Nah, IQ tests are good at measuring how good you are at taking IQ tests

I don't run into many multiple choice A B C D very clear options in my life.
The problems i face are always ill-defined, always complicated/multifaceted, and involve variables that are extremely unpredictable.

The biggest advocates of IQ tests are people trying to sell them to you. Or people with inflated egos.

If you brought it up, just remember a few twists and turns in your life and you could be as deluded as Bob is. I'm by no means perfefect either, but I try to keep in mind how much my dad loved Fox growing up and how I used to admire Bill O'Reilly for 'not taking crap from people' - i later came to realize that the theme of that thinking is zero empathy for the other guy.

So even when I step over my own lines these days, I still try to say what I'd want anyone else to say to me if I were acting LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT WHO DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF


And I'd want my bad behavior pointed out. We should do an ole' fashioned roast around here to settle some things.


Here,I'll start.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

So I was fucking @bobknight33 in the ass recently. Not in a gay way, like a viking. And the twirl he did on the end of my cock with his tongue. I mean you really know he cares about YOU when he does things like that. I don't know what I was thinking before, that this man didnt care.

You know, the IQ test doesn't really measure anything useful, has crazy limitations, and often produces inaccurate and wildly variable results, right?

There is one thing people in the early 20th century used it for tho, it's not surprising that you, sir, are fond of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#IQ_testing_and_the_eugenics_movement_in_the_United_States

We have the choice to go with whichever provider we choose. Most people opt to go with a fixed rate for 6-12-24 months or whatever, and it costs a little more. Then there are people that go with a variable rate plan to save money, and in this case, the rate went up and they got caught. However, I do think there should be safeguards against drastic rate hikes such as this.

Your video, Variably lucky child receives toothpaste surprise party, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

Many children get cancer, and many survive. I know several. Anyone in that category is lucky, but unlucky to have had cancer in the first place. But none of the survivors I know have featured in the videos of prominent Youtubers (or any other celebrities), or received gifts of absurdly spectacular birthday parties.

I dunno. "Variably lucky" felt apt.

Isn't it a little insensitive to call a kid who is a cancer survivor a "Variably lucky child"?

Oh I dont know about the initial screen claim, it could easily be just variable social conditions and customs.

I am not in any way implying equal access to medical care in the US for poor and/or colored people, just saying.

Fat men die of Covid more, discrimination?

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

I cringed when she stepped in front of the gun. Taping him up on the spot seems a reasonable tactic, delaying and taking him outside introduces more potential variables and possible trouble.

I was thinking about car safety and how the biggest variable is likely the driver...how specific cars are driven on average, and it struck me that the best way to promote public safety would be to make your maximum speed limit variable based on gvw (gross vehicle weight). This is already done for vehicles with more than two axles or those towing trailers because it's obvious they take longer to stop. The same logic should apply to every car. It's a no brainer that a Humvee takes longer to stop than a Miata, and is far less controllable under emergency braking. For the safety of both those in such larger vehicles and the general public, they should not be allowed to go as fast as cars weighing 1/4 their weight with better brakes.
A side benefit of such a system would be greater average fuel economy, because bigger cars have greater wind resistance (on average) so become less efficient at higher speeds.
Of course, I wouldn't expect that kind of reason to ever fly in America where the most popular car is a heavy truck that's never used for hauling and could be replaced with a Honda Civic with no loss of functionality for >75% of owners....but everyone wants to drive a tank so they're safer, with no thought about what that means for the other cars on the road.

*quality explanation of why crash testing is only a tiny part of real life safety in cars
*promote

Interesting, had no idea they had RC variable pitch props, or did he custom make it I wonder.

@newtboy,
" Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome"

Here we disagree. When you have a high degree of unknowns in your modelling, you don't always just go off the worst case. Let me argue from the extreme to demonstrate that in principle.

If we are looking to mitigate the risk of an extinction level asteroid strike, we don't solely look at the worst case. The worst case is at a minimum assuming another KT extinction level asteroid out there on it's way to us. Space is big enough that it's still possible one is out there undetected on it's way here in our lifetimes. The probability of that may be low, but it's still a worst case not impossible outcome.

With that known worst case, should we bankrupt the global economy building either a defensive capability to detect and destroy/redirect it, or the capability to abandon the planet in our lifetimes because of this worst case risk?

The answer to me is of course not, you must ALSO take into account other variables like the probability of it happening, the unknowns in the equation that prevent us picturing the problem with full accuracy, and other factors.

I don't understand yours....it was your question.

You asked when violence is deserved, I answered.
You countered that resorting to violence might not work out as well as I think, I haven't considered multiple variables before jumping into violence, I'm possibly overconfident, not trying to defuse instead of exacerbate, being irresponsible, and making a fool of myself by jumping into a violent response, but that isn't what I said as that's not the question you asked.

You asked when violence is deserved, not when it's advised....you understand the difference, right? My answer was to that question, not to one that remains unasked.
Please re-read your question.

Night skiing under variable, movable red light.

Jeezus.