Looks like they WERE clapping for Starfield.

I can understand the no-cheering/clapping though. The visuals are very generic, the presentation got none of the quirky humor that Fallout was famous for (at least in those early strategy games.... I bought Fallout 3 and haven't played it beyond the tutorial.... too old for FPS shooter) so maybe this teaser is closer to the modern games than Fallout 1 & 2? This feels like a post-nuclear militia war show than a vault-dweller's survival story. So if I'm there I'd be scratching my head rather than cheering/clapping.

what is this 'deed'?

get it straight willie. contraception isn't perfect. sex isn't a crime.

a bank? the vault of her body? she is blowing it open so she can - what - burn the money? what is a crime is that analogy.

it's personal. it's their responsibility. it's personal responibility.

Oh I could not resist. The vaults of youtube stupidity and offhand reactions are rich on this one, to the point of being blandly monotonous. Marxist! Defund! Paid for by our taxes!
Nowhere is his name mentioned, so the edited video could be debunked easily.

Even from this artificially short excerpt it is easy to see that in the first half he is describing not his own views but those of Coca Cola corporatespeak. In the second half he is explaining what Coca Cola means by that shit.

Nowhere does he add his own views on the matter at hand, so he could well be trying to warn the world that Coca Cola is doing it wrong. Or vice versa. Except someone edited out the facts and meaning and left just trollfood.

Yeah, because parents are never up to no good....and moronic criminals never record their crimes.
🤦‍♂️

Legitimate to worry, not legitimate to take it upon yourself to test it. I'm worried about my money in the bank, it's not legitimate for me to break into the vault to see how easy it is. Duh.

What?! How would the school not having funding to increase security in any way excuse her going to great lengths putting all other students at risk? It would be worse, because she would be going in knowing they CAN'T increase security because they can't afford to.

You are free to assume this person had only perfectly pure motives (just as others are free to assume she was going to kidnap a child for a sex slave while disguised as another child in a mask and hoodie), but that doesn't change the fact that she surreptitiously snuck into the school with no authorization or authority to do so. Her motives might be above board, her actions aren't even close. The proverbial road to Hell is what you think excuses her illegal actions.
Edit:You seem to be suggesting we prosecute thought crimes only....If I intend to commit a crime but don't intend to do harm, no foul, but if I wish to do harm but take no action, lock me up. That's not American or reasonable without a perfect mind reading machine. We prosecute actions, and her outrageous trespass was definitely illegal.

Would you be fine with me, or any random citizen "testing" the security of your home when only your children are there? What if I dress like their friend? Gee....why not? Don't you think the other parents have the right to not have adults constantly trying to be in their schools disguised as kids under masks?

If a hacker breaks into a company and is CAUGHT, then claims they were just testing security....the hacker gets prosecuted. It's not the hackers job to expose the problem unless the company hired them to do that. Otherwise any hacking efforts ever could just be excused as "security checks" and not prosecutable, even when they're successful at stealing money, data, and IP. Even if they do no harm and report themselves, it's still an illegal attack, just like if you catch me leaving your house after breaking in but I say I was just exposing your poor locks by picking them and searching your house....you've still been illegally violated.

If I break into a bank, break into all the safe deposit boxes, and when caught in the vault say" I was just testing security, what's your problem, I'm the good guy here", I'm going to prison, just like she should.

The daughter would be in trouble because she helped an adult sneak into the school, not because of the schools reaction but because of her clearly inappropriate and likely illegal actions.

She's a real nut or she never would have thought this was a good idea. Do you think any concerned citizen should do as she did? How do you distinguish security checks from kidnappers, pedophiles, thieves, .... People who take the law into their own hands at the expense of other people's security are not heroes, they're self centered, self aggrandizing, nutjob criminals.

Your video, Apollo's Most Important Discovery (NASA's Moon Rock Vault!), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Apollo's Most Important Discovery (NASA's Moon Rock Vault!) has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Apollos-Most-Important-Discovery-NASAs-Moon-Rock-Vault

It feels like that time I was playing Fallout New Vegas and I found that Vault filled with nothing but guys named Gary.

Interesting, but geography doesn't protect from ballistic and or guided missiles, the most likely weapons of choice.

In the event of a nuclear attack, is being a vault dweller really what you want? It's something to consider....I don't want to be a Morlok.

I would feel far safer in Iceland. Who's going to nuke anything anywhere near Iceland? Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of targets...and would probably have plenty of desperate dying people to deal with. They're as scary to me as the bombs if not more.

Incredible that those yields are paltry in comparison to modern capabilities. Just one example being the US fleet of ~15 Ohio class subs, each capable of carrying 20 Trident missiles, with up to 14 475kt warheads per.

And that's just part of the mobile capability, let alone ICBM's over the megaton range.

I'm calling my Vault-tec rep right now.

Cool, but a little disappointed that the last 2 guys didn't pole vault up..

Vault-Tec stocks will soar!

Your video, A Vault of Color: Protecting the World's Rarest Pigments, 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 20 Badge!

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.