Also.., "Ironic" that these slim figured women are singing it!

MASSIVE LONG POST WARNING: feel free to skip this

I usually like Vsauce a lot, but I disagree with just about every assumption and every conclusion he makes in this video.

Anthropogenic vs external extinction event -
I think the likelihood of an anthropogenic extinction event is low. Even in the cold war, at the apex of "mutually assured destruction" risk, IF that destruction was triggered I think it would have been extremely unlikely to make humans go extinct. The US and USSR might have nuked each other to near-extinction, but even with fairly mobile nuclear fallout / nuclear winter, etc. I think that enough humans would have remained in other areas to remain a viable population.

Even if ONE single person had access to every single nuclear weapon in existence, and they went nuts and tried to use them ALL with the goal of killing every single human being on the planet, I still bet there would be enough pockets of survivors in remote areas to prevent humans from going utterly extinct.

Sure, an anthropogenic event could be devastating -- catastrophic even -- to human life. But I think humanity could recover even from an event with an associated human death rate of 95% or more -- and I think the likelihood of anything like that is real slim.

So that leaves natural or external extinction events. The KT extinction (end of the dinosaurs) is the most recent major event, and it happened 65 million years ago. Homo sapiens have been around 150-200,000 years, and as a species we've been through some fairly extreme climatic changes. For example, humans survived the last ice age around 10-20,000 years ago -- so even without technology, tools, buildings, etc. we managed to survive a climate shift that extreme. Mammals survived the KT extinction, quite possible that we could have too -- especially if we were to face it with access to modern technology/tools/knowledge/etc.

So I think it would probably take something even more extreme than the asteroid responsible for KT to utterly wipe us out. Events like that are temporally rare enough that I don't think we need to lose any sleep over them. And again, it would take something massive to wipe out more than 95% of the human population. We're spread out, we live in pretty high numbers on basically every landmass on earth (perhaps minus Antarctica), we're adapted to many many different environments ... pretty hard to kill us off entirely.


"Humans are too smart to go extinct" @1:17 -
I think we're too dumb to go extinct. Or at least too lazy. The biggest threats we face are anthropogenic, but even the most driven and intentionally malevolent human or group of humans would have a hard time hunting down *everybody, everywhere*.


Doomsday argument -
I must admit that I don't really understand this one. The guess of how many total humans there will be, EVER, seems extremely arbitrary. But anyway, I tend to think it might fall apart if you try to use it to make the same assertions about, say, bacterial life instead of human life. Some specific species of bacteria have been around for way way longer than humans, and in numbers that dwarf human populations. So, the 100 billionth bacteria didn't end up needing to be worried about its "birth number", nor did the 100 trillionth.


Human extinction "soon" vs. "later" -
Most plausibly likely threats "soon" are anthropogenic. The further we push into "later", the more the balance swings towards external threats, I think. But we're talking about very small probabilities (in my opinion anyway) on either side of the scale. But I don't think that "human ingenuity will always stay one step ahead of any extinction event thrown at it" (@4:54). Increased human ingenuity is directly correlated with increased likelihood of anthropogenic extinction, so that's pretty much the opposite. For external extinction events, I think it is actually fairly hard to imagine some external scenario or event that could have wiped out humans 100, 20, 5, 2, or 1 thousand years ago that wouldn't wipe us out today even with our advances and ingenuity. And anything really bad enough to wipe us out is not going to wait for us to be ready for it...


Fermi paradox -
This is the most reasonable bit of the whole video, but it doesn't present the most common / best response. Other stars, galaxies, etc. are really far away. The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000+ light years across. The nearest other galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.2 million light years away. A living being (or descendents of living beings) coming to us either of those distances would have to survive as long as the entire history of human life, all while moving at near the speed of light, and have set out headed straight for us from the get-go all those millions and millions of years ago. So lack of other visitors is not surprising at all.

Evidence of other life would be far more likely to find, but even that would have to be in a form we could understand. Human radio signals heading out into space are less than 100 years old. Anything sentient and actively looking for us, even within the cosmically *tiny* radius of 100 light years, would have to have to evolved in such a way that they also use radio; otherwise the clearest evidence of US living here on Earth would be undetectable to them. Just because that's what we're looking for, doesn't mean that other intelligent beings would take the same approach.

Add all that up, and I don't think that the Fermi paradox is much cause for alarm. Maybe there are/have been LOTS of intelligent life forms out there, but they have been sending out beacons in formats we don't recognize, or they are simply too far away for those beacons to have reached us yet.


OK, I think I'm done. Clearly I found the video interesting, to post that long of a rambling response... But I was disappointed in it compared to usual Vsauce stuff. Still, upvote for the thoughts provoked and potential discussion, even though I disagree with most of the content and conclusions.

First of all, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with that claim. Auto accidents are never fun to deal with. The goal of a good claims rep should be to do what they can to put the customer at ease and work to get the claim settled fairly and efficiently.

For the most part, the adjusters I deal with at other companies do work in good faith to settle their claims. Insurance adjusters are held to a high ethical standard. At most of the larger carriers (with some exceptions), the ethical standards are quite high. Otherwise, they would be sued right out of business.

