search results matching tag: popularity
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.009 seconds
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (152) | Blogs (41) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (152) | Blogs (41) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
San Francisco Leaders Question Reasons Behind Store Closure
Democrat’s policies created the insanely great economic opportunities that made Walgreen think it was worth opening 22 extra stores in a small city. Now, high rent (because SF is an insanely popular place to live) and over saturation are obviously more costly than a minor increase in petty shoplifting.
Be clear, Walgreens isn’t closing all their SF locations…which they would if it was just about shoplifting. There are still 20 open locations in the city. 42 was just insane.
This reminds me of Texan politicians calling California an economically failed state, when Texas barely broke even in 2020, lost money in 2019, and California had a $36 billion surplus and supplies services.
Most Popular Mobile Phone Brands | 2010/2021
how is the 3rd most popular phone brand for years unknown?
China’s New Bio Weapon Targets Race and Ethnicity
Here's the entirety of what the Reuters article says that could be considered at all pertinent to the utterly false and clickbaity video title:
That does not come anywhere near supporting the claim being made without tremendously more specific, pertinent evidence. Starting with your chosen conclusion and working backwards is a clear sign that you're probably wrong.
PFAS: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
fyi Consumer Reports found toxic PFAS chemicals in several popular water brands, especially carbonated ones
https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whats-really-in-your-bottled-water/
*promote the end bit by Danny DeVito
When you are finally comfortable in a relationship
Mate, if those two got any closer together, that LIGO would be detecting the birth of a new black hole somewhere in the Sol system.
I used to love Church: a dinner of Taco Bell burritos, a wooden pew, and the word of Christ. Clench, lean 15 degrees to the left, relax your sphincter and PUSH! The silence that is golden will last about 10 seconds before the retching and piling out the doors brings an end to today's sermon. That's when you snatch the collection plate and bolt out the back door.
I lost a major source of income when I became an atheist.
Did you know Taco Bell delivers? At least in Seattle they do. I have to wonder what life choices lead to the terminus of hauling two dollar food between source and the customer 25 miles away. Yeah, that $5 tip will more than pay for gas, upkeep, insurance and oil changes on that riced-out K car you've been driving since The Pet Shop Boys were still popular.
Also, "...blahblah whining and such..." -- look, if I want unfair criticism of a job well-done, I'll ask my clients to pay up. That's primo Gonzo humor you're tut-tutting and you paid exactly nothing to enjoy it. Y'know who else was a cheap ingrate? HITLER! Why ya gotta by like Hitler, Moonsammy -- IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME. I have my doubts on this topic, by the way.
Hey, what's Bob up to? I always enjoy a cheap laugh at the expense of the less fortunate.
(seriously dude -- I can hold 1:1 with a Clydesdale for an hour and have enough left in the tank to draw a standing ovation at Centurylink Field.)
I don't know why you felt the fart would be the prominent feature of the video. To me, the title only promised the sort of interaction which might feel mortifying in the early passions of young love, but seen within the context of a mature, stable relationship. It may not play well in Hollywood, or apparently Videosift (AHEM SIR), but it's the kind of deep, strong relationship to which we should all aspire.
(having said that, I too have tooted)
The Plane That Will Change Travel Forever
You mean THIS design from 1938 Popular Mechanics?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a33955602/flying-wing-of-the-future/
We've been told this design is the future for closing in on 100 years now. This is not innovative unless you're Amish, and even then you won't use it because you'd be Amish. Also you wouldn't be on the internet... because you're Amish.
bobknight33 (Member Profile)
Lol. Dick Tracy. I guess that’s your way of admitting I proved everything you said was dead wrong and that Trump duped you with another lie into continuing to believe the big lie, that the only way the least popular president in memory who takes absolutely no responsibility for the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands and a crumbling economy and absolutely insane deficit and debt and the almost total division of the union lost the election was if there was massive and meaningful fraud.
I doubt it, there is no amount of proof that you’re wrong that could convince you, because the belief doesn’t stem from proof, it stems from your undying faith in the blatant baseless lies of a consistent con man.
With the courts packed like sardines with Trump judges, you somehow think liberals let people off from legitimate charges. LMFAHS! Or did Biden pardon them like Trump had to pardon most of his “best people” (now called “garbage stars”) from crimes they did for him? Don’t think so.
They were released because police arrested anyone they could grab, then made up ridiculous charges, and in court had no evidence against any of them…so they were released as the law requires….except for the white supremacist right wing terrorists caught with bombs, guns, molotovs, and terrorist manifestos, there’s plenty of evidence against them. The FBI and DOD agreed the right wing terrorists like proud boys and boogaloo boys, like those I pointed out, caused approximately half the violence at BLM protests, non protester bystanders caused one quarter, and BLM protesters caused one quarter.
Nut bag fake news….which means all true but you don’t like it, right? Not a word of it can you contradict, but your mantra, fake news, will save you from acknowledging reality, that you’re in an anti American racist terrorist cult.
Wow good going Dick Tracy.
Sadly Biden liberals let the ANTIFA and BLM terrorist out of jail with out charging so all that is nut-bag fake news twisting Anti Trump stories.
Land of Mine Trailer
Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.
As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.
I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.
If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?
"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?
The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?
Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.
Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.
I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.
At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.
So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.
These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.
Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.
Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.
The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.
As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.
If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.
Video Shows Hot Air Balloon Crashing In New Mexico
Oh shit! You want solutions!? Uh oh.
Maybe a sift talk post or poll to see if changing the definition or policy is popular would be a good start?
I concur.
What would be your suggestion?
Portland's Rapid Response Team Quits Over Accountability
In many cases last summer, there was no rioting, but still orders to disperse quickly followed with violence before any opportunity for the command to be heard by most, much less followed.
Portland excluded, most BLM marches, 97%?, had no violence at all, and half the 3% was violence against them...reportedly 1/2 of the remaining 1.5% was by opportunists not involved with the March but using it as cover for crimes. BLM isn't blameless, but they are targets more often than perpetrators. It's hardly fair to charge them with the violence perpetrated against them.
The reporters I watched be beaten were 1) asking police where they wanted him to go when beaten mercilessly and 2) sitting on the sidelines well back from any order to disperse given to a peaceful crowd and trying their hardest to comply as soon as they heard an order, punched in the face and bloodied and shoved hard repeatedly breaking their camera while offering zero obstruction and attempting compliance. I didn't see any intentionally refusing to follow orders.
I'm going by what their representative said. It wasn't over one person, it was over fear of accountability, because they cannot do that job without violating people's rights, they don't have the patience or restraint.
Portland isn't a BLM issue, it's what happens when outsiders take over a popular nonviolent protest.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "protesters" still rioting over George Floyd's death, especially when most of them are white, ultra-progressives who think they are actually accomplishing something by violent anarchy. I do have sympathy for non-violent protesters who are trying to get a message across and keep getting caught up in the violence.
In fact, I feel if a person(like said "reporter") ignores a call to disperse once a "protest" turns into a violent riot, they kinda deserve what they get. I mean, how many people shed a tear over that air force lady who got shot during the capitol riots? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe there is a massive difference between non-violent protests and what has been going on for well over a year now in many cities. Portland being a prominent example.
I doubt every single one of the officers who quit did so over one person, maybe they decided to go with that as an excuse and now they are speaking individually on their reasons. I know that I would be incredibly frustrated at trying to do a job with conflicting orders (until recently) from my bosses. I could be 100% wrong about their actual individual reasons, but I would suspect a lot are just sick of the whole mess.
Plus, in the end, a lot of minorities are actually getting sick of these white kids making a mess of a peaceful protest.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland-activis/in-portland-some-black-activists-frustrated-with-white-protesters-idUSKCN24W2
QD
New Rule: OK Boomer
Biden is such a virile, imposing leader that Republicans are terrified to be in the same room, so they have announced the entire party plans to skip his address to congress....because they claim they want bipartisanship and respect. 🤦♂️
So much for bipartisanship. No more concessions to you snowflakes. The obstructionist party has proven conclusively for decades that sour grapes and obstinate obstruction are more important to them than leadership or legislation, more important than fighting the pandemic, more important than the economy, more important than infrastructure projects, more important than America.
Biden's approval rating has yet to dip near as low as Trump's best day. His plans are popular among even Republican voters. Your feeble little cries, dumb whining, sour grapes, and blind projection are music to our ears. Enjoy the next 8 years.
Covfefe.
