God, not another jump-puzzle crate-filled level...

Are you kidding me? Call centers are like dark alleyways where you can do anything. Jesus, you moron. Every call center I've ever worked was just a cesspool of self assured dipshit managers and idiot idealist managers.

And not just call centers, I have been a game master at several different AAA game companies and the shit just happens. You're puzzled because you're a TOOL. Hire, fire, hire, hire, fire, hire, fire.

Get real. Sooooo shocking.

I am a bit puzzled that the comments so far seem to be overlooking the actual underlying problem. This is obviously a management issue, and it is a shocking failure of management to foresee this business outcome. The manager who allowed this to happen is an absolute idiot, and should lose his job.

Or, maybe he was the first one to be let go.......

Chomsky is a scientist in a limited field. Žižek is a philosopher (yes, indeed, what exactly does he DO?).

It is difficult to compare them (and it is not a competition). Chomsky has a body of work to back his views up, Žižek has interesting insights if you can keep up with what "..and so on and so on" means in a specific context.

Most often I find that I agree with what Chomsky says and am entertained or puzzled by what Žižek has to say.

I recently read an article in the Graunad about Yudkin, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

When Lustig found out about Yudkin's book, his reaction was:

“Holy crap,” Lustig thought. “This guy got there 35 years before me.”

I think it's a good, interesting post. Thanks for posting it.

It's a bit 'unfair' in that it seeks to trick people using the different number of images and then Order of Operations, but I think it's still a fun little puzzle.

As for the 'logical'-ness of assuming 2 of something equals 2 x 1 of something I think it's pretty logical; however, the image does force you to make the assumption that the image representing 2 horseshoes is logically related to the image representing one horseshoe. It's perfectly logical to assume they're not 2 totally unrelated images and yet they still 'could' be.

I always seen clips and been puzzled by his brief hiatus into stardom. But I never saw his Elvis impersonation...just the high pitched stuff.

Yep, that puzzled me too. Note that the pipes are covered with ice and snow, and the tie downs are cutting grooves (circumferential) into the pipe you reference but not the lower one on the right hand side, so something "soft" there - I ascribed the marks to perhaps lifting or handling cut into the snow and ice that seems to be stuck fairly well on that joint. Perhaps different cladding, though looking end on before things start to move shows fairly clearly that there is some form of coating on the pipes (why can't everybody just use the same 323 Scotchkote color and keep things simple). If you have a look after the first big shift at 1:05, you can find a clear frame where the end on view of the same pipe doesn't appear to have any layer beyond the assumed coating (ie. no 2x4's) and much of the snow / ice has been shaken off (another clear frame around 1:09). Normally if they're stacking coated pipe, even a full joint, two or three bands of heavy polypropylene rope (1" - 2" diam) with the ends hot melted together to make a single hoop keeps the pipes from scuffing one another in transport. But then again, there's nothing normal about how this load was built, so anything's possible I guess. Cheers.

In the first place as to the house they had bought, it was not new at all, as they had supposed; it was about fifteen years old, and there was nothing new upon it but the paint, which was so bad that it needed to be put on new every year or two. The house was one of a whole row that was built by a company which existed to make money by swindling poor people. The family had paid fifteen hundred dollars for it, and it had not cost the builders five hundred, when it was new. Grandmother Majauszkiene knew that because her son belonged to a political organization with a contractor who put up exactly such houses. They used the very flimsiest and cheapest material; they built the houses a dozen at a time, and they cared about nothing at all except the outside shine. The family could take her word as to the trouble they would have, for she had been through it all--she and her son had bought their house in exactly the same way. They had fooled the company, however, for her son was a skilled man, who made as high as a hundred dollars a month, and as he had had sense enough not to marry, they had been able to pay for the house.

Grandmother Majauszkiene saw that her friends were puzzled at this remark; they did not quite see how paying for the house was "fooling the company." Evidently they were very inexperienced. Cheap as the houses were, they were sold with the idea that the people who bought them would not be able to pay for them. When they failed--if it were only by a single month-- they would lose the house and all that they had paid on it, and then the company would sell it over again. And did they often get a chance to do that? Dieve! (Grandmother Majauszkiene raised her hands.) They did it--how often no one could say, but certainly more than half of the time. They might ask any one who knew anything at all about Packingtown as to that; she had been living here ever since this house was built, and she could tell them all about it. And had it ever been sold before? Susimilkie! Why, since it had been built, no less than four families that their informant could name had tried to buy it and failed. She would tell them a little about it.

The Jungle - Upton Sinclair 1906

*******************
Nothing new under the sun folks. Poor people always get fucked.

*Promote the grand puzzle.

How is it possible for people to like Donald Trump? He seems like someone who would have absolutely no traction in Canada. Is there something in the American ethos that makes him likeable to some subset of people there?

Lyrics:

Angels on the sideline
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly old monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it
Right in two

Angels on the sideline
Baffled and confused
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground

Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade, and where there's one they're bound to divide it
Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground
Silly monkeys give them thumbs, they make a club
And beat their brother down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a Creature who would squander the ability
To lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here

Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky and
Fight over life, over blood, over air and light,
Over love, over sun, over another.
Fight for the time, for the one, for the rise and

Angels on the sideline again
Been so long with patience and reason
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end

Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Right in two
Right in two

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

Totally puzzled

I always skip ahead to the part where they put the final piece into the puzzle.

Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant hes more open about lying. He says things more straight out, without thinking.
I can understand why people tend to like him in a society that is essentially based on lies and corruption.

Others try to hide their lies very well that even people like you believe things they say or said (even after several terms still) but you really cant tell anymore what their real intentions are. I am still puzzled about Obama. He shocked me so much, yet sometimes he still does good things and you see that stuff shimmer back through that he said in 2008.