If that were true for everyone, there would be no children in foster care.

It doesn’t take children to expand your limits, they just give you no choice. I found I can go weeks on < 5 hours sleep a night all by myself, I became more patient just by getting older, I’m more compassionate because I’m not a thoughtless teenager anymore, no child required. I also retained my sanity (what little I started with).
Sure there are some good times for the parents, but not so much for the public at large. Overall making more people with the massive glut of humanity that exists has a negative value. I wrote a thesis on this, called “the fallacy of the intrinsic value of human life”. Got an A. Horrified my writing class. Double win!!

Howdy - I don't know if "addressed" is the right word. Commented on, but not given sufficient perspective. Having said that, the problem is incredibly complex, so there should be no expectation that Mr. Oliver's video or any other single thesis on the topic could possibly suffice.

Your "one chemical bond difference" is an appropriate consideration, but with recognition that once we reach on the order of C20-C40 length dispersable or emulsifiable molecules as surfactants / surface energy modifiers, the insoluble polymers come into play, with not 30'ish bonds growing one at a time, but leaping to 20,000 or more. No doubt the pool has already been irreversibly pissed into by the irresponsible producers that convert small molecules into very, very large ones, but with some control, responsibility, and integrity in our industrial process owners (yes, hell just froze over) there is no reason why we could not safely continue to produce the polymeric forms of PFAS. We do so for substantially more toxic chemical conversion processes today.

It's interesting to note the (usual) examples brought forward by others in this post (Teflon cookware), just waiting for someone to mention Gore-Tex, but by far the biggest impact won't be on consumer goods that we all touch regularly and recognize the name brands of, but will be on the industrial / commercial uses of these polymeric families that are pervasive in the systems / processes that we all derive benefit from every day. Ironies exist, that perhaps confuse the "all PFAS are bad" premise ... consider - effectively every seal, gasket and control valve in a water purification plant is most commonly made of a PFAS polymeric compound, PTFE included, all tested to rigorous specifications and compliance by specific agencies that do nothing other than deal with potable water (thankfully not the EPA - it's National Sanitation Foundation (the other NSF), or Water Research Advisory Scheme (WRAS) in the UK etc.) .

So my contention and the view of many in the end user community is that it's not the final form of some of these compounds that are bad, it's the horrendous messes we leave producing them. We can't unwind our Clock of Dumb, but killing the entire crop just to get rid of the long ago seeded weeds doesn't solve the actual problem, it makes it much, much larger.

Thanks for your comments.

I had to stop when he showed a pie chart that said 4-8% but the sliver in the chart represented close to 2%.

I'm a supporter of an accelerated move to low carbon emission energy sources. However, this video used too many manipulative tactics and I couldn't even figure out the thesis. Is it, "company promoting itself is bad?" If you're consuming corporate promotions as if it's hard news, then you're failing a basic test of critical thinking skills.

That's been my thesis the whole time.

Spot on analysis. Don't get me wrong--I loves me some Iron Giant, but the point of the book is that everything significant in the Oasis (and thus significant to the Gunters) were things from Halliday's childhood in the 1980s. I do not doubt that an older Halliday would react to The Iron Giant positively, but it's against his thesis that the 1980s were a wonderful time to be a child.

I watched the first couple of X-men and the first Spider-man... but once it became formulaic I started using the word "McMarvel" to describe the mainstream process of turning comics into "films" and slapping them together and shitting them out.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Doctor Strange - but look at something like David Lynch's Twin Peaks Returns. I mean this is why I like this guy - he is creative & defiant, always. The first 2 part episode is like the anti-thesis of Hollywood garbage (while incorporating some of it) and basically anti-reboot as well.

Gak! My Senior Thesis in Architecture (and they told me you can't design in a vacuum...true story, led to my snarky thesis...FU establishment)

Again,

If you want to take a book of rules and ignore it take American law and only read a portion of it like:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death

I suppose that in isolation suggests that American law justifies citizen's pulling out a gun and shooting people providing comfort to Americas enemies. Of course, if you read the WHOLE of American law you find there are things about due process and courts and other checks and balances in place. In fact, that the naive original reading is completely the anti-thesis of what American law advocates.

The point of course being that is EXACTLY the same thing you've done with the bible by entirely ignoring the existence of other parts in that address alter, or provide context on the pieces you picked out. You know, like some guy named Jesus that came along later and some folks have made a big deal about following the teachings of.

An interesting thesis but, like any philosophy taken to the extreme, ultimately fails to serve the public good. If we are all entirely free to decide what constitutes government "oppression" and when to resist it, the end state is anarchy. Although he vilifies politicians, they are elected as representatives of the people - if the people are unhappy with the actions of the politicians, they are free to, and it is incumbent on them to, participate in the electoral process to remove those politicians. If they choose not to do that, then they have no basis on which to complain.

