getting at.

As to your other point, complying with overzealous, trigger-happy police officers doesn't guarantee that you aren't still going to end up with a boot in your face or a bullet in you. There have been enough incidents in the news that support that view. Here is one example.

Anyhow I think the officer unintentionally slid his car into the suspect; he probably only meant to cut him off and didn't anticipate the lack of traction lost on the grass.