Actually looking at the official youtube videos it seems to be high precision CNC wizardry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYSHJIx0Esc

Precisely; you would want her to default to stopping at the edge of any apparent cliff.
Why train that away???

what he's doing is cool as a hobby, but he should really go get a physics or engineering degree to take it to the next level. (but then again, if his YouTube channel becomes popular, he'll make more money and have more fun than doing it professionally)

Also, those rocket engines aren't precise enough to use for landing. ±0.1 seconds of thrust makes no difference going up (for a model rocket) but for landing it's the difference between "reusable" and "busted".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

This attitude is prevalent in Nordic countries. As the article states, there has been some slight movement away from Janteloven, but not very much. It is precisely this attitude that allows for people to accept drastically higher taxes, not just for the 1%, but across the board. The social culture is dramatically different in the USA, possibly to our detriment.

Per capita means nothing. All NATO states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of their GDP towards defense. As I said, Norway spends around 1.2% of their GDP, if the USA did the same, we would have a massive amount of money for social programs. Again, I must stress that I am not slamming Norway or other Nordic countries for not reaching the 2%, I am simply pointing out additional reasons why they have more money available for social programs than we do.

I don't see what developmental aid has to do with anything. I am sure Norway spends money in other places as well. I am pointing out why socialism works in Nordic countries and why it would be a hard sell in the USA.

I understand that you are happy with your situation. In a perfect world, we could all follow a similar rule. Unfortunately to fit into that type of situation you need a population that is of relatively the same mind. In most larger nations that is impossible, there are too many different groups that have competing ideals.

a precise answer for a precise society. 30 seconds to get off the train; 30 seconds to get on--at each stop.

@bobknight33 --

I'm interested in what your thoughts on McCain were in 2008, when he was the Republican candidate for president. If I looked back at your comment history from that era, would you have criticized him in the same ways back then? Were you OK with him being the Republican nominee?

Opinions can legitimately shift over time. But, that's usually a gradual process. If your opinions on McCain shifted radically in a short span of time (since, say, 2016 -- a date I've completely randomly selected for no particular reason), you might want to consider that perhaps some external actor is more responsible for that shift than your own internal feelings.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions. However, it seems possible that this one is not precisely "your own". McCain's willingness to break away from groupthink and be a "maverick" was one of the things that people on both side of the aisle respected the most about him.

Congratulations! Your comment on Distracted at precisely the wrong time has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

"And these blast points, too accurate for sand people. Only imperial storm troopers are so precise"

I thought parts of it were cringeworthy, but that that was entirely intentional. Sometimes that cringe is precisely what a comic is going for.

Honestly, I don't remember any of these being a "roast" to the degree that this one was. Thinking back on them in Obama's era, all I can remember is the mic-drop moment when Obama turned the tables and said Dick Cheney was the worst president in his memory, and Keegan-Michael Key being Obama's anger translator. Obama could certainly handle light/moderate jabs directed at him, but I don't remember that being done much if any at these specific events. Maybe it was and I just don't remember it.

Anyway, I think that saying that this upped the ante and went for the jugular significantly more than in the past is almost certainly correct. But that doesn't make it "bad" or "disrespectful" or whatever. I don't care that Trump didn't attend, even though presidents "traditionally" do. Hell, given the whole "fake news" shtick that he is trying to sell, he should have barred any White House staff from attending -- even/especially Press Secretary Sanders.

BUT, then after the event he should have simply said that he didn't watch it and that he doesn't give a rats ass what was said there instead of sulking about it on twitter. Acting all offended just makes him look like a little bitch (and that goes for all the other R's that have whined also).


Anyway, I guess overall I thought her bit was a good but not great set. Doing that material with that mixed audience guarantees that there's going to be some uncomfortable silences and crickets, but she clearly anticipated and managed that quite well. Roasts aren't really my thing, but given the machismo image that Trump tries to push it may well have been the perfect way to bait him into looking like a crybaby in his inevitable response. Mission accomplished?

Precisely!

Precisely why a team of two horses should be used. The horse got too close to the side, and because the cart sticks out further to the sides, it hit the bank and tipped.
A two-horse system wouldn't get as close to the edge and the tires wouldn't have hit the side.

Also, at that speed, it looked like the horse was spooked, and running FROM the cart, which on it's current wheels was rolling too fast and easily.

...Not that I'm an expert, I've been around horses, but mainly this is only my observation

I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.

Snopes included excerpts from at least two peer reviewed studies directly on topic that seem to contradict your contention....why dismiss it offhand?

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review in 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

Are you calling them liars?

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

impressive, but not surprising that it can be done in realtime.

basically the same tech that is used for AR/VR, just has to sense+record the movement of the camera precisely.