Glad this made it to #1, this is a really good video.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep - really good use of 60fps

That mini documentary was really good. I'd recommend everyone check it out. =)

Cute. Also fairly weird. This will either be really good or slightly uncomfortable.

Also I am not sure I really wanted to know about Henry Darger, but now I do.

As far as I know you are pretty much spot on. The 919 was run in the LMP1 class with 8 megajoules of hybrid power and a turbo 4 cylinder petrol engine.

This evolution of the 919 has increased the power of both systems, by removing the fuel flow restrictions and increasing the output of the electric motors. The boost graphic is probably showing the deployment of the stored power from the lithium batteries, but it wasn't 100% clear to me (usually they will indicate when it is charging or discharging, and this didn't).

I didn't find a really good reference, but there is a bit on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_919_Hybrid

I agree with you in general however I believe postal workers earn 16 to 20 an hour on average which isnt bad. Once you're directly hired you have a set schedule and really good benefits

jimnms, having seen the movie, I can see why people are reacting this positively to it. Have you seen it? Where you have or havent, consider the following.

You are right that this isn't the first black superhero movie. If you ignore comedies starring goofy concept heros, the list of movies narrows. Then, consider movies with black super heros who are not anti-heroes (Spawn, Blade). Why this distinction? Anti-heroes are great, but they aren't characters for a general young audience to aspire to. To notice that the majority of main character superheroes in movies are either partially a joke or a dark/brooding/scary/threatening/antisocial hero might be a drag. especially when you compare it to the pool of white super heroes who aren't (most of them). That's important.

First movie with a mostly black cast? No, but how many such movies arent about slavery, inner city gangs, extreme poverty, surviving racism, genocide or third world conflict. How many are almost purely optimistic blend of science fiction and the beauty of African culture? How many imagine what an African country unmolested by colonialism might look like in the future, where its citizens were allowed to reach their highest potential in terms of culture, government and technology? This is in part what the Afro-futurism science fiction genre is about and its a very rare genre to make it to film.

Especially a film that has a budget of $ 200 million dollars. That budget is important. It says that at this point in history, the largest (maybe?) movie studio recognizes that the public wants to see black characters in this light. That's a big deal too.

And considering how well this movie is doing at the box office, Black Panther is a signal of whats to come. More stories about inspirational black characters told at this kind of block buster scale.

Does that make a bit more sense? I'm sure there are other reasons; one being its a really good movie! Hope this helps.

Can't say I've ever felt that good about a poster, but then I don't really identify with most of the people in movies. They may be white, but they're usually REALLY good looking and that's practically another species

That said, I can totally understand where these guys are coming from, and I sincerely hope they get to feel that way again.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

You know what's really good for stopping tyrannical governments? Free and open elections.

How about instead of perpetuating this fantasy where a bunch of guys with AR-15s are gonna take on a government with fucking PREDATOR DRONES, you try and fix your insanely broken electoral system?

Start with repealing Citizens United, then you can move on to fixing gerrymandering, dismantling the electoral college and finally, find a way to get rid of the lobbyist block.

Do all that, and you won't need to overthrow your government. Not that you could anyway.

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

Back when she started them, perhaps, but it still seems odd to me for HER to perpetuate the separate and unequal methodology that had worked so hard against her....different times....and I'm weird.

Today, as the article mentioned, there's not really good reason besides "girl power-female empowerment", which I find as distasteful as the idea of male only "boy power" races, which don't exist as far as I see outside of Iran.
Conversely, if little girls might need girl only racing to feel comfortable, why can't little boys feel the same and so get boy only races? Being ridiculed by girls for being a slow or odd runner hurts boys the same as the reverse hurts girls, no?
Most marathon finishers are women, they've proven they can and will run with men anywhere, but still today often men can't run with them.

Why does no one ever seem to want the pendulum of inequality to stop in the middle?

@ChaosEngine

I forgot to acknowledge your comments about judging people by their looks.

I didn't mean to say that these women are dumb or unqualified. I have no idea.

I know really good looking people who struggle because they are typecast a certain way or are treated differently in uncomfortable ways because of their beauty.

It can warp you, extreme beauty, the way you can be dismissed as facade only, or lionized when you haven't actually done anything.

I really admire people who find a way to navigate their looks and are able to come fully into themselves.

That is a true statement for any challenge in life -- beauty, ugliness, shortness, alopecia, baldness, dwarfism. I'm looking at you, Peter Dinklage. You are a rock star.

It defies logic to think that this group of women is just a random sample. I didn't need to do any research to know this company ignores competent, talented women with gun skills and normal looks for women who are glossy. Are the beautiful women also talented with gun skills? Doesn't matter. Because I am already creeped out.

Creeped out isn't the best word. I am really enjoying saying it though. Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds

I won't remember it, but what a great word.

@bareboards2, I get where you're coming from.

I think one would have to be naive in the extreme not to admit that women especially are discriminated on based on their looks (both positively and negatively).

That said, I do find it uncomfortable judging people on their looks. Neither you nor I know these women; some of them might be there purely as eye candy, but they could equally just be really good at what they do.

As a straight white male, this is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Comment on their looks, and I'm either objectifying them or assuming competency based on their looks. Don't say anything and I'm giving tacit approval to employers deliberately choosing women based on their looks ("hey man, you hire *whoever* you want.... nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

note: this is not a complaint... straight males are in this situation because we put ourselves here.

Now... all that said: I think you're almost certainly right about THIS company. Their instagram is pretty damning in that respect.