"But when people are not only wrong, but so dismissive of those who know a thousand times more than they do, one realizes that such people are simply ineducable: they don't know how to assess evidence or argument; they don't know what real scholarship consists of; and they don't know who the real scholars are; yet they do not hesitate for even an instant before insulting and ridiculing scholars whose shoes they are unfit to tie, often people who have spent decades immersing themselves in the study of a particular subject." -- Trancecoach's inspiring profile quote.

@Trancecoach - keeping in mind that you hold scientific rigour in the highest regard, judging by your love for the text above - could you please tell me what you think of the paper after my criticism?

You can either claim that i do not have a scientific objection to the paper, or you can admit that the paper is unscientific, and therefore meaningless in the context of a scientific discussion about climate change.

Surely a man of science such as yourself (see above paragraph, very inspiring) wouldn't disagree with me - no uncertainties, highlighting of meaningless data points showing a total lack of statistical understanding, no key or legend for plots rendering them COMPLETELY useless, not listing sources therefore none of it is provable, having sarcastic digs at previous scientific work..... It isn't as though i've nit-picked problems with it, these are problems that render the work meaningless. The author is not making a scientific argument, and this is a scientific debate.

Right?

Would you say, perhaps, that you don't 'know how to assess evidence or argument?' That you 'don't know what real scholarship is, nor who the real scholars are?'

Please. Please read your own profile quote back to yourself and consider it and how it relates to your own approach. I would love you to come out of this with a net gain in understanding, i am not trying to ridicule anyone. Ensure that you are one of the educable.. I have also had to reconsider my own approach in the past, i would say it's a good thing.

I was expecting the title to be a sarcastic one and for me to see the boat sink or capsize.

The actual punchline was a pleasant surprise.

Sincerely thought 'genius' was being employed here sarcastically. Nice work.

The Gist:

Guy in business suit looking thoughtfully out of window.
(Doubtful anyone who designs fine consumer goods, *actually designs consumer goods*, wears a suit). Maybe its supposed to be you! You avant-garde millionaire, you!

Person sketching watch designs. This is probably semi-close to reality, though they don’t show the hundreds of designs the visual designer creates that are dismissed at whim by the aforementioned, assumed (but inevitable even if not shown) suits.

People fiddling with plastic representations of what one would assume as the model for said watch design. Maybe realistic, though with the caveat that two people are sitting there going over said physical design, in any serious discussion concerning the actual physics of the end product. I can *not* imagine that nearly the entirety of this process today, both visual and mechanical design, are not done digitally.

Okay, there’s some CG. Because CG is the next step, rather than the first, least expensive step in any design process today. Who wants to quickly model everything in a matter of hours when you can fabricate expensive, physical material for iterative testing?

Holy shit, was that guy just looking at a wood cutout? I can’t even think of a shitty, sarcastic/realistic remark about that one. I might have misunderstood that shot.

Alright, now we’re machining shit. You can’t really fake that with a few grand for marketing. That’s the real stuff. (1.5m in)

No, they don’t sand/polish things by hand during the fabrication phase. That’s entirely too inaccurate and subjective to the assembler to leave up to human hands. (But hey: it’s a 2.5 million dollar piece of metal, so lets make those buyers feel good about their money spent).

Oh look: gemstones! (???) That's kingly.

More faux machining that is veritably inferior to quality mechanical assembly.

Oh shit, someone just turned a nob!

3.5 minutes in, and we see some actual hand-polished work that is legitimately viable to perform by hand.

Hey lets sand those nodules off the finished pieces, and micro-inspect those printed markings, because nothing about us says “accuracy” without a fallible human to do it. Also: what are they printing shit on there for? Was it pushing the price to $3mil to engrave the timestamps on the faces? That better be the highest quality electroplated coating, but even then I can't imagine that's superior than a tactile, physical representation.

Now they’re hand-engraving the sculpted ornamentation, but it’s one more point I can gladly give them because those kinds of human touches let you know at least some sort of artisan was involved. I can appreciate that, though realizing what I just said causes me to reflect on the inaccuracies of mass-production, and why we would take one over the other…

More microscopes. (Because if one notch is off, it’s back to the furnace for you!)

Awe shit, payday. A guy in a suit looking confident is walking towards your building!

Finally, the gear assembly. It certainly looks fantastic, photographically speaking. I can’t help but notice that all that detail is lost to hundreds of textural indentations or are due to stylized alternating polish/grinding. However, I’m confident that spending $2.5mil on this product would get me the absolute, most accurate, unnoticeable details (hand-made!) within a micro-millimeter of accuracy. Those indentations are like chrome on a street-racer in the 90’s: the more you have, the greater they perform.

