search results matching tag: Tiny

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (869)     Sift Talk (29)     Blogs (88)     Comments (1000)   

V8 RWD MINI COOPER! - Krash Karl's Tube Chassis Super Mini

The Trump Plan

newtboy says...

Stop posting this unscientific propaganda, pedophilia supporter.

Notice not one reference on any of his "data" because he likely made it up like he usually does.

His data doesn't match any verified data either, and his graphs are intentionally confusing, including individual states and countries in a completely unscientific propaganda graph, some countries with populations in the 70-80000 range. My guess is it's improperly presented this way to hide how bad America has done, with well over half the slots being US states and many of the remaining countries having tiny populations and third world conditions. This is the superstition side of the argument, not science based or scientific at all.

We have >200000 deaths with just over 2% infected. Herd immunity takes 70-80% being infected and a stable virus that won't mutate enough to erase immunity. That's a minimum of 7-8 MILLION Americans dead and p to 21-24 million permanently disabled if we have 1.6 million ICU beds....hint, we don't, so multiply the deaths by 4-7 but lower the disabled numbers, they'll die instead. So far, there's no study that shows herd immunity is even possible, since this virus mutates every few months it's unlikely. I think sacrificing millions - 60 million or more to find out is outrageously insane.

Use real, verified data, we are at best 8th worst (only 7 countries have more deaths per 100000 and 8th highest death rate per infection too). Just look at India, with 4 times the US population, just over 1 million fewer cases than the US, and way less than half the deaths....IN FUCKING INDIA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/899365887/charts-how-the-u-s-ranks-on-covid-19-deaths-per-capita-and-by-case-count

Because our population is so large, that puts us at number one in total deaths with 4% of the population but 25% of deaths....so > 6 times the global average per capita and the most reported deaths by far.

Fail Bobski. Only the most uneducated rubes fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

bobknight33 said:

Sweden VS UK
Science Based Policy Versus Superstition

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Doc Rivers

scheherazade says...

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

eoe (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

eoe said:

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

kris kobach, has Message About Building the Wall

newtboy says...

In case you live under a rock, "We Build the Wall" is a fraudulent charity who's administrators have been charged with embezzlement, and who's only construction was illegally built so poorly that it was in danger of falling into the Rio Grande within months of completion....their builder, Fisher, now has billions in government construction contracts after Trump personally approved them over objections, despite hundreds of criminal complaints against the company and it's owner, thousands of civil complaints, and a complete inability to build even a tiny section of wall.
Then there's the sexual discrimination they admitted, and massive tax fraud they admitted, and the child pornography convictions (now I know why Trump loves them, birds of a feather and all).

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Border-Wall-II-Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-HBO

Emoji Shortcodes Now Available (Sift Talk Post)

lucky760 says...

I agree with you @eric3579 and @ant that they're pretty small. I'll work on making them render larger. The only problem is that'll make any line of text with an emoji push the neighboring lines so there'll be ugly spacing in blocks of text, which is the reason our old-fashioned smilies are tiny (so as to fit comfortably with text).

Time to review user ratings? (Internet Talk Post)

Nationalist Geographic

cloudballoon says...

Isn't it ironic that the greatest country of FREEDOM!!!!!! in the world essentially got a binary system? Either the GOP or the Dem (the rest are more of a protest parties). That's just a tiny bit better than the Chinese's one party system.

The relatively painless solution is to create conditions to make 3-4 mainstream parties a reality. With kingmakers in the mostly centrist positions adapting populists policies that fit the IRL problems of the day instead of ideological lines of the hardline left/right.

Simply put: coalition government.

vil said:

Look for better ways to pick a leader? Find ways to adapt their party policies to suit the day and age? Find actual goals for society to promote instead of just being conservative or ayn rand for the sake of it (or rather for the sake of their own pockets)? Make the rest of the party admit that old, sick, poor and/or non-white people are not expendable. America can be great if you pick the right things to be great at. Not just gloating and bad golf.

Its not impossible. There has to be a liberal, small government movement to counter all those "letter people" who only have demands. It has to come from the bottom and will take a long time.

Failure

newtboy says...

Based on?
Twisted Trump the Daughter Diddler is by far the worst "president" ever seen by any metric you want to choose. You can whine it might be worse with someone else, but no one with an IQ over 85 believes that....no matter how bad we think Clinton might have been.

Anyone who supports Pedo-Don is a willing facilitator of child rapists, and a willing dupe of a repeatedly convicted con man.

Trump's response ...'It's less dangerous than the flu, it will disappear by April, it's a hoax, no need for any action, don't wear an anti freedom mask because we're selling them to China and Russia, don't social distance, we have plenty of ventilators and ICU beds, just go back to work, it will never kill over 1000 Americans...10000 Americans....25000 Americans....50000 Americans...65000 Americans....80000 Americans....100000 Americans...125000 Americans, and now he says it won't kill over 160000 Americans, nothing to see here, perfect response, Clinton would have been worse.'

I defy you, Clinton COULD NOT be worse. She wouldn't have the house and Senate behind her every move, she wouldn't even start with her party in control of either. No matter what she tried to do, she would be blocked by the obstructionist party....so she couldn't have disbanded the international pandemic response teams, or the pandemic monitoring system named 'Predict', 2 moves that allowed a tiny outbreak in China to go unnoticed until it was a pandemic (and well after in the Whitehouse). She also wouldn't have ignored the well prepared pandemic response plan left by Obama and lied for months claiming it didn't exist.

*facepalm

TangledThorns said:

Would be worse if Crooked Hillary was president. Thankfully she is not nor ever will be.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

He's threatening to pull all federal funding from any school that doesn't open, regardless of the local infection rates or local leadership's direction. Just because that's illegal is no reason to think he won't follow through. He's also threatened to pull other funding from states that won't back his move.
That's forcing.

It's hilarious that that's the only thing you contradict.

Now, about those known cases of Democrats cheating in recent elections. Have your tiny little balls grown enough to admit you made it up yet, or are you still too chickenshit?

bobknight33 said:

Trump is not forcing He can only give guidelines.

States make ultimate decision.

The Walk.

newtboy says...

The president controls the purse strings among other powers you ignored. This one has wasted untold trillions, and maybe quadrupled the deficit.
That alone is one hell of a lot more than any mascot.

When is the last time Republicans and Democrats came together to have the votes to veto the president, because it was the last time. They couldn't agree to veto him on anything, Republicans wouldn't dare cross this president, even when he commits treason in public. In practice, this president controlled two branches of government for two years (now 1 1/2) and has both of his tiny hands on the scales of the third, filling the judiciary with "activist judges" that believe the president is above the law...at least this president....I'm sure their tune will change when it's Biden.

I guess we won't hear a peep of complaint about what Biden gets done from you then, since he has no real power and is just a figurehead?

I agree, local government is where governing hits the ground, so get rid of any trumptards that weaseled their way into it in November....as well as the higher offices. Any left will be "shallow state operatives" (they aren't deep), only interested in delaying and muddling any legislation meant to repair the nation.

scheherazade said:

Are you referring to the President?

President is the leader of the executive branch of government. The chief executive (I.e. Chief law enforcer).

He has direct command of the military, so you can call him the 'leader' of the military.

In practice, the President just has two powers : limited military command, and veto. Both of which can be legislatively overridden.

He's little more than a mascot, and in terms of national politics he's close to inconsequential. (Hence why TDS is much ado about nothing)

Your local country leadership does more to lead your life than the president.

-scheherazade

Ingenious WWII flameless field solder joints

spawnflagger says...

It is a cool device, but you'd think he'd read through the entire tiny little instruction sheet before starting to film this vintage/hard-to-find/expensive solder joint in action...

Star Wars: Squadrons – Official Reveal Trailer

moonsammy says...

Ok, being able to pilot a tie fighter in VR means I really need to build a new pc. Sure I want to play Alyx pretty badly as I've been fiending for new HL for years, but this is something tiny child me would probably explode in joy over. So that's gonna need to happen.

The Customer Is Always Right

eric3579 says...

I find it so difficult to imagine that he actually thought it would fit into that tiny ass trailer. I'd love to have heard the conversation. I bet it would have sounded hilarious.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon