@ChaosEngine
@poolcleaner

I live in Japan and if I were to dive under my desk every time there was an earthquake, I'd be under there at least 3 times a day. Since the 2011 earthquake we've had constant aftershocks, some as strong as 5 and 6 on the Richter scale (which makes the panic seen over California's most recent quake somewhat amusing).

ChaosEngine is correct, you can gauge how bad the earthquake is by the amount of shaking. On March 3rd, 2011--the only time I have actually dived under a table during an earthquake--plates were flying off my kitchen shelves and shattering on the floor.

That said, Japan is a country that is truly prepared for quakes. Any big items you buy like refrigerators or big screen TVs usually come with fasteners to bolt them down so they don't fall over during a quake. The buildings here are incredibly well-engineered to survive a severe quake--very few people during the 3.11 quake were killed by collapsing structures.

Most other countries aren't that prepared. If I were vacationing in a developing country and a quake struck I would probably get the hell out of the building as soon as possible regardless of if it seemed small because I wouldn't trust the engineering to be as sound as it is here.

tldr:

You're both right. You need to use your experience and critical thinking to decide the best course of action in an emergency. And if you don't have any experience with that particular emergency, then you need to trust the people who do have experience to know what they are doing and follow them. For example, if I were ever in an airplane crash the first person I'd look for is the flight attendant to see what they were doing and follow their lead.

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

No, no, no offense taken. I and don't think you're hypocritical. You probably consume far less tuna over the course of a year than an average Japanese individual. The sad thing is, the population as a whole here is completely unaware of the tunas' plight. There's a conspiracy-theory level lack of coverage of the issue in the media here.

Case in point, a few weeks back the media reported about the first tuna auction of the year at Tsukiji Market in Tokyo, where traditionally people overbid on the largest tuna caught as kind of "good luck in the coming year" tradition. Except, the highest bid this year (as well as the fish caught) was much smaller than the last two years.

I read two different Western newspaper articles on the topic and they both went into great detail about how tuna catches are way down due to overfishing and how the size of the fish being caught is much smaller because only the juveniles are left (the more adult fish have already been caught). Both mentioned Japan consumes 80% of the worldwide tuna haul.

Then that night I go running at my local gym and watch the Japanese nightly news and they have a brief 30-second bit about how the first Tsukiji auction of the new year took place and how the person who won was the same as last year.

That's it, end of coverage. I literally laughed out loud on the treadmill, more in bitterness than anything else.

That's why in my Media English classes at the university I teach, the first newspaper article of the semester is always an English newspaper article about the tuna fishing situation. The kids are shocked at the statistics and they tell their friends about what they read. Most claim they're going to stop eating tuna. I have no idea if they actually do or not, but it's all I can really do to try to change attitudes here.

As someone who researches the effects of video games on education (primarily on learners of English as another language) I can tell you the empirical research into the topic is not nearly so cut and dried.

There was a lot of hype about the "brain age"-type games when they first came out, some of which this video references, but what we know now is that those types of games only make you "smarter" in the sense that they make you better at solving similar puzzle-types. In other words, the gains you see are really just the effects of practice. The supposed "smartness" does not transfer over to other skill areas. See this link for more info: http://pamkato.com/2013/04/17/do-brain-training-games-work-yes-no-and-maybe/

So basically everything referenced in this video can be explained by "practice" rather than by some special characteristic of the video games themselves (certainly video games make the practice part fun, though). Furthermore, there is pronounced lack of research into whether the benefits such as those reported in this video actually mean anything significant (i.e. whether being able to more concretely differentiate different levels of gray when you are younger actually leads to better vision when you are older compared with non-gamers, whether you retain the ability to read small text as you age better than non-gamers, etc.).

I do believe there are cognitive benefits to ALL kinds of gaming (board games, pen-and-paper RPGs, card games like poker, crossword puzzles, tic-tac-toe, etc.) but based on the empirical evidence so far I'm not convinced there is anything particularly special about video games that leads players to become "smarter" in the sort of general sense that is being suggested here.

Wow, thanks! I'll try not to spend them all in one place!

Genius!

Thanks for getting that Sifted!

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

Also, @MarineGunrock

FYI, it wasn't a dupe. It was filmed on the same day by a different person and had different footage. But then they made it private. Was gonna kill it anyway because I couldn't find a replacement, so thanks I guess.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
*isdupe>> ^MarineGunrock:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Russian-backhoe-swimming-pool

I absoutely agree! Feel free to vote up anything in my PQ and maybe even throw a promote my way to help me get there!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
With all due respect, you definitely need to star up.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Japanese-SNES-Commercial-Zelda

Gold star members, please dupe this and transfer the votes when you have a chance

Thanks for those. Interesting reads. But it is still a bit confusing, isn't it? The FAQ says one thing, the poll says something else, and it looks like a significant number of people on the Sift still don't agree with the poll's results. I'd be one of them actually--I think it clutters up the Sift to have the exact same content filmed from a slightly different angle unless that angle shows something compelling.