There are certainly some bad companies out there and some bad adjusters out there. There are a few smaller companies in Texas and California that I can think of that have particularly bad practices--I'm not sure why the Texas and California DOI's haven't shut them down.

That said, the obligation of an ethical insurance adjuster is to pay what the company owes. No more, and no less. Paying less than what is owed, or stonewalling, delaying, or otherwise acting in bad faith, is certainly unethical. But it is also unethical to overpay claims--to pay out on coverages that have not been purchased, for example, or to pay more than what the claim is worth. Personal lines insurance companies operate on very slim margins. If we consistently overpay on claims, then it will come back to our customers in the form of higher premiums, which could result in losing customers and perhaps the business being closed.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to Florida's Uninsured Motorist laws. They're pretty similar to the UM laws in most other states. There's not a lot of variation there. Florida is a no-fault state, so you do have to file under your Personal Injury Protection first. (Which blows. No-fault laws just make your premiums more expensive.)

That's the funny thing. We're both looking at the same thing but seeing different things. To me that's much more a wedge shape than a crow's short and straight.

But more importantly, the underside of the tail in a frame or two from an angle isn't as telltale as the up-close-and-personal HD view of the birds beak and head from multiple angles.

There's no question about how "ravenous" they are, and you're still not expressing any thoughts on those features.

You're avoiding all the clear evidence pointing to the obvious, indisputable truth, and hanging on with a death grip to the only slim, inconclusive evidence that you claim supports your unlikely theory. (Are you a 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theorist?)

In the words of Elsa, let it go... Let it go! Can't hold it back any more. Turn away and slam the door already because here I am in the light of day. And you know what? The cold never bothered me anyway.

@blackfox42 - There was no intention to permanently remove anything really, especially not channels. The biggest thing was to get this new very slimmed down version out there for you to review. If everyone said "Meh, we don't need the channels," then maybe we wouldn't add them back in.

It's important that we hear from as many people as possible what works and doesn't work with the new layout, so to everyone, if your opinion has already been stated (e.g., "I want the channels!") please don't hold back from repeating the sentiment. The more we hear about a common opinion, the more important we know it must be.

Bookmark is currently gone, but that was intended to be put back in. It's actually good that these features are missing initially because with all the feedback I'm starting to conceive of a good way to put some or all of those things back in without turning the page into a mess again.

Yes, some things have been overlooked, so do feel free to mention them, even if someone else already has. (There's a lot to parse through and hearing the same thing multiple times also helps to reinforce the thought of it.)

Fixed the "Just Published" link. Thanks for catching that.


@ChaosEngine - We could filter out any comments with just invocations. Perhaps I'll work on that. Interesting how differently everyone watches videos.


@Zawash - Thanks for the input. It's all helpful.


@eric3579 - I have a good idea how to add things like that back in.


@brycewi19 - We'll keep that in mind.


@oritteropo - Thanks for pointing that out and the details. It was only for posts with no votes at all. Fixed now.


@RFlagg - Will look into delaying the menus from appearing. Doesn't matter if you're breaking ground. Feel free to voice your thoughts so we know if there is more of a concensus about certain issues. Love the idea of showing who voted when hovering over the vote count...

Good point about NSFW being essential. Will add it back soon.


@blahpook - Thanks for catching that. I'll work on a fix.


@Esoog - Thanks for the detailed feedback. Good stuff to consider.

Absolutely, I wouldn't disagree with that in any way. The chances of the fighter remaining flyable are extremely slim (that pilot is really going to be wishing he'd been flying an A-10).

I understand where you're coming from, however there are a few things that might really surprise you.

1. Go to 1:23 in the video - that quote is not from the study, it is from an article about the study. You can check the study itself if you want to be sure:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251/full#joim12251-tbl-0002

Here are the actual summarised conclusions from the study:
"The results of this study provide observational evidence that avoiding sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969

These claims are in line with the results of the study. If he was to debunk the study's conclusions he would have to expose these claims as being untrue/exaggerated - which they are not. It does mention in the study something similar, but only in the results section, and it kind of has to because... those were the results. The claims made that are based on the results are appropriate.

2. He talks about how there might be confounders but fails to mention that the study has thought of that, found out the important ones, and adjusted for them. The study adjusted for: comorbidity, age, smoking habits, education level, marital status and disposable income.

3. He talks about how the study had no control group because it is not a RCT - this is a statement designed to mislead people who don't know much about study design. There are a number of different types of studies, and the reality is that many types of studies simply cannot have a control group - this is one of those types. I mean seriously, what control would you use, a group of humans that had to avoid 100% of sunlight for 20 years?? Yes please, sign me up for a 50% chance of being in that group. (edit: ok it looks like @ant will volunteer) Just because a study doesn't have a control doesn't mean the results are invalid, and if he was being less deceptive he would have admitted as much.

