Part of the problem with unnecessary formula use is that the mother can stop producing milk. The act of breastfeeding lets the mom's body know it should keep making milk for the next mealtime.

If you give a poor person a week's worth of formula, they might just stop lactating. Then they're *stuck* buying formula until the baby can be weaned from the bottle.

I don't know how true it is, but this was part of the accusations surrounding Nestle's aggressive formula marketing.

My point is that we have become accustomed to these dangerous escalations because of bad training, so much so that they are getting predictable, not justifiable. Even so, I still think there are elements we can't see about the situation from this single point of view video.

Pardon me for trying to have some nuance. Next time I'll rant about crooked cops and avoid implying that the issue might not always be perfectly clear.

The scariest part to me is that you can read my whole comment and think I'm defending the cop.

What I'm talking about is things that happen because a cop is poorly trained or undertrained, and I said that several times.

But go ahead and pull a couple phrases out of context if you get off that way.

Look, I hate that this shit happens. Absolutely hate it, and I think that way too many cops are undertrained and/or improperly trained.

That being said, we can't see the driver's face. If you want to set a cop off, ignore his commands and glare and talk back. We got two out of three right on the video, and I bet you anything that if we could see the face of the guy talking we'd have the third.

It's still not right for the cop to escalate so dramatically and quickly, but as a viewer we have to not put ourselves in the driver's place and assume he was being a perfect respectful citizen off camera. Instead imagine the situation objectively and consider what other things the cop might have seen that were warning signs to him.

That's dumb. Just because somebody doesn't behave in a way that you expect them to based on your interpretation of their statements, that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong! Everybody is a bit of a hypocrite in one way or the other.

I used a brand new gmail account anyway. No idea why people aren't making new email accounts all the time like I do.

I would also guess that the power doesn't ramp up like a good box fan, either.

It would be cool if the description told you that you can click and drag anywhere on the video to change the camera angle while the video is playing.

Wasn't there a big outage last year due to a bad DNS entry or something like that coming from the middle-East? The bad entry propagated worldwide and redirected packets to nowhere, and a team of experts took a few hours to track down and fix the problem manually.

So my instinctive late morning breaks were right all along! I love breaking up the work day into thirds. Start around 7:30 or 8AM, a long break around 10:30, then late lunch around 1:30PM. Unfortunately I'm the only person who likes it that way, so everybody thinks I'm weird.

Advertising science!

People always talk about the traditions of the rich to hold big charity fundraisers. I've always maintained that those are nothing more than a variation of conspicuous consumption. Certainly there are people like Gates and Buffett who seem sincere, but the average 1%er is simply showing up to be seen throwing cash away with their heart displayed proudly on their sleeve. And carefully preserving the receipt for tax time.

The question is essentially, "How would you, as an atheist, comfort yourself in the face of imminent death?" Neil described how he wanted to be buried. That's fine for what it is, but it does not answer the question.


In reply to this comment by steama:
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I would love to hear them give a proper answer.


How exactly is Neil's answer not simply perfectly proper and truthful? Your perspective escapes me.

It would have been nice if they had balanced each of the interviewee's expertise/brilliance with the part they don't understand. Because this video just makes it seem like they're a bunch of 'C' students.

The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return