Good find, even if just from the YT comments. Now changed from learn to *debunked

Not just plausible, I expect it would be worse today if we still prosecuted insider trading and “finance violations” (what we used to call “bribes”), but those actual crimes are now considered “momentary lapses of ethics” at worst and are completely ignored, because even the expectation of ethics has been abandoned.

Labeling the pilot as an idiot may not be a good way to ensure things like this don't happen again. As mentioned above, the same exact thing happened to a highly experienced, highly decorated hang gliding trainer. It seems to be a momentary lapse in judgement in what (to them) is a routine so ingrained as to be automatic.

Maybe they should implement written checklists like pilots. For hang gliding, it could be something both the instructor and the passenger need to physically sign off on. I imagine it wouldn't be too burdensome since it is likely to be very short (at least compared to pilot checklists).

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/12221

Baring checklists, the safest hang gliding instructor in the world is likely to be this gentlemen following this incident. I recon his vigilance is sky high at the moment. (Assuming he didn't quit altogether like his BC counterpart.)

Ian Welsh reminds us of a quote by Mark Twain:

There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the horrors of the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror – that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

This says quite a lot about Elon Musk, I feel.

I'd counter his argument by saying its only been 40 years since pong, too short a time to be extrapolating too far into the future. I believe we are approaching a very real physical limit to transistor size, so I don't think its necessarily a given that in another 40 years we will have moved on the same distance. Basically for all we know this could be a momentary blip for a century or so.

but yeah, if you agree that we will continue to create increasingly sophisticated and powerful computers, and that humans continue to be for a little while, then ok, I think it is feasible that we could create a virtual world, which would make me quite terrified that our reality might suddenly BSOD.

i am vegan BECAUSE i do not consider myself superior to others,regardless of their species. when looked at logically and without the inherent blinders of our culture, the one's who truly consider themselves superior are the one's who believe that feeling beings have to suffer and die for their taste preferences. your statements completely disregard the viewpoint of the victims who have no choice in their own suffering and death. since it is indisputable that the cows, pigs, chickens and fishes whom people consume feel pain and want to live, there is no moral justification for exploiting and killing them in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

the only consistent ethical position is to reject all forms of violence and exploitation rather than limiting one's concern for a select few species. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, it is never humane or justifiable to force another to experience it. veganism is not about perfection but is about doing the least harm possible. the truth is that when any animal product is consumed, sentient non-human animals suffer and die as a result of it. it is only by being disconnected from the reality of it that one continues to support such heinous violence.

you are once again mistaken. only approximately 10% of non-human animals are obligate carnivores. common sense tells you that it cannot be a high number as it would not be sustainable otherwise.

factory farmed or not, other sentient beings suffer and die for no other reason than a momentary taste sensation. unlike the Masai (of whom i have never heard of but am taking your word) all you have to do to greatly lessen the harm you do to others is to buy different products in the grocery store.

speaking of science, here is what a very wise man had to say on this subject:

“It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”—Albert Einstein

“Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.” -Albert Einstein

You're sifting through my brraaaiiiinn... ok, whatever. The poolcleaner is like a bizarro zorro or batman, so just become the poolcleaner when you say it. Justice is your only concern, momentary justices that exert your right to life and being beyond any transitory system's shaming. Say, Nooooooo, shame on you for NOT wanting to slap it til it's red and screaming your name. I mean... not against its will. That's what it wants. If it doesn't, say well, how about the time? Then slap another.

your stance about veganism is very similar to the climate deniers in that you choose to buy into myths and lies as opposed to looking into the facts youself. the documentary i posted considers the issues of local, and so called "small" farms also. they are no more humane or less cruel than so called "factory farming" and are every but as inefficient and environmentally devastating. "factory farming" is a mere symptom and the root cause is the commodification of sentient non-human animals, just as in the past humans used to commodify other human beings of certain races. for example here is an article on the myth of "humane" animal farming: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/

the fact that climate change is driven in large part but the raising of non-human animals for food is without question a well documented fact. the human population is without a doubt a major factor but above this issue is the fact that it requires MANY times the resources to produce on calorie of flesh, dairy or eggs than it does to produce one calorie of plant based food. are you aware that in the USA, around 80% of crops grown are fed to the 10 billion farmed animals who are murdered every year for food? it has been estimated that 800 million humans could be fed on the crops which are grown for farmed animals alone. these issues are also gone into detail in the documentary.

as far as "tugging on your heart strings" goes, how is having compassion and empathy for anyone who suffers a bad thing? no one would be questioning it if the victims were human children but since they are "only" cows, pigs chickens and fishes (all of whom feel pain just like you or i do, perhaps even more so), suddenly violence against them is considered a matter of personal choice. the bottom line is that if you would not wish to expeience something yourself, it is never moral or ethical to force others to experience it, especially not in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

finally, here is a quote which i think best summarizes the situation:
“Aren’t humans amazing? They kill wildlife – birds, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice and foxes by the million in order to protect their domestic animals and their feed. Then they kill domestic animals by the billion and eat them. This in turn kills people by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and cancer. So then humans spend billions of dollars torturing and killing millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, few people recognize the absurdity of humans, who kill so easily and violently, and once a year send out cards praying for “Peace on Earth.”~ David Coates

I just imagine everyone watching the stream was yelling at him "Dude, you're making it worse!!! "

I don't find this funny at all.

I up-voted, but just to highlight how really easily a momentary slip-up can cause a completely avoidable disaster.

It's totally possible. I've played a few FPS games at top level, and you'd be surprised how simple things like checking corners can drop out of a person's mind when they're so focused on trying to do everything else perfectly. All it takes is one guy to forget to corner check (like with the first guy on here), and then all the other guys think he's checked and that it's safe. Sometimes that kinda thing can be so basic and risky that no one believes that you'd have the audacity to try it against top players.

Like with sticky traps on TF2 - sometimes even the top clans will lose 6 players to that just because 1 soldier didn't check the doorway, and everyone is embarrassed and feels stupid, but it just takes a momentary lapse.

Unlikely no one would look behind them, but i imagine it's happened plenty of times in all the matches played.

I'm not really concerned if someone is an addict or a criminal. I'm simply concerned with the repercussions of hard drugs being made readily available for anyone to use. The prohibition did increase crime, sure, but the availability of liquor since then has caused far more deaths and ruined many more lives. Hell, in 2010, alcohol killed almost as many people in the U.S. as guns did. Tobacco causes more than 5 million deaths worldwide each year. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't harmful. The widespread availability of liquor and tobacco has caused more damage than the entire war on drugs.

As for education, I don't think that's the root of the problem. Everyone knows that smoking is unhealthy and that alcohol is addictive and that driving while drunk is incredibly dangerous. The problem isn't lack of awareness. The problem is apathy. People know these things yet do them anyway because they just don't care. The momentary relief/pleasure derived from liquor and cigarettes is more important to them. If all drugs were legalized, I have no doubt that more people would use them because they'd be easier to get and people don't really care about the downsides.

So really the issue is people are doing something illegal and getting busted for it. The government is aware that people will routinely break said law and are profiting off it.

So the real issue is that the government is acting as a for-profit organization, right? That still doesn't negate that people are breaking the law and getting busted for it. If the drivers followed the speed limit, then the government couldn't profit off them, now could they? *smacks forehead*

See, with red light cameras there's a legitimate argument to be made. If a driver is following the speed limit, and break safely, there is a set time the yellow light should progress in order to insure compliance and safety. So for instance, if a vehicle traveling at 30MPH takes 10 seconds to come to a slow, controlled stop, the yellow should last for 12 seconds to ensure the drivers a reasonable time to notice the light change and react. (Normal human reaction time is between .3 to 2 seconds.)

So if the government sets the yellow to only 5 seconds, this creates an unsafe and unreasonable margin. And then, if the safest and more sane thing to do is "run the red" and are subsequently ticketed, then that's entrapment. That is wrong, and is something someone can complain about.

Complaining that you got caught speeding, well, boohoo for you. Don't speed. No one is forcing you to speed. So it's your own damn fault, no matter if the government is profiting off it or what video is posted.

If what you're really complaining about is that the actual design of the road triggers a natural response to travel at a "perceived safe speed" (which is a real thing) and the limit is set to a lower than needed limit, then that's something you can complain about. Still doesn't mean speeding isn't illegal.