For example, there was a vid that made top 15 of two cops beating a guy in a subway station. Then someone else posted a vid that contained the exact same scene from a different security cam--only this time you could see them beating the guy even more from an angle that the 1st vid couldn't capture (because the cops dragged the guy around a corner). To me, that's a case where clearly both videos deserve to stay on the Sift, because the second one adds really compelling information. In most other cases though, I think it should be first to Sift gets all the votes.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^SDGundamX:



http://videosift.com/talk/Accute-Dupitis

[edit] and here's the resulting poll: http://videosift.com/poll/What-is-a-dupe

I gotta admit, I lol'd after clicking the link.

In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
Um... ...?

I see what you're saying. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not gonna say the world is all tulips and butterflies, but as someone who used to be in a pretty dark place myself and think there was no point to anything, I guess the only thing I can offer is the hope that maybe you won't feel that way forever. In my case, I realized a lot of the assumptions I was making about other people were just plain wrong. They were based on the fact that I'd been hurt pretty bad when I was younger by people I trusted, and I kind of developed this self-defense mechanism of just assuming everyone is an asshat. If you don't ever get close to anybody, they can't ever hurt you right?

I can't say it was any one thing that changed me in the end. Over time I started to become aware of inconsistencies in my perceptions. People I thought were total assholes turned out to be all right. And other people that were actually assholes... I came to understand why they acted that way. Sometimes, knowing how they got there, I couldn't blame them. Plus, I was pretty miserable too believing the worst in people all the time. So I decided to change.

Anyways, I hope you can change your mind someday too.

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
You're right, about pretty much everything you said, but there's no better or worse here, there's a person and his willingness to make "his world" better. Will I receive less support when I need it most if I turn my back on most people in my community, of course, that is unfortunately not reason enough for me to not do so seeing as I hate my community. I can be a "better" person, I can say hi to my neighbors, I can help people out, I can do lots of shit, I just don't want to in most cases. It's not some fierce ideology, it's just me as a person reacting to how I feel about my fellow man (which is usually disgust). Don't get me wrong, I don't go out of my way to fuck people over, and I'm not an asshole generally, but I will go out of my way to remain passive, just the thought of associating myself with other people in some common goal makes me sick. Human kind is a mass of retarded flesh from which occasionally there gets spewed a decent chunk, a free thinker, someone I can respect. Ignoring everyone but those few can be considered childish, but in my eyes it's not an option, it's either that or to be constantly consumed by rage and frustration, the world of tomorrow doesn't really enter the equation...

Your "world," like mine, is probably composed of friends and relatives. That is what I meant by "world," your personal world. And yes, the "world" (your friends and family) will come and help you when you're in a pinch if you've taken the time to carefully forge those connections (and they won't if you haven't). And in fact the greater world at large may come and help you too--but certainly not if you've been turning your back on it and free-riding the whole time.

I'm not asking you to fix society. I'm simply telling you if you want to live in a better "world" (in the personal sense), you can start making changes right where you are. You could say "hi" to your neighbors and get to know them better. You could help clean up trash in your neighborhood. Basically, you can improve your "local" world. Do something. Do anything. Get other people to do something with you (friends or family). And encourage them to get others to do something. Like I said, doesn't have to be huge or take a lot of time. The thing is, it's those collections of individual choices on a grand scale that shape our society. By improving your local "world" you in fact help improve the world at large as well.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with being egocentric. That was the whole point of my post. If you truly are egocentric you'll realize your happiness in fact rests a great deal on the stability and happiness of the community in which you reside. It's in your best interest to make sure things don't go down the shitter. And (you'll just have to take my word for this) it actually turns out to be a lot more fun than whatever it was you were doing by yourself.

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
SDGundamX: The "world" doesn't back you up when you're in a pinch. And yes, individual actions do matter, and the world won't become a better place if people sit around and do nothing. I guess all I have to say is that
a: lucky thing the entire world isn't like myself
b: if you're willing to spend time and energy towards making this world a better place to live in (mostly for future generations as actual change takes bucketloads of time), good for you, I'm not, again, I have more egocentric things on my mind, and I lack the will to try and fix a society I feel completely alienated from.

Thanks for discarding the video. It wasn't anything personal. I think you had good reasons for posting it. The problem is that because of the nature of Video Sift (it's basically a friendly competition to find neat videos on the Internet), the moment you post a video like that it becomes "for entertainment purposes." If it were a news report or some documentary piece that explains the larger context and genuinely informs viewers, I'd be all for keeping it.

I think it is important to understand what is happening in Thailand. I encourage you to start a Sift Talk about the demonstrations and post a link to the video for those who have the interest in pursuing it further. Happy Sifting!