Very thoughtful up to 2:41, then the storytelling starts.

Whats wrong with individual states setting their minimal wage?
The federal minimum wage, by simple logic, should be the minimum wage in the state that can support the lowest minimum wage. Otherwise that state is f**cked.

Minimum wage should be low enough to have marginal effect on middle class income. Raising it over a certain threshold will hurt the middle class by suppressing economic activity (imagine a minimum wage of 30, 50, 100 dollars - what would happen? Now scale back, at what point is the minimum wage sane?). This threshold will differ greatly from area to area and from time to time so setting a good permanent global minimum wage is impossible.

Is the middle class now earning minimum wage?

"Grow purchasing power organically" - f**k you, words!

The "study" that proves my point without specifying "details" like where, when and by how much this increase in minimum wage was studied.

The Seattle example is great - it shows that local government can do this better than a federal rate, it kicks in over time in a limited area and can be scaled back if it starts to backfire.

Raising minimum wage - in some places, sometimes its good, sometimes its not!

Alternative ideas have to be tested, not pronounced "right".

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

@charliem,

Energy is absolutely a better measure and marker of climate change than temperature. I started there since the video did. In reality though, everything in climate change is solely about the energy balance at the Top Of Atmosphere. More TOA energy in and temps go up in the long term, less and temps go down. It's the very foundation of climate change.

The climate models that your links look to for projections of things like methane thresholds are based on modelled temperature predictions. The IPCC notes the following on the state of the art in climate models:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The Models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
It's in Box 9.1

So, climate models currently FAIL to predict TOA energy accurately and hand tuning is required for modelling temperatures into the known past in order to avoid unrealistic states because the TOA energy is wrong. Maybe we aught not panic just yet on extrapolations from that base. I'm not calling climate models garbage, rather they are a learning tool for climate processes and one lesson is that we have a long ways to go in understanding the central component of TOA energy balance. If you go to google scholar and lookup the references from the IPCC assertions you'll find that the modellers acknowledge that most models still either leak or create energy from nothing. As in, even conservation of energy is imperfect in them still.

Your cursory glance approach is a problem, the devil is in the details.

Looking at energy further from NASA's numbers also tells us that the net contribution to TOA energy trapping from the CO2 we've added in the last 100 years is about 3W/m-2 globally. The global TOA energy imbalance is about 0.5W/M-2. In other words, if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere, we'd suddenly have a global energy imbalance at TOA of -2.5W/M-2. That brings two things to mind.
1.The enormous energy imbalance you want to call a catastrophe is 0.5W/M-2, but merely rolling back to 1900 CO2 concentrations today would yield a negative energy imbalance 5 times as large.
2.Of the 3W/M-2 that our actions have pushed on the planet, natural factors(warming and other unknowns) have already balance out 2.5W/M-2 of the imbalance, today.

You also might wanna check how much energy is in the oceans on the whole. If you take the increase in energy as a percentage of OCH instead of straight joules you'll find the trend is << than 1% annually.

See, this is why it needs to be shown the rise in joules, and a total energy rise in the entire planetary system, not just some arbitrary surface temperature rise....because people like you (no insult intended here) genuinely see the small relative figure and think...eh its no big deal.

Its a huge deal.

We are losing gigantic chunks of the otherwise permanent ice shelf in south and north arctic areas.

With those gone, we have otherwise what would have been massive mirrors, which reflect light...now acting as big old heating blankets (the water is effectively a black body to sunlight, absorbs it like no other..).

That right there is called a positive feedback loop. You start with something small, and within no time (geologically speaking), its in runaway growth.

The frozen tundra in greenland is home to enormous pockets of trapped methane....not for much longer. (source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/abs/ngeo2305.html)

Methane's impact on global warming (i.e. energy RETENTION within our planetary weather system) is 25 times greater than an equivalent amount of C02. (source: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html).

Further to this video, when you heat up the ocean systems beyond a certain threshold, the natrual pumping systems which circulate warm surface water to the deeper parts of the ocean for cooling, just flat out stop working. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19895974), leading to the slow heat-death of a vast swath of temperatue sensitive biomes....which, when they are active and growing healthily, actually contribute to c02 depletion (carbon based lifeforms 'use up' carbon to be 'made').

...I could go on, but you see....even just a cursory glance at some of the 'smaller' impacts is pretty compelling enough to consider the phrase 'no big deal' a bit of a misnomer.

Do your research....it is catastrophic, and it is likely to happen in your lifetime (if you are under 30 atm).

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be living in a drastically different global environment.

No biggie though, cause we got electric cars coming online in the next 30 years or so

Well, I don't think I'm confusing them. I simply think racial humor IS racist humor. I have a quite low threshold for something to be 'racist' in my opinion, but I also say nearly everyone is somewhat racist and that doesn't make them 'bad', it makes them a flawed human, like all humans.

In my mind, racism does not have to be intentionally degrading or denigrating of a race, simply assuming there's such a thing as 'races' covers it...even if just barely. I understand you likely disagree with that assessment, which is fine. We don't have to think the same, just as others don't have to agree with either of us, and that's also fine.

It's OK, I know kung-fu, and I've survived attempted murder before. ;-)

PS, did you check out Through The Wormhole? I posted a small bit of that episode that demonstrated my earlier point quite well, I do suggest watching (under 5 min) it if you're interested in why I think as I do.