Here's an example of a project we'd have 2-weeks to finish:

A Space for 2 people to live out their life-cycle together.
Site: Desert (Southwest US)
Requirements:
- mass-based passive heating/cooling w/ profound southern views
- brise-soleil with morning privacy
- compost privy as hearth of house


about 3 years of projects like this, fast-fast-fast, with our Senior Thesis being a year-long self-initiated/directed exercise. Fluidity and broad gestures were rewarded...but not as we were discover in the "real world".

Ugh. Look, I don't like Trump. But however bad he is, comparing him to Hillary in terms of better/worse is like being forced to eat a sandwich made of pigeon turds or rat feces. They're both terrible. They're both sandwiches made of shit.

Being a better tasting shit sandwich doesn't change the shit sandwich from being a shit sandwich. You can try to mask the flavor with hot sauce or swiss cheese, but it's still a shit sandwich.

Hillary is an awful candidate. The only way she'd ever have a chance at winning it to be put up against someone as weak as Trump.

And vice-versa. Trump could never stand a chance unless his opponent was as disliked as Hillary.

But here we are. Shit sandwich vs. Shit sandwich.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and list reasons why Hillary is terrible. Google can offer plenty of criticisms of her---and to be clear, don't think I'm coming at this by suggesting that Trump is some kind of saint. I. Don't. Like. Him. But Trump is doing one thing right, that I don't see Hillary doing. He's engaging with the "deplorables" of the nation.

This doesn't make Trump less of a shit sandwich (Did I mention that I don't like Trump? I don't like Trump.) but it could be the difference between Shit Sandwich, and President Shit Sandwich. (Sorry!)

To explain where I'm coming from on this, see Johnathan Pie's rant on Brexit. Basically, the "Keep things as they are" campaign was dismissive of the "deplorables" of the nation. Look how that vote turned out.

The thesis of that rant is basically that for many people the Brexit vote boiled down to:

"If you've got nothing, why would you vote for things to stay as they are? At least with uncertainty, there's some hope that things might change."

Hillary, for many people, means "Maintaining the status quo." For this group, Trump is at least a different flavour of shit sandwich--which might just put him in the White House. (Sorry.)

...

Here's the link to J. Pie's rant:

http://videosift.com/video/Jonathan-Pie-on-Brexit

Ha! We need more of this: Architecture as Machine! So tired of Architecture as Object.

My senior thesis was to design a "multi-nodal theater" in San Francisco. It was in the form of a hyper cube, always in a state of flux, as stages and seating shifted and moved into new configurations.

I'm definitely not a film student (or a student of films). I'm not really savvy enough to confirm this guy's thesis about what Snyder is doing wrong.

But one part rang massively true for me -- when he talked about Avengers Age of Ultron and the farmhouse scene. Honestly, I didn't like Age of Ultron all that much, but that scene stuck out as a good one. From being a fan of Joss Whedon's TV shows, I think he is a master of making characters that we get invested in. We identify with them or see elements of friends / family / whatever in them, and that makes it much more rewarding to watch them do amazing (or even mundane) things.

That farmhouse scene in Age of Ultron was a really good example of that. And I didn't feel anything like that, at all, for any of the characters in Batman v Superman.

I don't know that Whedon's very character-centric approach is necessarily a whole lot better for creating extremely compelling storylines either, but I think it can cover a lot of blemishes in that department.

Biggest pet peeve of the Sift is having to wade through tl/dr on topics I don't particularly care about to find a concise thought. I mean, wow, some of you people are long winded. I'm open minded, or at least try to be, but DAMN, this is a video commenting site, not a thesis repository. Don't get me wrong, I don't look at any of the Idiocratic comments at YouTube -they're all ghey- but sometimes less is more...

It's unfortunate that the episode/series was not true to its thesis. In this episode, we were not really given 30 days in the footsteps of a Christian but instead were given a very biased mutual experience/ debate. MS should've just done 30 days in the life of an Atheist because obviously that was the intent of this episode. In the Christian/Muslim episode, the Christian had to walk 30 days in a Muslim's shoes. He even had to pray a prayer that basically made him renounce his faith. Not all Muslims or Atheists are bad, right? Similarly, not all Christians are bad either. This episode did not seek to illustrate this as it had for other groups. Most importantly this episode violated the premise of the show with the most obvious bias I have ever seen. Too bad no one got to see 30 days in the footsteps of a Christian. MS has no right to call himself an objective documentarian.