As someone who went through 2 rounds of sex ed -- through my family's church (better than you think, but not by much), and public school (worse than you think; mostly consisting of "here's a picture of a dick with gonorrhea, LOOK AT IT"), it seems like videos like this available through YouTube are likely to be a massive improvement on practical sex ed. So kudos to the consistently awesome Green brothers for figuring that out and doing something about it!

However, I would point out a misleading bit in the YT text:
"Probabilities eventually collapse into reality, and then that couple no longer has a 2% chance of probability, they have a 100% chance, because they're pregnant, and everyone else has a 0% chance."

...Yeah, not really. That couple is still subject to the 2% probability, they just happen to be one of the statistically (mildly) unlikely examples that make the chance 2% instead of 0. And much more importantly, everyone else still has a 2% chance, not a 0% chance.

Misunderstanding statistics / probability in that way leads to all kinds of erroneous assumptions and behavior. Like putting a huge bet on red + even in roulette because the past 5 hits have been black + odd and red + even is "due". Or driving around with no seat belt because someone you know was just in an accident, thereby biting the "statistical bullet" and making everybody else safe for a while. Every roll of the dice is a new event with the same odds as the roll before it.

The problem is that people are short-sighted. We HATE spending money on something if it doesn't
a) measurably improve my life in some way or
b) fix an obvious problem.
I'm guilty of this too.

Nice meal out? great!
Holiday? Fantastic!
New bike/snowboard/toy? Awesome!

Even if something breaks, your brain is ok with spending money to fix it.

"Damnit, the element broke in the oven! Ahh well, better go get a replacement"

But getting my car serviced? Ugh, it's running fine!
Intellectually, I know that spending some money now will save me more in the long run, but I am still irrationally annoyed by it.

Drug treatment is the same. If you spend money on drug treatment, crime doesn't get committed. Because crimes aren't being committed people see drug treatment as a waste of money.

Prevention is always harder to see the benefits of than cure.

Plus, it's REALLY easy to blame drug-related crime on drug users. It's easy political points, whereas saying you want to spend tax payer dollars on potential criminals? Admit it, even if you're liberal, reading that sentence triggers some mild outrage in your lizard brain.

You know, I went on a roller coaster of emotions watching this.

First, I felt mildly amused by the lady who claims to be able to see angels.

Then I felt pity for everyone up there that seems to believe her.

After that I felt a bit of anger, because I remembered that this guy Bakker is an ex-con who swindled his congregation and possibly raped one of his secretaries and yet somehow here he is on TV again preying on people desperate to find meaning and hope in their lives.

Then I felt disgust as I remembered the news from the other day about the teen denied birth control from her Walgreens pharmacist because he claimed a religious objection to filling the prescription and that in many places in the U.S. it is perfectly legal for pharmacists to do so.

The only thing that eased my mind after this is that young people in the U.S. are non-religious in record numbers and that these numbers have steadily increased and will likely continue to increase going into the future. The quicker organized religion dies out, the better off we'll all be.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

I think a lot of people are down on American cheese based on its worst, cheapest variants. *Good* American cheese is, hands down, the best cheese for a cheeseburger. I mean, there's no debate there. It has a mild -- but not overwhelming -- cheesy flavour, and it has the perfect gooey consistency that melds with the beef in the best way possible.

http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/whats-really-in-american-cheese.html

Yeah, I'll have the mild thanks.

Remember kids, some of it is going to come out later. You'll think about ice lollies in a way you have (probably) never thought before.

Your video, Ricky Gervais Pits His Mild British Palate Against Hot Wings, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Liberty is the answer. You have to convince Americans that they don't stand for simple freedom, they stand for motherfucking liberty; which accounts for all people, not one people or the other.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What a liar, dude. He lit, dragged, and succinctly pulled to clear that bong quite well for someone who supposedly doesn't know how it works. He even lit to the side to avoid torching the bowl...

I have introduced a lot of noobs to bongs and they usually look mildly retarded and awkward even after finally figuring it out. He didn't vote for Trump and he knows how to smoke that bong.

Most likely this is totally fake, edited to be about the election instead of stealing candy, but if not it's a video of mild child abuse.
I'm with Eric, I see no redeeming factors to make this worth watching.

"The impressions that America is getting - the negative impressions of muslims, it's not good"

People wouldn't get those "impressions" if there was an Islamic theocratic country filled with nice people like this guy. But there isn't. The sad truth is that even this gentlemen would have to live a double life, because his mild comedy would no doubt have some severe consequences.

@ChaosEngine

I generally agree with your assessments, but I think that the actual powers held by the Executive branch lend themselves pretty well to a person who is "well meaning, but without a clue of how government works".

Overwhelmingly more likely that we'll get to see how well Hillary follows through on her promises instead of how well some fresh blood could deal with lack of experience. I'm not personally excited about that (to put it mildly), but hey, maybe she will turn out better than my low expectations.

Sort of the opposite of having pretty high hopes for Obama and then being rather disappointed by the mediocrity of the follow-through. That was a pretty good example of how good intentions don't necessarily produce great results, especially since a President has to work with the Legislative branch (hah! good luck) to get anything done.

As a fan of cheeses of every variety: mild, rich, sharp, hot, savory, salty, stinky.. you name it. That looks delicious

Actually, it's not the mirror that's the villain either.... (mildly NSFW story).

"Poisonous tone and attitude." POISONOUS TONE AND ATTITUDE???!!!???

So, would you like to expand on that phrase, @vil? And perhaps read crushbug's comment above?

Because here is what I hear -- not that you are saying this, but it is what I hear:

Angry women are off-putting. Women with sarcastic voices are off-putting. Women who dare to be anything but sweet and compliant are off-putting.

Men are not "policed" this way. They are allowed a wide range of attitudes in the way they present information. Of course, they CAN be "poisonous" -- but I guarantee you no man's delivery this mild would be labelled "poisonous."

There is a "thing" called "vocal fry" that some women (and gay men) have that pitches their voices high (to be simplistic in its description.) There has been reams written about it. I assumed that most of the comments here were related to vocal fry.

Your comment here is not about vocal fry. Or if it is, wow. What words to use to describe it. Ouch.

So can you use different words to explain what you mean? If I am not understanding you?

As for "word counts not mattering" -- that is categorically not true.

I have been talking about this for forty years and have thought about it deeply, in a logical manner, trying to find the vocabulary to discuss it. I think I have succeeded, and it applies to black people, especially black men, as well as women, both black and white. Here it comes.

Words have values. Words with similar values are interchangeable with gender usage. Words that don't have similar values are sexist and racist. (Even if women do it to themselves, they are indeed engaging in internalized sexism.) If you can take a sentence with the word "girl" being used, and change the gender to male, would you ever -- in that specific situation -- use the word "boy"? If you would, go for it.

And here is where the "word count" matters. Because there are more women than there are men, and yet the word count proves that in the same situation, the word girl is used a lot more. Even if you take out the gymnasts, who are indeed less than 19.

I never say "never use the word girl." Because sometimes, in the same situation, you would indeed use the word "boy."

Let me give you an example.

Old Boys Network. Very powerful men, on the same social and power level, call themselves "boys." Leads to Boys Night Out -- same social and power level.

So can you say Girls Night Out without it being an infantilzation? Absolutely.

Can black people call themselves the n-word? Sure. Same social and power levels. A white person calling a black person the n-word? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Different social and power levels.

This will only make sense to older people, since it doesn't happen as much as it used to. Calling a black man "boy." A grown man. With a job and a family and dignity. Can a white person employing a black man call him "boy"? No. No they cannot.

When is a man over the age of 20 or so called a boy? Very very rarely. Young man, sure. But rarely "boy."

Yet when it comes to women, they are called girls until they die. And they do it to themselves, to make themselves smaller and less threatening.

So. Poisonous. Tell me what you meant, please? Keeping in mind the idea that "threatening" women need to stay in their place?