Biden is feeble old man protected by media, Filtered out by you Tube and portrayed as a vibrant elder.
Smothers Brothers - Hippie Chick Clip
Oh excellent - thanks! Had to look her up, and this appears to have been the first of a set of recurring bits with her.
(shamelessly ripped from wikipedia) "In her early career as a regular on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour of the late-1960s, French portrayed a somewhat spaced-out or ditzy hippie named Goldie O'Keefe. The character was originally introduced, in an ostensible studio-audience interview segment, as Goldie Keif; both "Goldie" and "Keif" were slang terms for marijuana at the time. Reportedly, the slight name change to O'Keefe when she became a semi-regular was at the television network's insistence. Her segment of the show was called "Share a Little Tea with Goldie." At the time, "sharing tea" was a popular euphemism for getting high on marijuana. Following suit, her segment consisted largely of "helpful" household advice loaded with sex and drug-related double entendres."
Filing away "goldie" and "sharing tea," those were new to me
She was. Her name is Leigh French as I per the tags.
Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost
"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
What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?
I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, 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, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.
My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.
Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.
Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.
No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.
Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"
And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.
Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.
You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.
I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.
Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.
It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.
Bingus Mauls Owner
Bingus is a hairless Sphynx cat that originated from a video in which he is pet while staring at his owner. Attracting attention on Instagram in March 2020, Bingus' popularity exploded in September after he appeared in a viral Reddit post, which later resulted in online users referring to all Sphynx's as "Bingus."
Republicans Try to Dismiss Trumps Second Impeachment Trial
Impeachment already happened for a second time. You mean the trial.
It is pretty definitely constitutional because he was impeached while still the sitting president.
One reason for it is, in a criminal trial, they have to prove he intended to start a violent insurrection, a very difficult bar to clear especially considering his contradictory instructions in his speech and his mental state....in an impeachment trial they only have to show that his words incited it, not his intent. That’s a no brainer.
The only way it hurts Democrats in 2022 is it would hinder his creating a new party that would split “conservative” votes and guarantee victory for democrats across the board. Thinking conservatives should be itching for conviction and a ban from office to save the Republican party in 2022, if he’s let off conservatives are domed....republicans can’t win without Trumpists, Trump can’t win without Republicans. Conversely, letting him off with no consequences would hurt the democrat vote badly...why elect them if they let Republicans get away with everything including violent and deadly insurrection and attempted assassination.
Your fear of libs coming for your guns makes me sad. You drank the fear flavored koolaid, they just aren’t unless you go violently nuts, stalk someone, or beat your wife up, or if you need to buy them illegally because you’re a felon. Note, the NRA went bankrupt under Trump and McConnel, not Biden.
If Republicans want to fight everything because a murderous and treasonous coup is prosecuted as if it were disturbing the peace with no prison time possible, they should be tossed as traitors to the constitution that they swore to uphold that requires a punishment for inciting insurrection and attempting a government overthrow. Really, they want an excuse for fighting everything, it’s a foregone conclusion that they will no matter what, they have zero interest in compromise or bipartisanship. They insisted Trump had a mandate and should ignore Democrats completely because he won the electoral college, but now that Biden won it and the popular vote and the house and senate they insist he has no mandate and must let the minority call the shots. It’s not consistent because they aren’t honest about anything anymore.
No one that thinks prosecuting directing an attempted coup is wrong would be voting democrat anyway. Prosecuting incitement of murderous insurrection is not vengeance, it’s barely a thin slice of justice, but it’s the best that can be reasonably hoped for in today’s hyper partisan climate.
As much of a fuck up Trump turned out to be, it really isn't going to happen. I believe, as does about half of the legal scholars, that once the President has left office there are other methods to go after him other than impeachment. Impeachment is for a sitting President.
If you want to go after him for Treason/Sedition in a Federal court, feel free, just quit wasting time with an impeachment that may not be constitutional and that will never happen. Plus, instead of focusing on pushing the stimulus, you are both giving Republicans an excuse to fight you on everything and showing moderates that you are more concerned with vengeance than fixing the country. That is not going to help you out in 2022, mark my words.
Thankfully all the brouhaha is keeping the government focused well away from guns. Crossing my fingers that Dems are stupid enough to kill enough time on Trump stuff that we can take back the House/Senate.