@~8min, I’m pretty sure no one works like that at their desk. That posture would kill you in a month.

They know you can’t spin the head of a watch while it’s on your wrist, right?

Awe! It’s got 5 ringtones! That’s way more than any other watch I’ve even heard of! Except everything that doesn’t cost $2.5mil.


If I can take anything away from this that’s even remotely positive, it’s that at least millionaire shitheads are now being just as suckered as the rest of the consumer base. Let me sell ONE of those watches, and I would have enough money to overtake their business within a year, except for that I don't have the greed, dishonesty, and overall lack of morals that it would take to set up a quality factory, and trick such dickheads into buying (even superior BS) products.

All I see is Affleck almost instantly demonstrating what Harris is talking about. Dismissive, sneering, disgusted that the topic is even brought up, and determined not to hear it, only responding with sarcastic nonsense. Liberal PC police in overdrive, using his own broad brush after claiming its use by the other side.

Affleck had been hyper\manic throughout the episode already.

I don't get the 'tantamount to racism' part of your comment. Perhaps you were being sarcastic. I wouldn't be so broad brush, but videos like this are popping up every day and they do start to paint even the good cops as part of a criminal system.

@A10anis, I think you misread @Jerykk s post. He's clearly being sarcastic.

And yeah, if a woman (or anyone) is assaulting you, of course you are within your rights to defend yourself.

But it must be a proportional response. You can't (as is the case here) seriously assault someone for a minor assault. Some jurisdictions also take the relative capabilities of the attacker into consideration as well (i.e. if you are a trained boxer or martial artist or if there is a huge strength disparity).

This idiot was completely out of line in his response.

I'd like to file a VS bug; it seems that some comments are accidentally flagged as sarcastic when they are clearly true.

I hope the sarcastic box was checked intentionally when you said that!

I was being sarcastic...

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-on-aliens-going-to-hell

Wow.. the amount of liberal crap is overflowing on this site..
I guess everyone has an agenda/interest defending the Palestinians.. while making sarcastic jokes about Jewish propaganda. and not even bothering to verify the facts.
It has been proven, as for today, that Hamas missile hit that U,N school.
But i'll bet it matters little to you guys.

Another great piece by John Oliver.

@Jerykk It would be good if your comments were sarcastic, unfortunately your passion shows they are not. Many of your points comprise of disturbingly inconsiderate, unsustainable and uneducated core values.

Pay attention to @Januari previous post. All the areas seeking clarification on what you advocate, these are most of the areas you should review and consider alternatives with someone who is rational, compassionate, realistic and a critical thinker. Your suggested solutions are horrific.

Oh... so everything is black and white then?

Nice. Great point. You win the internet. Bravo.

Please explain why what I said is wrong so I may better myself. I'm not being sarcastic.

I agree with what you're saying, but i think you're saying it very matter of factly which might put some people off. But talking objectively about the average capacity of human beings, males are physically stronger and that's simply down to what our bodies were adapted for during the evolution of our species. It's the same for other species (though not necessarily male/female as us).

This video probably has a good point, but they way they perform and/or present the experiment makes it worthless.

Any person stood in front of thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment, on a stage, is going to throw differently to how they normally throw when asked to throw "like" someone they are not; the person will perform for the cameras. Then the director emphasises the word "girl" in the way i think she does in the first instance and the person thinks "oh, this person means badly, delicately" and does as requested. We do not get to hear the tone of voice she uses for all of the different people as the video is heavily edited and cut - the cynic in me says for good reason.

But a young girl stands intimidated in front of all of the cameras feeling absolutely no obligation to perform out of character, being told "don't worry, we're just going to ask you to do a few things for the camera", is asked to "run like a girl" with no emphasis, the kid thinks "well i'm a girl, i run like this." There is a natural bias to the results because of this. I may as well ask a bunch of people to bark like a dog, then get a dog to bark; you are asking someone to do something unnatural to themselves, and so you can expect them to overact to try and fit the bill, they will do a charade.

"Run like a girl" and "throw like a girl" are very commonly used phrases in english that i've only heard used sarcastically. So i have a further question; how many young girls are familiar with those phrases compared to how many young boys/adults are familiar with those phrases? Because i think that those phrases are used less to and around young girls than they are to young boys. So again the way the question is asked adds a bias to the results; the girl might not have registered the phrase where the boy knew it had an implied meaning. In fact, the clip of him later confirms that he didn't even associate the "girl" he was pretending to be with his sister. In other words she probably doesn't throw like that and he knows it, he was just play acting to her request.