4. He states RCT's have shown that sunscreen prevents melanoma and skin ageing. There are also studies that show that these processes happen despite the use of sunscreen. Either way, so what? The research done in the Swedish study looks at all cause mortality - a far more important statistic - it demonstrates that there are potentially benefits of sun exposure that outweigh the risks, a pretty big deal.
A recent article about research showing that damage occurs (albiet at a reduced rate) despite sunscreen use:
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/new-clues-to-skin-cancer-development-show-sunscreen-is-not-enough

Now, how about the statistical significance of the research? The 95% confidence interval for the results of the study does not cross 1 - in fact the confidence interval is well above 1. What this means is that if the same study was repeated many times, the chances of getting a different result are extremely slim.

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

Assuming that the little indicators are correct, they say they both have a 2% chance to win just before the flop. So, without doing any calculations I'd say that means there is a 96% chance of a tie in the situation... The 2% chance for either of them to win must include the chance of a flush AND the very slim chance of a royal flush.


...Awesome that the older guy told the kid to save his money and that you "can't win every hand"... Although it could just as easily come back to bit HIM on the ass.

@newtboy
while appreciate the sentiment and ideology behind your commentary,i just do not see it play out in reality.

i was going to post links to convey just how broken our democracy is,and those links are legion.the data is incontrovertible and to be quite honest...depressing.

i tire of people making this about libs/repubs.
that is NOT the argument,though it IS the argument that is presented to all of us.
no.
the REAL argument is about POWER and POWERLESSNESS.

the only true power the people have is they,themselves and the ability to form associations,to group up and put pressure on those who wield power.to create institutions which force..by sheer numbers..those in the ivory tower to hear the voices of the common folk.

but those institutions and associations have been dismantled and the people marginalized.

would you like scumbag A or dirtbag B?
and maybe a possible third party candidate,which leads to the inevitable "lesser of two evils" argument you are alluding to.

all of that does not change the fact we are getting our clock cleaned by the elites who only seek to further their own interests.

we lost.plain and simple.

but i cannot ignore the optimism in your post.
i just wished i shared it.
in my opinion the only path we have left is mass uprising.
to grind the gears of the machine to a halt and force those in the ivory tower to come to the bargaining table.

i do not share you enthusiasm and trust in a totally (in my opinion) broken political system that threw us all overboard 40 years ago.

that is playing THEIR game by THEIR rules.
and that game is rigged and in their favor.

i think the evidence of that has become abundantly clear to anybody who has been paying attention.

its like gambling in vegas.
yes..there are a few who win big but the majority lose their shirts but the illusion that maybe...juuust maybe..you too might win big keeps people coming back to the table.

they have stacked the odds in their favor and to play the political system is no different.
either way..the house always wins.

so why play a rigged game?
why play by rules that have been instituted to benefit the elites and fuck us all over?

the time has come to change the game and create new rules.

i apologize for the lengthy rant.
i truly wish i could share in your optimism newt.
i do realize there are those who are doing their best to fight this inequity and corruption.
so there is hope....a tiny..slim..sliver of hope.

and on that note i hope right along with them.

After watching this clip, one has to see *related=http://videosift.com/video/Fatboy-Slim-Weapons-of-Choice-Directed-by-Spike-Jonze-and-Starring-Christopher-Walken

Fatboy Slim: Weapon of Choice has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

We are just animals, but some more so than others. Left to their own devices - and thinking they are not being observed - some people cast of the very slim veneer of civility, and resort to some disgusting habits. "Be true to thine own self," someone once said. A decent person is decent, even when no-one is watching. I tried to teach my kids that simple mantra.

Unfortunately for mankind, the past few generations and the current one are being groomed as complete dysfunctional morons so there's a very slim chance that anything will stop the process of creating a Codex Alimentarius the likes of which will put evil men in control of what goes into all mankind's bodies.

It's by design to make all humanity into an unthinking, automatomatious slave-class with no will or mind of their own until the planet has been thoroughly and completely controlled.

Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the one-hundred and sixty-sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Wow, so many of these people are so far out of touch with reality.
It's not a choice to work at Wall Mart - It's a last resort. If people had other options, they wouldn't be there. Few people chose to live in poverty

And Who cares about the cheap prices that Wal Mart is able to give. It's self serving. The largest employer keeps it's employees poor so they have no choice but to shop at their own store, which in turn just gives their wages back to employers. Sure other people reap the benefits of some cheap stuff, but let's stay real. It's cheap because the quality is often lowered to meet the competitive contracts targeted for manufacturers to be able to be Walmart's choice product. Nothing bought at WalMart lasts more than a year or two, you always end up re-buying it. So where is the cheap affordability now?

And while Wall Mart works hard to choke out the competition so they can raise their prices on certain products, their merchandising does the same thing. They only target certain manufacturers and give then the lion's share of the merchandising space on their shelves. Selection at Wal Mart is Slim. They are great at choosing your brands for you. The companies that play ball with WalMart. I have better selection on items at non department stores. Case in point Groceries. They have great prices on certain grocery items, but I don't have any choice on the brands I'm buying. And sooner or later, I'll still need to go to the grocery store, because WalMart just can't give me what I need to stock my kitchen with the basics. My Wall Mart doesn't even sell large bags of sugar.