This is why the "monkey selfie" photo controversy of a couple of years ago (damnit, it's 10 years!) baffles me... it's not always the artist, it's often the editor that spots the art. I can take 60 shots per second of the waves on the coast of a lake, but that doesn't mean I should own the copyright on the one that happened to look great at 01:05:51.304 on 26/11/22.

Conversely the inverse may also be true.

Art is art. Don't tie me down, baby.

Not domesticated turkeys.
https://www.inverse.com/article/38476-can-turkeys-fly-thanksgiving
Also…. most domestic turkeys are too fat to fly, so they don't use their breast muscles much, which is why breast meat is white.

I would think they could glide though….unless their wings are clipped.

@bobknight33
You can do the inverse math to calculate the risk of the vaccine as well

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
(vaccine adverse event reporting system)

You can find more current numbers on the CDC site, but they're difficult to access and link directly to. This is simpler, but feel free to post more updated figures https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

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

"Event Category" "Event Category Code" Events Reported
"Death" "DTH" 5378 total reported as of right now.

out of how many vaccinations?
(i took the larger number because they still did get a poke in the arm at least once)

186,474,836

soooo

5378 ÷ 186,474,836 = 0.000028840352486

0.000028840352486
move the decimal

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
0.0028840352486% of death from the vaccine
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------

Now, Bob, please, consider this.
Is a 2% chance of death MORE? or LESS? than a 0.0028840352486% chance of death?


Lets apply the numbers to the USA population

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

332,545,571 x 0.02 =
6,650,911.42
soooo 6.65 million WOW how close to the real number of deaths in the USA this is eh? WEIRRRRRRRRRRD right? durrrrrrrrrr


332,545,571 x 0.000028840352486 = 9590.7
soooo yeah, this is pretty close to the reporting incident report also
WEIRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD eh?


------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
You know them liberals, they are so powerful they can manipulate basic multiplication and division.

Today is actually summer solstice https://twitter.com/BOM_Vic/status/1208492322721271809

It's not actually too bad here, we're hundreds of kilometres from the NSW fires, although they are so big that the smoke reached New Zealand. Rather weirdly, the smoke even reached Melbourne on Friday due to an inversion layer and unusual wind conditions. Our Bureau of Meteorology provided a video here https://twitter.com/BOM_Vic/status/1207815448571633664

My Sydney based colleagues on the other hand have had air conditions much like Delhi in India (and for similar reasons). In fact my one young colleague who travelled to Delhi for a few weeks probably had better air quality there after rain cleared up the air in Haryana and Delhi!

Sure. Imo, fear only works to control a population until they are given hope for the possibility of something better....usually hope of a successful coup or escape. Power held by terror must constantly defend against revolt by the terrorised. The torturousness of the treatment is inversely proportional to the amount of hope required to start a revolt because when your life is nothing but torture, risking your life to change that is far more appealing. Truly hopeless people are easy to control.

The last season was kinda average. Capaldi is great, but he hasn't been given enough to do, with a few notable exceptions (see his utterly amazing anti-war speech in the Zygon Inversion).

The bigger change here is less about Jodie Whittaker and more about Stephen Moffat stepping down as showrunner.

That said, I'm excited for this new doctor. First up, I like Whittaker as an actor. Second, I think a female Doctor will be interesting and finally, I have already gotten a seasons worth of amusement from butthurt MRA snowflakes whinging about "PC" or "SJWs" ruining Dr Who, despite the fact that we've already seen Time Lords change gender in show at least twice now.

That is not a fact until you have EVIDENCE for it, until then, it's a claim.

In general, the requirement for evidence is inversely proportional to the probability of the claim. If I say the sky is blue, most people don't need evidence of that because it fits with their world experience. If I say I'm the second coming of Christ, I damn well better start turning water into wine to prove my case.

Your CLAIM is that no white male police officer has ever been convicted of murdering a black male in America's entire history. I'm willing to accept that it's possible, but I'm not willing to take it as a fact until you can provide a reputable source.

And no, it's nothing like big foot or the loch ness monster. Criminal convictions are a matter of public record.

As it happens, I can't find any records of a police officer being convicted of murder (although there are several for manslaughter).

Doesn't make your childish behaviour any better though.

There is a strong inverse-correlation between climate change and the number of pirates at sea

Vimeo description:
Atmospheric refraction plays with the light of any object near the horizon. Here stars, startrails and the sun, filmed in timelapse photography from two major observatories in Chile, display immense distortion above inversion layers in the outskirts of the Atacama desert, Chile. The moon scene is filmed near Boston at the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The mirage is an optical phenomenon in which light rays are refracted and bent in the atmosphere and produce distorted or multiple images of the object.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

That shot at 3:43 created an optical illusion for me causing me think the depth was inverted (the way those inverse/hollow reliefs appear to continuously follow your point of view; I'll link if you don't know what I'm talking about).
Anyway, if you can get your eyes to do, quite trippy. It made the river look as though it were perfectly balanced on a long ridge, with the forest falling away down sharp cliffs on either side. I think my eyes were focused on the river at the time.