Speed traps don't work in general. All they trigger is a momentary change in behavior and once the negative force is removed, the behavior continues. But because of the quota systems placed by "hard on crime" Republicans, real change isn't going to happen. Instead what you're seeing is a systematic failure of a rewards and punishment system that has long been proven to be ineffective and counter-productive.

Instead, if they really want to slow speeds, they should redesign the road and perhaps do a road diet, re-stripe the lanes, use bricks or plant trees (which is illegal by DOT standards btw - they hurt cars if they crash, but people don't, so it's better to hit people than trees - no joke, literally their logic.)

Or, if you're worried the police force is resorting to the quota and a misguided broken windows policy, then that's something to address. You're lack of ability to lay off the gas pedal is not a "liberties" issue or the "man putting you down."

The focus is totally misguided and the video is proof.

Our brains are set up to understand the language we hear around us. If you grew up in America you'll be used to the american language constructs. They'll be familiar to your brain. If you say 53 hundred to an american they will instantly know what you mean, because it's only ever meant one thing to you. But say it to an english person and it'll throw them. They'll understand what it means, but in the flow of a conversation it provides a small momentary stumble, and that can mentally trip the brain up.

If you walk down a flight of stairs and there's one stair in the middle that is a slightly different size it'll likely trip you up unless you've been warned about it. It's not that you can't walk, and it's not that you can't negotiate stairs properly, it's just a little thing that's slightly out of the ordinary.

English people are used to hearing the low numbers (I'd guess anything up to 2000, don't know why, it's just like that) said as 12 hundred or 15 hundred or whatever, but we just don't use that number construction for anything higher. We do say 53 thousand, or 70 thousand, so when we hear 53 hundred the brain is expecting 53 thousand but then it hears hundred and that trips it up.

Nothing to do with being stupid or clever, it's just the way your brain works.

As for the 000 in the number, I'd say that as zero zero zero, but 00 I'd say double 'o' (not double zero).

The house numbers must be a London thing, I've never come across this myself in the midlands.

From a feminist friend of a friend:

“This is nice and it’s cool for a straight guy to talk about having a new perspective on the male gaze, good for him. but the fact that it’s gone so viral is a little upsetting to me. do we really expect so little of men that Dustin Hoffman recognizing that, you know, beauty doesn’t necessarily accompany substance (and vice versa) is inspirational?”

So, what's his big revelation here? That unattractive women are interesting, too? Really? Not impressed.

He admits to working his fame on attractive women and then felt guilty for it, and made Tootsie to make up for his guilt (and cashed in, in the process). I don't hold it against him for having a "come to Jesus" moment, by dressing up in drag. I don't even care that he got emotional when he shared it with the American Film Institute, as some sort of cultural revelation.

What bothers me is that we live in a culture that feeds off these momentary glimpses of heart, when we all know that there is really so much more. And that this admiration for such a minor insight really sets the standard far too low.

Let's not mistake a sincere moment with actual, you know, integrity.
Sure, it's a sweet video and a sweet message (maybe a bit saccharine for my tastes). And Tootsie is, for sure, a great flick! But, crying on camera is not the limit-case for what constitutes a touching and meaningful moment, particularly one like this, devoid of any real context and depth. It's emptiness masquerading as meaning.

Crocodile.

^ All well and good, but it's important not to define and judge people by our momentary interactions with them. I don't think he's saying "THE RAT RACE IS AMAZING AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS ABIDE BY IT" but rather, when you're in a shitty moment, don't go with your default irrational bitch and moan.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now you can define yourself and redefine yourself to better eliminate the negative qualities of the status quo, but the fact is, you're going to (metaphorically or not) stand in a line and it's up to you to define that experience.

I'm judged by my extreme nature every day. I sometimes get in peoples faces and challenge them with momentary awareness that they are an interactive object in my environment. It freaks em out, sometimes it makes em smile. Either case, I'm a weird fuckin' dude. The train of perception goes both ways.

Wildflower, don't judge the potted roses just because they judge you. Just challenge them. Add an interactive element. Peaceful, please. hahahahaha