Absolutely fascinating that he could pinpoint a very distinct threshold between "nope, can't do it" and "oh yeah, that's how that works". I bet behavioral psychologists / neurologists would love to develop experiments that test to see if other people notice the same phenomenon...

Air is friction, same as the spinning surface. I think you mean air friction versus friction from the spinning surface.

Assuming so, consider that without a surface, that top could slow down until it was at rest, but with a surface, the moment it gets below a certain speed, it wobbles and hits the surface and the surface contributes significantly to the slowing down. To truly compare the friction of the surface with the friction of the air, you'd have to factor out the force of the surface stopping the top.

This means, either eliminating the possibility of the top falling in the zero-air method, or only measuring the time until the top falls below the wobble speed threshold. The latter seems easier.

Invisibility isn't a power of the One Ring so much as a side-effect. It shifts mortal wearers a little into the spirit world, so they fade from view in the physical. Sauron doesn't disappear when he wears the ring because he already exists in both worlds and he can see other wearers for the same reason. It's not widely discussed, but this should also be true of other maiar; Gandalf, Saruman and Durin's Bane; and 'high' elves who've been to Valinor: Galadriel and Glorfindel would all also be unaffected by ringvisibility. It's this walking the threshold between worlds that's also responsible for the extended lifespan of mortal ringbearers and why Frodo can see the ringwraiths and they can see him.

The elemental character of the Three, I think, shouldn't be overstated. All of the rings, the One, the Three, the Seven and the Nine are very much alike. They were all made by or under the tutelage of the same creator to the same basic recipe, with independent elven flourishes rather than fundamental differences in the case of the Three. The One has to resonate (musical metaphors are always appropriate for Tolkien's magic) with the others in order to work on them, and that's Sauron's mistake: he is ultimately trapped and destroyed by his ring just as the dwarves and men were by theirs.

Amateur videos on you tube by guys who clearly haven't read or understood the scientific journal articles on the subject are part of the problem and confusion.

The point of recycling is to reduce energy use and transportation in manufacturing materials... So yeah, it's part of the solution and not to be thrown away.

Yes, the plant is warming, and scientists are agreed on that.
Yes, humans are adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere which contributes to warming.
What is the severity of the warming over the next 100 years, and what difference do our actions today make, and what cost do those actions have?

See the first 2 points are agreed and help understand some of the problem. The trick though is that the severity is still known with less certainty, read the details in the latest IPCC AR5 report if you doubt me. The error bars within the scenarios(different carbon emissions we reduce or increase to) span multiple degrees of temperature. The error bars are only as accurate as the current days models, which still are uncertain of the sign to attribute to water vapor as a feedback. The water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse effect than all other GHG's combined. How great is the economic cost of reducing our emissions to meet each scenario? That's no in the IPCC report. What is the alternative cost of adapting to the temperature ranges if we just continue emitting? Again not there.

The trouble is there DOES still exist uncertainty on a great many aspects of the problem. Random amateurs proclaiming otherwise on youtube doesn't change that. Until we've got a good grasp on the cost/benefit differences between reducing emissions and adapting to changes, we can't make any claims on action X is obvious because of climate change.

Now, I'm not advocating we do nothing. Electric cars are a huge opportunity, and the technology is finally hitting the threshold of being cheaper than gas. Adopting that technology makes economic sense. A fringe benefit is that it reduces emissions from transportation drastically too.

There are solutions other than redistribution of wealth through naive/blind carbon taxes.

This reminds me of something that my high school Chemistry teacher told us one day. He told us about how gasses require a certain percentage of oxygen to ignite, so, that if you were to fill up an airtight room with 100% hydrogen, such that no oxygen was present, you could open a door to that room and light a match at the threshold without fear of an explosion. Theoretically the gas in the room would only burn at the door-shaped barrier between the hydrogen and the oxygen on the other side. I remain dubious and I want to see Adam Savage risk his life to bust that myth.

Also, actually related to this video: the guy doing the demonstration,Theodore Gray, has an awesome website if you're into chemistry.

My attention span is usually longer. It's just short when it's confronted with something that's not really funny. If I liked Ina-Gadda-Da-Vida I might have been able to sit though the whole thing without skipping, and given that each scene was a joke within itself I still saw the transition to outright ridiculous. It just didn't float my boat.
Unlike Tracecoach indicated in his posting comment "By a minute and a half in, I was laughing so hard I was crying and then it starts to get very, very weird."
I was, by the minute and a half mark thinking "when does the laughing start?".
By the two and a half minute thinking "the laughing should well and truly be started by now because shit is supposed to be weird by now"
Good for you guys for having a low threshold for boredom. Grass must intrigue you.

This video skips over two aspects of MMP (at least as it is implemented in NZ).

First, in order to get any list MPs elected, a party must reach a threshold percentage (currently 5%).

Any parties below that are ignored.... UNLESS....

they win an electorate seat. In which case, a party with 3% can have it's other list MPs elected too.

There's no assumption going on, the electorate decide who their second choice is.

To make things easy, let's imagine an electorate of 100 voters, with 3 representatives and a 33% threshold.
So let's say 60 people give White Tiger their no.1 and among those people, their second vote is spilt 40 to Orange Tiger and 20 to Silverback.

So White Tiger has 27 surplus votes. Those surplus votes are divided by proportion to Orange Tiger and Silverback.

So in this case Orange Tiger gets 66% of the surplus vote and Silverback 33% giving them 18 and 9 votes respectively.