It's < 1 in a million chance of dying from CVST complication, but it's still not "zero deaths". (the number of "breakthrough" cases of covid leading to death were still higher)
---

Not sure where you got those car stats - annual fatalities peaked in 1972 at around 55,000 per year and have been declining since (under 40k in 2019).
So ~10x more covid-related deaths in US.

Injuries are around 4M a year (2017) and I couldn't find a source that distinguished maiming vs other injury. This infographic said 2M "permanent injuries" per year. (older 2010 data, from what I can tell)

And I bet most of these car accidents are caused by the same aggressive tailgating coal-rolling drivers who are more likely to be anti-vaxxers as well.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

I saw a humorous "infographic" about the F-35 vs A-10 on Fark (I think) sometime recently.

(link to image, first couple comparisons as text):
F-35 Appearance: Pretty
A-10 Appearance: Pretty Badass
F-35 Price Tag: ~135m
A-10 Price Tag: ~12m
...

Some (hopefully) constructive criticism.

I'm not sure about the premise. I don't really watch videos for facts (they're almost always better conveyed by text or infographics). I watch videos for opinion or analysis or insight.

Nevertheless, it's well executed and I wish you well.

ME WANT MORE INFOGRAPHICS

There is no such thing as a good infographic.

This is an amazingly informative infographic, but it's a little hard to appreciate it when we're spoiled by so many amazing visualizations nowadays. It's not fair to compare them - the greatest infographics of today stand on the shoulders of yesteryear's innovations, of course - but really, this kind of ingenuity impresses me so much more: https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/434407260890992640

Can anything be more orange&teal?

Weak

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/01/orange-teal-infographics/
http://greekgeek.squidoo.com/orange-and-teal-in-the-movies

My sister has crohn's disease. Her insurance is $462/month and her conversion plan policy, which I learned is a KY State Health plan mthly premium is $1,550.00.


The link show average costs for insurance

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/InfoGraphics/2013/10/How%20Will%20You%20Fare%20in%20the%20Obamacare%20Exchanges/IB-premium-exchange-by-state-table-1-1
200.ashx

.
The young seem to get soaked.
Looks like a Ponzi scheme. just like Social Security. The young is paying for the old.

However just like Social Security you when the young get old you will never get the benefit.

>> ^joedirt:

This stupid video isn't even to scale. Carl Lewis would have been 7 feet from the finish line. The stupid video needs to exaggerate an lie about how far people are from the finish line... Two strides or one body length away, not like 20 feet back.
Why make a "science" like video then lie in it.


As they said in the video themselves this is a field of runners separated by 3 seconds of time. Which will not be that much distance when you boil down the facts that the fastest runner will possibly get near or at 27 mph (something Usian Bolt stuck up there) and less. The slowest runners I imagine will ATLEAST be above 20 mph which really does make this field closer and closer together. They would all be running somewhere between 10 m/s to 10.4 m/s in 12.6 s (the times they ran a VERY long time ago) or up to and past 9.6 s in the modern era.

If you weren't that great of a runner, very quickly, with these type of numbers however, you would find yourself very far behind--it must be almost shocking to see someone gain a 3-5 meter lead on you if you slip up, particularly in the longer length Olympic sprints. It's a great infographic doing everything right, in fact I think they could literally take this concept and bump it up to a 30-60 minute show about the history of Olympic running; I'd throw it on the Discovery or Science Channels. Just look at the numbers I pulled up in a very short amount of time to give some comparisons, there are FAR more things to look at and open up this conversation much, much further... More things to look at could be anything taking in ANY possible connection to a sprinter's performance which may include a few things some people would never even think of, some examples: average foot-span covered each sprinting step and how that has changed with time (longer-shorter, side strides or are they all in line), the possibility of body weight distribution being re-mapped on the body from training, workouts, and diet, over time and has this been a possible endemic change in society (have we become more top heavy, bottom heavy, or averaged out--how does it compare with analysis we can try to make about our Olympic forefathers--with societal changes any of the things I've listed have the possibility of starting there first, moving outward; a true evolutionary or genetic change that might be observed...), shoes and their timeline with features, surfaces used by the athletes through time, how training was done throughout history, our personal livelihood with things like vitamins, a balanced and INFORMED diet allows you to get more out of your muscles then you normally would EVER get, and there is SO much more they could explore!

I would love to see a very well done show about this and if they cover the subject substantially and extensively enough, I wouldn't mind it being a short one year series. As long as they stay true to the overall presentation found in this infotainment/info-graphic and the information displayed here should be, somewhat, natural to us and keep us at ease in which all this material/information is able to be displayed in this show and always making that information available for us to consume and compare just as easily as here. So to me having a large presence online hand-in-hand With a show would be important, of course providing more info-graphics like this for us. One can hope that they'd read our comments and realize, just from a small clip, they have something bigger here--if they want it...

I wasn't quite sure why they "pulled" out the field so far as well, but all I can think is that they were trying to put a exclamation mark on the overall acceleration of the genesis of runners into the modern day.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stuxnet, iran, nuclear, cyber war, infographic, computer virus, 0 day' to 'Stuxnet, iran, nuclear, cyber war, infographic, computer virus, zero day' - edited by marinara

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stuxnext, iran, nuclear, cyber war, infographic' to 'Stuxnet, iran, nuclear, cyber war, infographic, computer virus, 0 day' - edited by marinara

This guy does a terrible job of presenting his facts. He's not wrong, strictly speaking, he just didn't say it in a way that made sense.

1.) "Teleportation" is a misnomer. "Quantum Teleportation" always refers to the act of destroying something at the source and recreating it at the destination.

2.) See above.

3.) It is a Bell measurement. The specifics get confusing unless you want to do a lot of reading.

The short version: The 'Bell Basis' of A-B is measured. Both qubits are destroyed. The information is sent to the person holding C, via traditional channels. The same process is performed (in reverse) on C. This creates a new copy of A, despite not knowing what it originally looked like.

Confusing as hell at first. But this is the exact experiment they did, and it works.

4.) Because he didn't make the infographic very well.

5.) See above.

6.) To measure the particle, we are bouncing electrons or light off the qubit and surrounding matter. This add energy to the system and therefore changes it's behavior. Therefore, measuring any particle changes it's state.

It's what makes Quantum Mechanics so fun!

>> ^messenger:

This doesn't explain clearly to me that this is teleportation.

Royksopp love using infographics for videos.

http://www.slashfilm.com/infographic-18-didnt-firefly/

the 2nd to last one =