So, a Reddit user named gTechIII gave a pretty good breakdown of one plausible interpretation of the video:

"I'm pretty sure the point was that all parties are having intense reactions to ideas which are at their core completely inconsequential and empty.

The men were responding to base desires with very little modern point.

The women were reacting to what they thought was symbolism, but in reality was just a mash of common symbols in an incoherent mass.

The director was having an existential crisis about his art's reception in youtube comments.

In the end, we're all responding to caricatures instead of communicating effectively with each other."

It's really an interesting video. Apparently the director's other vids are worth a watch as well.

EDIT: The director's web page has a whole treatment for the video describing what he was thinking. Check it out.

Correlation and causation is distinguished by controlling for variables directly where the list of possible covariates or confounders is known & limited, or when it is not, using say machine learning techniques to infer a model from the data and repeatedly cross validating it with different test and training samples to ensure that it is rigorous. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There is nothing about repeatability.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)

Repeatability has nothing to do with testing for correlation / causation. Okay, you repeat an experiment. It looks like X causes Y, like in the first test. But it turns out that Z (that you didn't consider or can't measure) is acting on X & Y at the same time, creating the appearance of a relationship between X & Y where none exists. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

If anything the political hype is underblown. Politics deals with the immediate, tangible and the "what directly helps me now." With the financial crisis, politics in the US has decreed that any action on climate change that might marginally impact wages or living standards is out of bounds.

If we assume the risks are real - polluting has specific benefits (cost reduction to polluters) and incredibly dispersed costs which are almost imperceptible for decades while the damage is being done. It requires global coordination for a cost on carbon to be politically feasible. And the effects are seen at least 40 years into the future:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

That's the problem, by the time the effects are obvious, it will be too late to react. In the meantime, you have massive amounts of money, interest groups, politics and delayed effect all acting against any action being taken.

Energy crisis resolved.

To be fair, it was the 80's when almost every car was still suffering from the oil crisis fallout. Handling wise, it still could run the track about as fast as a 3rd gen WRX. In a straightline run, it suffered even back then. A much cheaper 1985 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 HO was just ever so slightly faster than it in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

God help you if you ran into a Buick Grand National though, those things ate other sports cars for breakfast back then. Of course, if you were unlucky enough to be racing your 85 in 87 and happened to see an all black Buick with a GNX badge, you might as well turn off your engine and park. Those things were as fast as the Countach Quattrovalvole and the Testarossa.

Crisis of Character Trailer "It was a terrible time"

You should read the prince. Look at what people did throughout history, and look at what we and other nations do today.

At some point, you have to realize that nothing has changed. Technology has moved on, but we're still the same monkeys that were around before, and we're still behaving the same way.

Nations don't last. You can be on top for a couple centuries, but afterwards you fall down the totem pole. Most places on earth spend most of their time getting crapped on. It's a special time when they get to crap on others.

Regardless, the 2nd amendment was made with the awareness of the human condition. The perpetual dissatisfaction that drives people to strife. Peace is not everlasting. Even if you behave well, there's always a group that comes along to bring trouble.

A gun behind every blade of grass is the best possible method for national security there is. A nation with a broke government in turmoil will not have an organized military. But an armed people still represent a massive discouragement to any candidate occupier.

The west has had a good run for the past few decades. But it's never lasted before, and it won't last this time. It may not be in our lifetime, but things will eventually go belly up.

Then again, it could be in our lifetime. Europe is getting rapidly nationalistic under immigration pressures. US/Europe are poking Russia in the eye with missile installations and military exercises (maybe to rile them up and get people focused more on Russia and less on the immigrant crisis - common enemies are the best unifiers). You never know. Historically, when things go to hell, they were ~always fine not so long prior.

You don't have to worry about these things. They'll happen when they happen. History doesn't care either way.

2nd amendment can look like an anachronism during a period of quiet. But eventually it will make perfect sense again.

-scheherazade

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

In most cases, absolutely not, but in a few, yes.
For instance, there was nothing besides nuclear war in either '42 or '62 to compare with climate change as a danger to the planet, and while we still have the threat of nuclear war (although it's certainly not as great a threat today as during the missile crisis, but if we have Trump's finger on the button, that threat level changes), we now also have the out of control issue of the climate destabilizing that threatens civilization itself.
Over population comes to mind as another issue that's far worse.

But I do agree, for the most part, we are in a far less precarious position than we have been in the past on most issues, and so many minor issues are blown out of proportion by the media looking for ratings and money instead of looking to inform.

Your video, Apparently The Greatest Airbag Crisis In History Is Upon Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Where to start……
The forced laughter when someone’s buddy is filmed wiping out - AH hahaha AH hahaha

99.9% of “selfies”, I despise that word. I don’t want to see your pasty bloated pimply mug so close-up like we’re jammed in a fuckin elevator and I can count your nose hairs. Wearing either the blank dumb look people have when looking at their computer screen or camera phone, or the overly gleeful shit-eating ventriloquist dummy look, All it takes is a camera lens to make people go ape-shit, like a baby making faces in a mirror. When did that shit become normal?

Any kind of rambling monologue with the subject weighing in on the stupid shit of the day, like they are some wise head of state being interviewed on some crisis. Or filming themselves narrating at the scene of some non-event, like they are Edward Murrow reporting on the London Blitz.

The vast majority of trend videos, like “Things New Yorkers Say”, etc. They generally have high production values but ZERO talent on the actual writing. The “punchlines” are usually weak or non-existent, apparently there’s no such thing as out-takes anymore. It’s usually weak material followed by long pauses, which I guess if you drag it out long enough it somehow becomes funny. “Modern Family” and “The Office” have beat that non-punchline pause to death. “Spinal Tap” was the only mock-umentary that ever worked, everything else is just weak.

Idiots who edit videos and who don’t have the basic sense to accommodate people who haven’t seen the material. I’m watching a video on YouTube of vacation snaps from someone’s trip to the mountains of Chile, and they leave each photo onscreen for about 1.2 seconds, with the editor’s goal to use every single transition available in the editing palette to move on to the next picture. It’s amateurish.

Someone else mentioned videos with overly long intros\titles and I agree. It's not "Gone With the Wind", it's a video of your dog pissing in your living room, just get to it.

Back in a few, going to pour my second cup of the day. :-)

Perhaps it would have been better to say that fuel isn't the only reason. The Airbus A320 in this example has roughly 55% better fuel efficiency than a pre oil crisis Boeing 707, although as Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia points out, that's barely better than the 1950s era prop planes like the Douglas DC-7.

Better automation has also allowed the A320 to reduce the staffing requirements, the 707 required 3 or 4 crew to operate the aircraft, but the A320 only requires 2. The DC-7 also requires 3 crew, but only seats half the passengers (doubling the flight crew costs per passenger).

Greater competition is probably a larger factor. Talking about airline profitability and competition, Warren Buffett joked that had a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk for the Wright Brothers' first flight, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down.

Congratulations! Your comment on The Public gives Jimmy What for on Climate Crisis has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 17 Badge!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Public-gives-Jimmy-What-for-on-Climate-Crisis

The Public gives Jimmy What for on Climate Crisis has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

It's like the states and the Snowden crisis.

The government watches us...OF COURSE THEY DO....THATS THE WAY THINGS ARE.....DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS?