uBlock Origin here (same as eric3579 mentioned), but the issue wasn't technically an "ad", per se. I guess the YouTube terminology is "embedded endcard", which many channels use to promote other videos on their channel.

The uploader of the original embed did so, in spite of the fact that it completely obscured the ball, and largely obscured the kid's reaction.

So I guess I should have complained about it as "omnipresent (self?)promotion" as opposed to straight-up advertising. But anyway, @eric3579 's uBlock filter from that Reddit link worked to remove embedded endcards from all YT videos for me, and at least in my case I feel like nothing of value was lost by making that universal. Also prompted me to do google searches of reddit for other blocking scripts, with some mixed success. Found one that blocks all "sponsored content" on Slashdot (and works), and one that blocks autoplay video on fansided sports blogs (but unfortunately left the audio playing with no video window to mute/kill it in).


BTW, thumbs-up on changing the embed to one that doesn't have that issue, @Spacey (I think, although I guess with the new script I wouldn't know if it was still there). Wasn't intending to catch you in the crossfire of my bitching about it originally; I know it wasn't your choice to put that endcard in there.

ECB Research Bulletin:

In an economy with its own fiat currency, the monetary authority and the fiscal authority can ensure that public debt denominated in the national fiat currency is non-defaultable, i.e. maturing government bonds are convertible into currency at par. With this arrangement in place, fiscal policy can focus on business cycle stabilisation when monetary policy hits the lower bound constraint. However, the fiscal authorities of the euro area countries have given up the ability to issue non-defaultable debt. As a consequence, effective macroeconomic stabilisation has been difficult to achieve.

Translation:
- all members of the eurozone effectively use a foreign currency
- they can default, because they do not and cannot issue debt in their currency
- fiscal policy has thus been completely neutered

Ergo, national parliaments have a significantly smaller policy space compared to countries with their own currency. Our parliaments intentionally surrender power to unelected technocrats, even control of the national budget, which is the primary power available to any parliament anywhere.

"Sorry, lad. We cannot pay for healthcare/pension/infrastructure/education/wages/X, we have to maintain a balanced budget to appease the market." Yet it is still illegal to call for the guillotine...

Meanwhile, Japan doesn't give a fuck. The BoJ has been vacuuming up outstanding debt like there's no tomorrow. It currently holds in excess of 40% of all government debt, effectively canceling it. It's just book-keeping. The Treasury issues the debt, the CB buys the debt. Both are part of the consolidated government sector, ergo no debt. "Hyperinflation!", they scream. Can you hear them? Except Japan has been fighting deflation for two decades, with no end in sight.

Yet the inflation-hawks are still treated as persons of authority. Flat-earthers, the lot of 'em.

And my country wants the rest of Europe to sign on to the most moronic law in German history: the "Schuldenbremse", which makes running a deficit illegal at the constitutional level (except for undefined "emergencies"). They are either a) brainwashed, b) idiots, or c) straight up evil. And I'm not sure which one I prefer.

Straight up brutal.

Not sure which way @ant would vote on this one.

@ChaosEngine
then we disagree,but as eric pointed out some things do not translate well on a comment thread.

maybe i just have a different idea what a friend zone actually is and you are totally correct.

to me a "friend zone' is a place the man puts himself in,and is not the women's responsibility.she was straight up and honest.it was the man who deluded himself that if he just gave enough attention,or was patient enough,she would come around.

if anyone should feel shame,it is that pathetic dude for being such a pussy.

ah well..maybe i am just an old fart and no longer get the plot.

Trump has spent his life straight up treating people like dummies and using daddy's fortune to take their money. He figured out he can just ignore the 40% of the country with a brain and an education.
The republicans are frozen, unsure whether to be horrified of the potential political results or just in awe.

Like when he pointed it straight up at 0:04, causing (and rightfully so) several other the others to cringe and lean away?

I think if I'm ever on camera to discuss some accomplishment I've just achieved, I'm going to straight up steal his first response.

My name is moonsammy. Today very lucky. Congratulations me! Yay!

You conflate illegal immigrants with immigrants.

Learn the difference and your first paragraph is pure nonsense. Also, what support do you have for the conclusion that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives? Illegal immigrants in general have a lower crime rate, support businesses, they work hard and pay taxes (which is more than can be said for Trump). Give me some data, ANY data to support your claim.

They "could" have come legally, you say. Well, no, that's the thing, most of them couldn't have. So that's a straight-up lie on your part. Couple that with the incentives the US government gives them to come illegally and why wouldn't they come? Yes, incentives, if the govt doesn't want them they need to take away the jobs, instead they pass rules to protect businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The rest of your "argument" is mostly nonsense, so I won't even bother with it. WTF does Upton Sinclair have to do with it?

What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.

I can't stand to say it and you will probably never hear me use this word to describe a situation - but Trump even up to the last debate (meaning there was time to get it together) sounds straight-up unprofessional.

Hillary (God I hate her too), made a good jest saying that he is never prepared. I mean, how does he manage his other companies when he sounds like a stoned 7th grader? I'm guessing the answer is, he simply has other people do it for him. He's the face of money and the mind of nothing. A perfect recipe for a Black Mirror episode.

*promote Straight up you go!!!

I felt like when the judge asked "do you believe in god?" she was expecting a "yes" and she was going to say something like "well he's with you tonight because YOU MADE IT!!!" but when the girl said no, she had nowhere to go with her line of questioning that would make any sense, so she turned it into a lesson.

Imagine if she had said "yes!", would the judge have then said "well good for you but you still didn't make it." Probably not. This was straight up discrimination.

Yeah, he hits the tee, but he ONLY hits tee. If you freeze frame the moment before impact, you can see the club head is well below the ball, if he'd made any contact, at best the ball would have gone nearly straight up.

The flat lighting makes it hard to tell, but it also seems the ball's shadow disappears as soon as it starts to move.

I'm largely with @newtboy on this one.

Charles Kinsey provides an excellent and concrete example of someone who thought that there was zero chance that what he was doing would lead to getting shot. He did absolutely nothing wrong, and from what I/we can tell actually handled everything as well as anyone could reasonably hope for. If I was in that situation, I guarantee I wouldn't have had the presence of mind to lay down on my back with my hands straight up and calmly explain what was going on.

So, as a white person who has never been in a situation like that, all I can do is try to put myself in the shoes of how a black person would see this. Here's a guy who acted perfectly -- a standard that I can't imagine holding myself to -- and he still got shot. And the police response is (so far) boilerplate utter bullshit.

I can't really imagine what it would be like to be black in the US, and have direct experiences with this sort of thing (even less extreme examples like profiling traffic stops) on top of WAY too frequent reports of this stuff happening. But I can try, and all I can say is that it seems terrifying.

Push people far enough, and they start pushing back. I think that's what @newtboy is saying. I absolutely do NOT condone violence against police, or painting them with a broad brush and claiming they are ALL racist ... but at some point, I can absolutely understand that there is going to be blowback for this shit that has gone on way too often for way too long.

In order to slow down / prevent / stop that blowback, police need to be working their asses off to change that image. The "blue line" mentality of protecting their own even when they make (massive) mistakes has got to go. Yeah, it is a hard job. Yeah, it means that police should be held to a higher standard of conduct than average Joe citizens. Yeah, it means that police need to accept that they face a certain amount of danger and risk -- danger that will make it hard to be calm, cool, and collected. But that's the job. Protect and serve the people, not themselves or the police department.

Until all the good cops (and there are lots of them, including some friends of mine) get together and make it clear that the actions of these bad cops are utterly unacceptable, things will continue to get worse.