"Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…"

okay

"(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces."

okay.

"(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media."

I mean, with reports of social media "shadow banning" conservative accounts (and other one sided controlling of content), it troubles me too.

"(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first."

True statement. Remember this: https://youtu.be/WhHAPsXhbR8

"(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control “exactly what people think” … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy."

aka opinion as fact. also bad.

"(B) At KOMO it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically “left nor right.” Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

so, they pledge to do their job. okay.

"(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you."

when they screw up, we have a way to tell them. how is this bad?

"(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual. … We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day."

again, they pledge to do their job.

"(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback."


I don't see the big deal.

So, is the trick that most of the image is still rasterized but ray tracing is used for the shadows and reflections?

I'm saying believing in shadow government conspiracies is a sign of delusional paranoia.

Trump is not the issue. The secret societies and the shadow controlling places in government is the issue.. And media is part of it.

Are you saying media is not part of these shadow controlling places? Willing or not they are being used.

If only the press was free from the controlling arm of the deep state shadow government -- operation mockingbird

Those can be blocked by adding the following filters to your ad blocker (i.e. uBlock):

youtube.com##.ytp-ce-covering-overlay
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element-shadow
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-covering-image
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-expanding-image
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element.ytp-ce-video.ytp-ce-element-show
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element.ytp-ce-channel.ytp-ce-channel-this
youtube.com##.ytp-cards-teaser
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element
youtube.com##.ytp-cards-button
youtube.com##.iv-click-target

Yeah, the important thing here is the actor is not interacting with any of the scene. Sure, he sits on a couch, but if you were to look closely, you'd probably see the couch wasn't deforming normally.

Basically, this is just a static scene with a few simple shadows, and computers are very good at that these days.

Walking through a forest and brushing leaves out of the way? That's another story.

The Shadows.

Your video, The Sweeping Shadow - Total Solar Eclipse, Nov 14 2012,, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"None of our side died, points for us"...begging for retaliation, no? Also, give it time, the murderer may have killed himself too, domestic terrorism is a capital offence.

"None of our people killed anyone unjustly."
The car was struck by a bat after he murderously drove through the crowd killing people.

He's just begging for someone to drive into his next rally so he can open fire with all 5 guns at once and finally feel like a man, isn't he?

His followers are scurrying for the shadows now that they're being identified publicly. It will be hilarious if all their homes get robbed while they're in San Francisco harassing homosexuals on 9/11.

Remarkable. The details of the shadows under the jockeys and the bike riders is incredible (I think?... as a physics and chemistry nerd, I have no idea how something like this is even done).

I wonder if that's a particular tactic; to break a radar lock on the jet fighter by finding a really large, metallic, moving object and moving into its "shadow"...

Or maybe, just of fun.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

The sins of the father cast a large shadow.

Trump just really wants to get the bad guys out.