I think I understand where you're getting confused.

At the bottom of the page is a link to "next page", but it looks like there is only one page (even if there are many).

Here is a screenshot of the top of page 2 of unsifted, sorted as shown, and with your vid clearly shown. The very top video on page 1 was Erik's downvote test.

http://imgur.com/bYl8bj0

If you reverse the sorting from the default "best views to votes" to the inverse, "worst views to votes", you'll find your vid rises to the top.

The only thing I would add is that the inverse gamma encoding has more to do with band width than disk space. It's about how many gray levels you can send to the monitor per draw frame.

Basically I'll throw in my opinion, which is really just to parrot someone else's... I'm guessing me and @eric3579 have fairly close to the same layout--screen wise (size or perspective), resolution wise, and so on. Since I have the same issues and concerns eric has (like channels and other "inclusions" a video belongs in). Right now it is harder to find some of the details for the videos posted--or they need to be in a more simpler and easier to access spot (but, as noted--this may be due to a size/resolution issue; since I don't know if everything scales correctly yet); which makes me hesitant to make any changes to any videos. But, as noted (and as I found out later on) the opt-in opt-out buttons are found nearby, allowing me to figure out what I need to, until we decide on a fully finished product.

One question I might ask is, does the new site--as of right now--already scale correctly no matter what resolution you are at? So if you go WAY up into the "4K" range, will the site look really bizarre (I know that there will already be far more "space"; but, is it setup right now to arrange all the site items to display in their correct positions)? Inversely, for a long time cellphones were forcing site admins to create a mobile edition of their website(s); but, thanks to smartphones (plus their fast CPUs, and 1080p screens) this is being phased out.

Keep chomping at the bit @lucky760; I'm sure with our feedback and your willingness to get this finished so quickly will indeed help us get more than likely a bit of what we all want out of this (making the community as a whole basically happy with the finished product; and as mentioned, hopefully helping newer users). Keep up the good job.

In my opinion - and i think Brand's too, though i don't want to put words in his mouth - the motivation to act based upon nothing but profit is the largest and most significant drain on happiness and especially the advancement of us as a people. We need a revolution of principle, a revolution of the mind, we cannot keep on doing what we are doing when it is so clearly not working.

We have been pouring the results of our productivity into bank balances for so long now. If our productivity was represented by food instead of money, we would have been putting corn into a hole in the ground for 30 years and wondering why people are hungry. In a system based on corn, prosperity of a nation is based upon the free and active flow of corn.

I ask this question of you, because i don't know the answer. Do you think that we can continue pouring our productivity into big holes that other people sit on for "whenever they might need it?" Is it reasonable to build a system based on flow, but let huge clumps of it gather and expect everything to keep running quickly and without turbulence?

It just doesn't work anymore. The very rich don't realise it yet because they can afford to pay to avoid it, the quite rich notice it when they sit in traffic for example, but eventually things will become so clogged up that they will have no choice but to notice that there are no quality schools, hospitals, roads, airports, shops nor people to do their shopping, cleaning, cooking and driving. We all benefit, including the rich, if money is put into improving our infrastructure and facilities. We all benefit when productivity is flowing freely and quickly through the system. The opposite of that is called a depression, and it's when people don't have confidence in spending their money... we know that, we accept it, people were repeating it during the recession. How come we can't recognise the polar opposite? We're in a semi-permanent state of inverse depression, where those at the top don't have the means to spend their money, so it doesn't move.

This is an idea that needs to come from grassroots, everyone needs to come together somehow and unify over this idea. Because you can't blame any one individual for taking advantage of their fortunate position on the uneven playing field, or for fighting for a better position on the field. We all need to agree that the playing field has to be even, otherwise eventually the playing field will not be worth using.

I cannot stand this poisonous idea that you cannot ask a company for tax and here's my argument against that:
A lot of people live in the UK and a lot of people want to buy coffee and other assorted goods (starbucks, amazon). Even including tax, there is a lot of money to be made selling to these people. Let's say there is 2 billion pounds in profit available to be made by someone. That's still profit to be made by someone, and whoever offers that service to them under the correct rules makes that money.

The problem is that there's 4 billion to be made without tax, and it's cheaper to buy the politician for a billion to ensure you get the tax breaks. That is the poisoned system that psycho-capitalism has eventually produced... And it's so naive to think otherwise... so naive to think that those with billions of pounds wouldn't buy economists and lawyers, tout the favourable theories, generally spend top money on creating the right environment to make more money. Whether you think more or less tax is a good idea, surely have to agree that whatever the rules are, we adhere to them, or the system that we so carefully designed it around will fail.

Why are people so reticent to believe that we're being duped? No, surely not, it's the government, they can't possibly be lying to us. They stood in front of us, bare-faced, and told us they weren't torturing people, they had intelligence about WMDs, they weren't spying on us all. They prove themselves to be deceitful but like toddlers we trust the adult.