search results matching tag: timeline

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (123)     Sift Talk (9)     Blogs (7)     Comments (259)   

FCC Votes to Repeal Net Neutrality; Omarosa Drama Continues

Rick and Morty: Has Rick Changed?

newtboy says...

I thought it was explained clearly in the show....they mean nothing, because with access to infinite timelines, he has infinite replacement families, and except for Morty has replaced them all at least once, but he explained that the energy it would take to find a satisfactory replacement Morty was more than he energy it takes to save the original, making replacing him a dumb move...and Rick isn't dumb.

Myths and Facts About Superintelligent AI

ChaosEngine says...

As I've said before, even if we somehow wind up in a best case scenario of a benevolent superintelligent AI that shares our goals, we're still just pets at that point.

You might love your dog, but you don't let it make decisions for you.

But that's extremely unlikely. Max talks about "letting " the AI decide at one point in the video. The verb "let" implies a degree of control on our part. If we get a superintelligent AI, we won't be "letting" it do anything, any more than apes "let" humans do something. Maybe on a short scale/timeline, an individual ape might force a human to do something (i.e. a gorilla makes a human run away), but in real terms, apes don't really get a say if we decide to do something.

Basically, as soon as we get superintelligent AI* , the world will be unrecognisable.

* I mean a true superintelligent AGI, something that is smarter than us and therefore by definition able to write a better version of itself.

The Battle Over Confederate Monuments

newtboy says...

Touche. You are correct, I overstated.
Treason is unpatriotic, period?
Edit:even then there's the likes of Chelsea Manning, who some would say was a patriotic traitor....so what is my point?

I'm not prepared to debate the morality of a different timeline, but I disagree that force wouldn't be justified to try to preserve the Union from armed secession....now if 2/3 of the state's voted to disband...or 3/4, whatever the line is, yes, monstrous to wage war to force it's preservation, but they didn't do that.

MaxWilder said:

I think it's silly to say "treason is wrong period." The USA was born of a revolt against England.

If the south had wanted to secede for almost any other reason but the right to own human beings, then Lincoln would have been a monster to pursue such a bloody war to hold the union together. It would be as if the EU sent troops to force the UK to stay part of the EU.

I think there are plenty of examples in history of groups justifiably wanting to replace their leaders or separate from a political union.

Liberal Redneck - Transgender Patriots and the GOP

MilkmanDan says...

No NHS in the states. Personally, I think that'd be the way to do it. And I think it kind of needs to be a long and difficult road, to make sure that drastic option is necessary and won't be regretted later.

It's a bit hard for me to accept it, because I tend to think of it like that episode of South Park. Kyle can't actually become a tall black kid, and his dad can't actually become a dolphin.

But even though I think that is true -- you can't really become something you aren't -- I recognize that gender reassignment surgeries can be life saving / massively beneficial to quality of life in many cases.


To take a stab at answering your other questions:

I believe that Trump is saying that the military is instituting a blanket ban on transgender people from serving in the military. If / how the military elects to enforce that remains to be seen. I don't know the full timeline on that sort of stuff, but back in the 60's one (considered extreme at the time) way for young men to get out of being drafted to go to Vietnam was to take photos of themselves naked with another man (implying they were gay) or wearing women's clothing (implying they were trans). The mere implication that you might be either was enough to disqualify you from military service.

More recently, during Don't Ask Don't Tell you could be gay or trans in the military, but couldn't reveal that you were. That ended only 5-6 years ago. The military definitely wouldn't have paid for trans-related medical treatments prior to that, and didn't for quite a while after until Obama OK'd it.

Again, I don't really think that the military should be required / expected to pay for those kinds of treatments for soldiers, BUT I'd be 100% OK with something like the NHS making it available to any citizen, as in the UK. For one thing, I wouldn't want trans people to see the military as the only way to get those treatments (short of paying out of pocket), and having that be a major part of their motivation to join.

And I 100% agree that this is a basically a political distraction that sets back the rights and acceptance of an already marginalized group that in no way deserves it.

Jinx said:

So

I don't know how it is in the states, but in this country if you want to go through gender reassignment you will get it for free on the NHS. Its a long road, it isn't easy, they make it hard etc, but like anything else that poses a risk to somebodies health it is paid for by the state. I feel like a lot of people consider reassignment a sort of frivolous sex thing but being unable to escape the body in which you are born is, you know, desperately depressing. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that surgery and hormone treatment are potentially lifesaving, and certainly greatly improve the quality of life in most cases.

Couple of things I don't understand - Is this the military saying they will no longer pay for treatments associated with gender reassignment, or is this a blanket ban on transgender men and women from serving in the military? One wonders why the military can't spend even a fraction of the amount is spends on toys on its servicemen/women...

Anyhoo. It's a distraction. Not trying to suggest that it is a minor thing for those affected, but I really think this is to divert the left and win back support from the right. It sucks dreadfully that a minority group is again used as target for political maneuvering and it is worthy of resistance but I can't help but feel we are playing into their hand by doing so.

@bobknight33 I pity you.

New Rule: The Lesser of Two Evils

MilkmanDan says...

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

newtboy said:

Consider the problems the world is having absorbing <5million Syrians....now multiply that refugee number by 100 to include those displaced by sea level rise, exceptional drought or flooding, and loss of historic water supplies like glaciers, and assume every country is having internal problems for the same reasons. How do you solve that issue, which is inescapable and already happening world wide? Consider that privately, climate scientists will tell you we are way past the tipping point already, we can't avoid worsening the serious climate issues we already have, because the atmosphere is quite slow to react, so even if we cut emissions to zero tomorrow, we've got 25-50 years of things getting hotter and more acidic before it could get better.
Now, with those two related issues already beyond a tipping point, you don't think raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity? I agree, his administration alone won't doom us all, but they may make the pending doom far more inescapable in just 4 years, and exacerbate the associated problems horrifically.

The Adpocalypse: What it Means

00Scud00 says...

Nope, I once had to look up what those little yellow marks on the timeline were when I viewed stuff on YouTube. Firefox + Adblock Plus + NoScript = a much better and safer browsing experience. Although sometimes YouTube does change things up a bit and Adblock has to play catch up, otherwise my YouTube videos are just black screens.

ChaosEngine said:

Has anyone else noticed a sudden spike in unskippable minute long ads on YouTube recently?

I seem to be getting the same ad on everything I watch these days.

First 5 minutes of Ghost in the Shell Movie.

jmd says...

The suit looks awesome, nothing fat and bulky about it what soever. At first I thought it was a digital body in the trailers but then adam savage did a whole video on it.

It does not look like it is going to take on either sac or 2nd gig. The storyline that the major was forced to have this done to her is definitely origin story and forked timeline stuff, in fact it appears that she is near one of a kind with her full synthetic body in this version of the world. At the same time section 9 is formed already.

Donald Trump: Magician-In-Chief

bobknight33 says...

Obama knew the timeline of the attack and pushed out his bogus Birth certificate a week before Bin Laden killing.

It is bogus as a 2$bill. -- The media and the left saying nothing to see here but truth was pouring out and so it was time for Obama to change the narrative.

Payback said:

Sorry Bob, you're reaching too far for that one.

ChaosEngine (Member Profile)

Shakesify says...

Thanks for the quality double promote!

It truly is a pretty frightening timeline we seem to be in atm...

ChaosEngine said:

*quality *doublepromote

This is what we've fucking sunk to.

Remember John Olivers "look way up, you'll see rock bottom" bit?

We have now fallen so far that we have looped around the universe in some bizarre space-time weirdness and are now plummetting toward rock bottom again from the other end of the universe, calmly waiting for the sweet relief of oblivion as we smash face first into catastrophe.

Ghost in the Shell (2017) - Shelling Sequence Clip

entr0py says...

Yeah, I can't imagine we would be offended if the situation were reversed, like if the Japanese film industry cast Japanese actors in an adaptation of Shakespeare, that would be expected.

Plus, it's difficult to make the case that Motoko even has a race any more. She is the brain of a Japanese woman in a prosthetic body. One she didn't choose to look Japanese, rather a sort of ostentatious athlete/sex doll look with red eyes and blue hair. Basically no one looks like that, but Scarlet Johnson pulls it off as well as anyone could.

Now if they had gone with the ARISE timeline, an Asian actress would embody that incarnation perfectly.

New High-Efficiency Perovskite Solar Cells

BBC Brilliant Wrap Up Of Rio 2016 Olympics

ulysses1904 says...

Apparently I'm in the minority but I cant watch videos where no shot is retained longer than one second, it really becomes an effort to watch it. There were some potentially great shots, especially the cityscapes. But all the clips are dropped on the timeline and then diced up, what a waste.

Mandela Effect | Braces MISSING From Dolly in Moonraker 1979

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Obviously you and I come from the same timeline.

artician said:

I remember the braces. I had braces at the time. I remember this scene very clearly.

This is the first I've heard of this. I read all the Berenstein Bears books as well. Definitely with the EIN. What in the holy hell...

Mississippi River Hydrostatic Model

oblio70 says...

"Years earlier, they had amassed...", before building the model.

The model came later as a result of the failed projects, realizing that a symptomatic approach was flawed. The model was to take a more holistic methodology to addressing the flooding along the Mississippi.

The timeline is as follows:
the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927:
Flood Control act of 1928-
Army Corps of Engineers gets to work
Sec. of Commerce H.Hoover directs Flood Relief
towns & cities which had flooded get levees
The Great Flood of 1937:
towns downstream of newly protected communities get flooded.
ACE begins with simple models in dirt
1943 gets funding to build largest scale model for study:
1"=1000' horizontal, 1"=100' vertical
German POWs used for initial labor.

sorry that wasn't clear enough before. There was no model before.

SFOGuy said:

... The way you wrote this---implies to me that they either misunderstood the model or the the model gave them flawed data. Or perhaps, that they got good data and ignored it (lol). I'm curious: which was it?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon