search results matching tag: negative feedback

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (2)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (3)     Comments (54)   

Kevin Hart and The Rock impersonate each other

Khufu says...

There was a moment there where Rock was impersonating Kevin, impersonating him... He should be careful that's going to create a negative feedback loop and open up a black hole or some shit.

dag (Member Profile)

VoodooV says...

racist videos galore

http://videosift.com/video/The-Blackface-Democrat
http://videosift.com/video/Black-mob-violence-The-First-Lady-explains-it-all
http://videosift.com/video/Muslim-Rape-Gangs-roaming-Europe-seeking-white-rape-victims
http://videosift.com/video/Sweden-Being-Raped-To-Death-By-Muslim-Migrants

That's just the last two months. Get him out of here!

These are your own rules to not post stuff like this!

"We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright."

"Please do not post videos that make fun of other races.

Because of the high volume of world-wide traffic on VideoSift, it is very easy to unintentionally offend a good number of people with material like this. If you think a video is questionable, it is probably not going to pass our standards, and you are probably better off not submitting it."

Syntaxed (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

No. Try reading again. I am threatening to ban you if you continue with personal ad hom attacks, which are not allowed. When you say things like
"I am speaking to someone who doesn't even know the language he is speaking, you see my amusement?
I cant help it if your general ignorance seeps into every pore of your conscious existence, and I must admit it should be above me(or anyone, for that matter), to aggravate someone of such an argy-bargy disposition. However, maybe someday the light-bulb will turn on inside your head, and you might finally see past the world you've been spoon-fed since birth."

...it's called an 'ad hom attack', it means moving from discussion of ideas to simple personal attacks, which you started, and which is not allowed here and is a bannable offence.

Let's examine.
You posted a vitriolic politically charged, contradictory post, insulting everyone you discussed.
I replied incredulously because you actually said "I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...", which is so patently ridiculous it required me to ridicule it...but not YOU.
You replied with some personal ad hom attacks on my person because you didn't like my position.
I (inappropriately) replied in kind. (I should have just told you to stop the first time or you'll be banned, but I gave you the benefit of a doubt...the first time).
You post more personal insults and now try to characterize that as 'cordial'.
I tell you that your personal insults are not allowed here (try reading the site rules) and tell you if you continue them I'll move to ban you.

You run to who you think is an admin for help...he'll likely tell you to stop personally insulting people you don't know and stick to the topic, because.....

What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright.

EDIT: What exactly is an Aggro manner? I understand aggro, but not Aggro.

Syntaxed said:

I beg the most considerable pardon, but you are threatening to ban me for expressing my opinion?

Hmmm, lets examine, cleanly.

1.) I post an amicable, slightly contradictory post, not insulting anyone.

2.) YOU come along and post a distasteful, loud, angry, aggro-laden post in response.

3.) I do the same, not because I am angry, per-say, but to prove a point(which apparently is still lost on you.)

4.) You again post in your Aggro manner.

5.) I post in a far more cordial manner(yes, I was insulting you), but I still maintained a certain level of cordiality.

6.) You attack and THREATEN to ban me, over a simple argument that you had just as much(if not more) to do with than I did.

I inquire as to who is in position on this site as a manager, original author, or owner, so that I may report your threat to ban me based upon your not so humble opinions about what I say...

Is Climate Change Just A Lot Of Hot Air?

bcglorf says...

Wait, wait, wait

@charliem,

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this as I can't get to the full body of the article you linked for methane, but here's the concluding statement from the abstract:
We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

Now, unless there is a huge nuanced wording that I'm missing, sinks in this context are things that absorb something. A methane sink is something that absorbs methane. More over, if the sink is enhanced by warming, that means it will absorb MORE methane the warmer it gets. So it's actually the opposite of your claim and is actually a negative feedback mechanism as methane is a greenhouse gas and removing it as things warmers and releasing it as things cool is the definition of a negative feedback.

VideoSift v6 (VS6) Beta Video Page (Sift Talk Post)

lucky760 says...

@eric3579 Please read the third paragraph and this post's title.

@gorillaman Thanks for the surprisingly positive feedback. That's a small victory by itself.

@MilkmanDan Thanks for being so respectful with your negative feedback. No worries at all about sharing your true reaction and thoughts. Aversion to change is expected. All I'll try to clarify is that everything isn't harder to figure out now; all the old content you're referring to is now neatly tucked centrally in the easily accessible header menu.

@enoch Thanks for the kind feedback!

@blackfox42 Whoops! The edit link is one of the things excluded accidentally. I'll work on adding it back in asap. To opt back in use the link at the bottom of this ST post body.

Climate Change - Veritasium

bcglorf says...

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

MilkmanDan said:

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

Solar Roadways - Reality Check

halfAcat says...

Assume A=1m^2 of t=5cm thick glass, thermal conductivity k=1W/(m*K), glass to be kept at a constant 5°C with an average ambient temperature (averaged over the whole winter season day and night) of 0°C => temperature difference DT=5°C (also no salt to help, original promo video claimed that as an advantage of these things), you'll need roughly

A*k*DT/t = 100W of constant power (day and night for the entire winter!) to keep the tiles at 5C (i.e. 100W/m^2 of tile).

There's NO WAY you'll produce that much power per square meter on average (day and night!) in the northern winter (!), meaning the tiles would soon be covered by that thin hard layer of compacted snow that you get, rendering them basically worthless in the winter.

There's also a negative feedback mechanism: if you don't produce enough power to melt all the snow or ice, some of the area gets blocked, which reduces power output even further.

Where I lived, in northern MI, these tiles would be useless for about 9 months of the year

xxovercastxx said:

Apparently it takes a shitload of energy to melt ice, but how much energy does it take to prevent ice from forming?

Game Dev Calls Copyright Claim on Negative Reviews of Game

CreamK says...

Not uncommon. Game companies can be very touchy of negative feedback. Some games go to great lengths to limit any kind of negative responses banning people, trying to shut people up in 3rd party sites too.

What Makes a Serial Killer Cry

Dread says...

>> ^Sagemind:

Emotions, hate and everything negative create a killer - thereby emotion, forgiveness and love shall set him free.
...And by free, I mean free to remorse and begin a process of feeling what it is to be human again.
Since negative forces create a killer, condemnation and negativity will never penetrate to hard shell he has around him. The unexpected realization that someone is reaching out, someone you expect only condemnation from can be the chisels to start the first crack of remorse and acceptance that maybe someone out there cares.


Very well put.

He is so used to negative feedback from people, it probably just fuels how he validates his actions. It is the unexpected act of kindness that he was not prepared for.

When I see someone who is sick, I see a symptom of that illness. When I see a member of society acting in this fashion I see a symptom of a social illness. We are all responsible for our own actions, don't get me wrong. However I wonder if there was any point in this man's upbringing where something could have been done differently so that he wouldn't have brought so much pain to others.

On a side note I have a ton of respect (despite his tendency towards believing in mythology) for a man who can forgive another for such a devastating act of cruelty.

Bill Moyers: Engineered Inequality

Stormsinger says...

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

Bill Moyers: Engineered Inequality

renatojj says...

>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:



- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.

- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.

Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

Bill Moyers: Engineered Inequality

Stormsinger says...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.


That's effectively the situation today...and we see how well that's been working. If it worked, this video wouldn't exist.


In order for that approach to be effective, it requires a change in normal human behavior...such that
many people would willingly inconvenience themselves for principles that don't immediately affect them.

If we can change human nature, we don't need any other answer. Let's just change it so capitalism (or communism, or objectivism) works well without regulation. They all work fine if those pesky humans would just do what the various Utopians think they should.

Bill Moyers: Engineered Inequality

Trancecoach says...

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

Bill Moyers: Engineered Inequality

Stormsinger says...

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.

The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

Maher: Atheism is NOT a religion

bareboards2 says...

Bud and I are doing just fine, Boise my love. We are working it out and having our version of fun on our profile page.

If this comment was directed towards bud and me.

If not, then never mind.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

What can't I say in a comment?
We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community or simply ban you outright.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon