It is a permanent transformation; people are frightened by this because they just don't have a clue (of how awesome it is)- and neither did you before you experienced what that meant lol

Terence Mckenna (rip) is still the best psilocybin/DMT/philosophy/pharmacology guru/poet/lecturer in my opinion.

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

In the US, I believe that component in CRTs is called a "horizontal oscillator" instead of a "flyback transformer" (but could be that they are distinct yet related things). I've always been easily able to hear those, but am not usually bothered by them anymore since CRTs are fairly rare at this point. But this video proves that my 36 year old ears can still pick it up.

I feel like my hearing is bad -- I always want TVs louder than other people so I can make out what is being said, and in normal conversation it always seems like people are mumbling if there is any background noise at all. And I'm one of those annoying loud-talking Americans, especially if I'm talking on the phone (fortunately I don't get/answer many phone calls when I'm in public). But my hearing range pitch-wise seems to be exceptionally high, and not diminishing much with age (yet).

There's a fun easter egg for people like me at the end of that video. He put pulses of that CRT horizontal oscillator pitch where you can see the "Things You Might Know" text on the red background. I recognized it as Morse code, but couldn't decipher it even though I have an Amateur Radio license (I don't do code). In the comments at YT, people are claiming that the code translates to "never gonna give you up" -- so I guess he's Rickrolling people who both A) still have young enough ears to hear that 15kHz range *and* B) are old school enough to know / recognize Morse code. That's a pretty small target audience for an easter egg!

The dates for the original series openings are off. For example, they're listing the 3rd version of the original series opening as from 1984 but it showcases both Unicron and Galvetron, who both made their first appearances in the Transformers feature animated film in 1989.

Similarly, the 2nd version of the original series opening (also dated 1984) showcases Omega Supreme, who doesn't show up until Season 2 (1985-1986) in the U.S.

Also, suggesting the lame Gobots had anything to do with Transformers is fucking NERD HERESY (yes, I am aware Hasbro tried to retcon the Gobots as existing in the Transformers universe)!

/endrant

"Hm, that looks like a large transformer. I'd better touch it."

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

This teaser/trailer is weak. Yeah there's a little bit of intrigue, but it isn't giving me any sense of excitement. Gee, even the Transformers teaser/trailer is better than this.

I hope SW8 will be better than SW7. SW7 was a minor disappointment. Kylo Ren was laughable as a main villain and the ending duel set-piece was the weakest of all lightsaber duels, it's garbage non-sense.

I enjoyed Rogue 1 more than SW7 for some reason. Although I like Rey more than Jyn.

Understood. I don't like his Transformers series as well.

Sorry @ant, please don't take this personally.

Fuck you, Michael Bay. You're an awful filmmaker and you haven't managed to elicit 0.01% of the emotion I felt watching the animated Transformers movie as a kid and while that was basically just an extended toy commercial, at least it had... Christ, I dunno... balls? A sense of fun? A stupidly awesome 80s soundtrack?("Dare" is still on my running playlist and it brings a smile to my face every goddamn time)

Eh, screw this noise, I'm off to watch the Thor trailer again.

Tl;dr: there isn't enough alcohol on the planet to make me enjoy this abomination.

DMCA takedown imminent. The work is not derivative or transformative.

It doesn't make a difference to your ability to make a statement per se, but speaking to a friend of mine who is a physicist his answers are somewhat different. He's suggested that reading more about it will make it more confusing and that we are invariably wrong and don't know shit. I happen to agree with him. That's not to say one shouldn't attempt to gain as much knowledge as possible, but that it's not always as easy as "go read a text book and it should be nice and clear", because reading it should hopefully generate more questions than it answers. Hopefully I've worded that so it makes sense.

Anyway, the sum of human knowledge is dynamic steaming pile of shit. Yes, it's gotten us a long way. But we're still like dung beetles tending to it and it will be a long time until we can transform it into something close to the truth.

Maybe when we can integrate AIs into us we'll accelerate things a little.

u no vvut tho, it describes certain members of the sift and their facts. not surprising so much as its interesting to see this level of ignorance infiltrate the highest office. it makes you see hovv intelligent and compassionate even presidents like George Bush Jr. vvere, and he made some huge mistakes that have transformed him into a painter of vvar victims. Makes you curious vvhat type of vvar crimes are ahead of us. Because it alvvays happens, but to vvhat degree...

Yup; here is the Live Science take---in brief--it's a conceptual artist's thing (Vitaly Bulgarov) who has faked a website and even the Korea development company...

"New video clips purporting to show a 13-foot-tall (4 meters) humanoid robot piloted by a person in its torso look like something straight out of "Avatar" or "Transformers," but a Live Science investigation has revealed reasons to believe some skepticism might be in order.

The robot clips have been picked up by a variety of online news and technology outlets, including Kotaku and Wired UK. But the South Korean company that is supposedly developing the robot has virtually no online presence and was unfamiliar to robotics researchers contacted by Live Science.

Furthermore, the only source for the videos or any information about them is the Facebook and Instagram pages of a designer whose website mentions a conceptual art project about a "fictional robotics corporation that develops its products in a not-so-distant future."

The designer, Vitaly Bulgarov, told Live Science that the robot is real. However, he declined to share the names of scientists or engineers working on the project, and messages to the purported CEO of the company went unreturned. [Gallery: See Images of the Giant Humanoid Robot]

Mystery business

According to Bulgarov's Facebook page, the videos were taken in South Korea at a company called Korea Future Technology. Almost all references to this company online appear to be associated with Bulgarov's posts and the subsequent news pieces on the robot. Bulgarov said the company has been operating for several years."

""Robots are messy business," said Christian Hubicki, a postdoctoral robotics researcher at Georgia Tech who worked on the DURUS robot. "They get torn apart and put back together over and over, and transmission grease gets all over the place. Even the nice white floor is beautifully unscuffed [in these videos]. Never once during likely hundreds of hours of debugging the giant robot did it kick in a way that scratched it up?"

The people around the robot also appear to be too close for safety and are not following the standard practice of wearing safety goggles, Hubicki said.

Bulgarov said the company's CEO required that the lab be clean, and that the videos had been brightened in postproduction. Fearing said robotics labs in Asia can be relatively neat.

However, there's another problem: Hubicki told Live Science that the robot's leg joints look unusually smooth given the force that the step of a 1.5-ton robot would exert on the motors. [5 Reasons to Fear Robots]"

http://www.livescience.com/57296-giant-humanoid-robot-video-hoax.html

Is there someone better educated on the physiological and psychological science of this that can explain why gender transition at that age is not child abuse?

Because from everything I understand about how complicated and frequently fraught with remorse and confusion that issue is for adults....how in the name of fuck can someone that young be mature enough to make that kind of life changing decision? (or indeed have it made for them)

Gender dysphoria is usually only diagnosed in adulthood and usually requires years of psychotherapy and adoption of the desired gender role before any respectable doctor in the UK would allow the transformative process of hormone therapy to begin. (let alone reassignment surgery)

The suicide rate for transitioned people is about 40% I'm told. This appears to mostly be a combination of depression brought on by using the idea of transition to avoid other underlying emotional problems and/or remorse in later years.

None of this is to say people should not transition. There is plenty of evidence to support many a diagnosis of dysphoria and many a success story. But the thing those happy transitions seem to have in common is a very through and mature understanding of themselves.

i.e. things a child is incapable of doing when their mind and personality are still developing.

IDK, the very idea deeply concerns me. Is she actually happy transitioned? Or has she had that idea re-enforced by her parents and such?

I have this hypothetical vision of them panicking at their little boy playing with dolls and tea sets and finding solace in the idea that they are just the wrong gender, instead of being "odd".

I know how silly that sounds, but especially in the south of the USA, gender transition is sometimes considered more socially acceptable than homosexuality and/or being an effeminate male (or so some people in the trans community tell me).

Am I just behind the times on this one? Seems like there would have to be some pretty fucking spectacular medical science to back it up where children that young are concerned...

YouTube ELECTRIC WOOD BURNING and you can find a video to make your own. You'll need a transformer or something from a microwave oven.