search results matching tag: under pressure

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (45)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (6)     Comments (120)   

CAN I get Tom Scott to LAND a B737MAX, ALONE?!

newtboy says...

In the next simulation the door plug needs to self eject and the front landing gear needs to fall off like has happened to 737s this month.
Boeing is screwed. They designed their inspection system so they can remove the door plug, do required repair work, and reinstall it but call that “opening the door” so there’s not an inspection afterwards, which happened on the plane that lost its door.
Worse, if the photos Boeing gave the press are correct, they are using jam nuts (two thin nuts that loosely “jam” together under pressure only if properly installed) instead of castle nuts and cotter pins (that cannot unscrew) on bolts that will fall out if they’re not secured. That is a horrible design flaw if accurately reported, and explains all the loose bolts found on other planes!
American and Alaska are already talking to airbus and considering cancelling their orders from Boeing completely.

McConnell Threatens Scorched Earth GOP Attacks Voting Rights

Mordhaus says...

Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.

When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.

Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.

Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.

Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?

4yo old child in space suit becomes internet star in China

SFOGuy says...

I love this. Also--did anyone flash on the inflatable Xmas tree costume at Kaiser Hospital San Jose CA which is now thought to be responsible for over hundred cases and a death? The person WEARING the soon was an asymptomatic superspreader---and as they walked around the ER, they were blowing contaminated air under pressure out every outlet into the rooms...

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/04/she-was-just-spreading-joy-kaiser-nurse-reveals-details-of-suspected-christmas-tree-costume-covid-superspreader
/

https://abc11.com/kaiser-outbreak-san-jose-christmas-tree-costume-covid-permanente-medical-center/9620178/

Trump publicly blows his cover for national emergency

simonm says...

List of people in Trump's administration that have quit or been fired. The Trump Administration has seen the highest rate of turnover among White House staff in decades.

During the president’s first year, the administration saw a 34% turnover rate. This is the highest of any recent White House, according to a Brookings Institution report that tracked departures of senior officials over the last 40 years.

The next-highest turnover rate for an administration’s first year was Ronald Reagan’s, with 17% of senior aides leaving their posts in 1981.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton saw much lower turnovers during their first year in office—9%, 6%, and 11%, respectively.

------

John Kelly – December 2018. The retired Marine Corps general was hired in July 2017 to bring order to the White House.

Matthew Whitaker – December 2018. Named acting attorney general in November this year, replacing Jeff Sessions. Immediately came under scrutiny over past remarks about the investigation into possible Russian collusion with Mr Trump's presidential election campaign.

Nikki Haley – December 2018. Stepped down as US ambassador to the UN at the end of the year.

Jeff Sessions – November 2018. After months of being attacked and ridiculed by the president, the former senator was forced out as attorney general.

Don McGahn – October 2018. Mr Trump revealed in August that the White House counsel would leave following strains between the two over Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Scott Pruitt – July 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief quit after he came under fire over a series of ethics controversies.

David Shulkin – March 2018. He left his position the Veteran Affairs secretary, telling the media he had been fired rather than resigning.

HR McMaster – March 2018. Mr Trump’s national security adviser was replaced by John Bolton.

Rex Tillerson – March 2018. The secretary of state was fired by the president on after a series rifts.

Gary Cohn – March 2018. The National Economic Council director and former Goldman Sachs president said he resigned his advisory role.

Hope Hicks – February 2018. The White House communications director, a long-serving and trusted Trump aide, decided to resign.

Rob Porter – February 2018. The White House staff secretary stepped aside following accusations of domestic abuse from former wives.

Omarosa Manigault Newman – December 2017. The former star of The Apprentice was fired as assistant to the president.

Richard Cordray – November 2017. The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first director quit his administration role.

Tom Price – September 2017. The Health and Human Services secretary quit under pressure from Mr Trump over travel practices.

Stephen Bannon – August 2017. Mr Trump’s chief strategist was fired in after clashing with other top White House figures, including the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Anthony Scaramucci – July 2017. The White House communications director was fired by Mr Trump after only 10 days on the job. Mr Scaramucci had openly criticised Mr Bannon.

Reince Priebus – July 2017. Replaced as chief of staff by John Kelly, Priebus lost Mr Trump’s confidence after setbacks in Congress.

Sean Spicer – July 2017. Resigned as White House press secretary, ending a turbulent six-month tenure.

Walter Shaub – July 2017. The head of the US Office of Government Ethics, who repeatedly clashed with Mr Trump.

Michael Dubke – May 2017. Resigned as White House communications director.

Katie Walsh – March 2017. The deputy White House chief of staff was transferred out to a Republican activist group.

Michael Flynn – February 2017. Resigned in as Mr Trump’s national security adviser. Mr Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He is set to be sentenced later in December.

Sally Yates – January 2017. Mr Trump fired the acting US attorney general after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce is immigration ban.

Dave Grohl Lets Fan Play Drums for 18th Birthday

What happens to your Steam account when you die? ...

noims says...

I doubt steam will be the first company with verifiably active software out there that it still being used past the reasonable lifetime of the licencee.

My prediction is that someone will see a business opportunity in buying up licence enforcement rights and doing what patent trolls do today... threaten to bring hell down on everyone whose licence is over, say, 30 years old unless they pay a relatively small (possibly recurring) amount to relicence. Even genuine licencees would need to produce proof under pressure.

My suggestion to someone enterprising who has too much moral fibre for the above is to somehow patent this as a business method, wait for the practice to become slightly established, then bring righteous justice down in a fiery rain of lawyers.

When road rage goes terribly wrong

dannym3141 says...

Lot of people in various places around the internet saying the driver definitely swerved into the bike on purpose, which i'm not gonna rule out. But i've known enough very timid/nervous drivers who have reacted bizarrely under pressure to not rule that out either.

Trump's False Claims and Executive Orders

Most Lives Matter | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

SDGundamX says...

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

radx (Member Profile)

newtboy says...
radx said:

Let me quote the Grauniad: "While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data."

Translation: no worries, chumps, we'll keep your tax evasion hidden good and proper.

Maybe WikiLeaks will come to the rescue at some point and publish the raw data.

Edit: As Craig Murray puts it, Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak

Freddie Mercury's Isolated Vocals From We Are The Champions

Freddie Mercury's Isolated Vocals From We Are The Champions

Zawash says...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Queen-David-Bowie-Under-Pressure-Vocals-only
Would love to hear a Songsmith version!

Skier Falls Into Crevasse In Swiss Alps

Ice Ice Baby. +3 points for cheesy dancing!

Ice Ice Baby. +3 points for cheesy dancing!



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