I've never heard of this, but it sounds an awful lot like stinky tofu, which made me dry heave, and I have a pretty solid iron stomach when it comes to external forces (smells, sights, ideas).

I'd like to see them give the kids durian because it stinks something awful, but doesn't taste like it smells.

Yeah, it would have been nice to have some external footage of the flight and landing, played after.

So I guess what we're seeing is they constructed the metal/concrete framework at 3 stories a day but from the comments it took a year to add internal walls, external cladding, glass, power, gas, water etc etc.

Making a framework in 19 days is less impressive then making a functional building - but this still seems fast.

MASSIVE LONG POST WARNING: feel free to skip this

I usually like Vsauce a lot, but I disagree with just about every assumption and every conclusion he makes in this video.

Anthropogenic vs external extinction event -
I think the likelihood of an anthropogenic extinction event is low. Even in the cold war, at the apex of "mutually assured destruction" risk, IF that destruction was triggered I think it would have been extremely unlikely to make humans go extinct. The US and USSR might have nuked each other to near-extinction, but even with fairly mobile nuclear fallout / nuclear winter, etc. I think that enough humans would have remained in other areas to remain a viable population.

Even if ONE single person had access to every single nuclear weapon in existence, and they went nuts and tried to use them ALL with the goal of killing every single human being on the planet, I still bet there would be enough pockets of survivors in remote areas to prevent humans from going utterly extinct.

Sure, an anthropogenic event could be devastating -- catastrophic even -- to human life. But I think humanity could recover even from an event with an associated human death rate of 95% or more -- and I think the likelihood of anything like that is real slim.

So that leaves natural or external extinction events. The KT extinction (end of the dinosaurs) is the most recent major event, and it happened 65 million years ago. Homo sapiens have been around 150-200,000 years, and as a species we've been through some fairly extreme climatic changes. For example, humans survived the last ice age around 10-20,000 years ago -- so even without technology, tools, buildings, etc. we managed to survive a climate shift that extreme. Mammals survived the KT extinction, quite possible that we could have too -- especially if we were to face it with access to modern technology/tools/knowledge/etc.

So I think it would probably take something even more extreme than the asteroid responsible for KT to utterly wipe us out. Events like that are temporally rare enough that I don't think we need to lose any sleep over them. And again, it would take something massive to wipe out more than 95% of the human population. We're spread out, we live in pretty high numbers on basically every landmass on earth (perhaps minus Antarctica), we're adapted to many many different environments ... pretty hard to kill us off entirely.


"Humans are too smart to go extinct" @1:17 -
I think we're too dumb to go extinct. Or at least too lazy. The biggest threats we face are anthropogenic, but even the most driven and intentionally malevolent human or group of humans would have a hard time hunting down *everybody, everywhere*.


Doomsday argument -
I must admit that I don't really understand this one. The guess of how many total humans there will be, EVER, seems extremely arbitrary. But anyway, I tend to think it might fall apart if you try to use it to make the same assertions about, say, bacterial life instead of human life. Some specific species of bacteria have been around for way way longer than humans, and in numbers that dwarf human populations. So, the 100 billionth bacteria didn't end up needing to be worried about its "birth number", nor did the 100 trillionth.


Human extinction "soon" vs. "later" -
Most plausibly likely threats "soon" are anthropogenic. The further we push into "later", the more the balance swings towards external threats, I think. But we're talking about very small probabilities (in my opinion anyway) on either side of the scale. But I don't think that "human ingenuity will always stay one step ahead of any extinction event thrown at it" (@4:54). Increased human ingenuity is directly correlated with increased likelihood of anthropogenic extinction, so that's pretty much the opposite. For external extinction events, I think it is actually fairly hard to imagine some external scenario or event that could have wiped out humans 100, 20, 5, 2, or 1 thousand years ago that wouldn't wipe us out today even with our advances and ingenuity. And anything really bad enough to wipe us out is not going to wait for us to be ready for it...


Fermi paradox -
This is the most reasonable bit of the whole video, but it doesn't present the most common / best response. Other stars, galaxies, etc. are really far away. The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000+ light years across. The nearest other galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.2 million light years away. A living being (or descendents of living beings) coming to us either of those distances would have to survive as long as the entire history of human life, all while moving at near the speed of light, and have set out headed straight for us from the get-go all those millions and millions of years ago. So lack of other visitors is not surprising at all.

Evidence of other life would be far more likely to find, but even that would have to be in a form we could understand. Human radio signals heading out into space are less than 100 years old. Anything sentient and actively looking for us, even within the cosmically *tiny* radius of 100 light years, would have to have to evolved in such a way that they also use radio; otherwise the clearest evidence of US living here on Earth would be undetectable to them. Just because that's what we're looking for, doesn't mean that other intelligent beings would take the same approach.

Add all that up, and I don't think that the Fermi paradox is much cause for alarm. Maybe there are/have been LOTS of intelligent life forms out there, but they have been sending out beacons in formats we don't recognize, or they are simply too far away for those beacons to have reached us yet.


OK, I think I'm done. Clearly I found the video interesting, to post that long of a rambling response... But I was disappointed in it compared to usual Vsauce stuff. Still, upvote for the thoughts provoked and potential discussion, even though I disagree with most of the content and conclusions.

Hi RFlagg. God has given evidence of His existence through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, by raising Him from the dead. You’re right, you could have a supernatural experience in any religion, because the devil is the god of every false religion and he can give signs too. He has never raised a man from the dead, however, neither did he ever pay for the worlds sins, yours and mine.

God revealed Himself to man from the very beginning. Everyone from the beginning knew who God was, but gradually the knowledge of God faded away as men chose to turn away and follow after their own ways. Therefore, God raised up a people for Himself who would prepare the way for His Messiah.

Darren brown doesn’t know that you have an enemy of your soul who is trying to destroy you. You seem to be saying that supernatural experiences are a phenomena of human consciousness rather than from an external power. But there is an intelligence behind those experiences; they aren't merely delusions in and of themselves. There is also a manipulative hand seeking to influence how you see those experiences.

You mentioned that you were a former Christian, and this is what you listed: you watched TBN, foxnews and voted republican. I hope you know that none of those things makes you a Christian. Jesus talks about true and false Christians; what makes you believe you ever really were a Christian? Going to church? Praying? Reading the bible? None of those things makes you a Christian either. If you never really were a Christian, you should know from the bible that you are unable to tell the difference between Christianity and any other religion without Gods help. He has to open your eyes because right now you are dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus Christ didn't come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people alive.

And the right are blind to it.

Therefore disconnect yourself from the struggle between the labels left or right and take this external position with me, where we try and weigh out what the best option might be for everyone, given all of the arguments. What a wonderful world it could be!

To you, politics is fighting enemies. To me, politics is helping friends. Perhaps the problem with the world is that there's too many people like you. Takes a whole bunch of understanding between different opinions in order to make a world where people with a billion different perspectives can all get along.

When you're done squibbling about labels, there's work to be done. Some people are casually racist, and some people are not. What rules can we set so that we restrict the effects of racism without restricting fairness? I also don't like some of the ways it's been implemented, perhaps we can find a way that works together?!

Or we can throw labels back and forth for a while. I have a bet on about what your answer will be.. disappoint me.

Everyone knows what has to happen but everyone has his own fancy angle on how and why and when and whose fault it is.

A country has spent all the money it could possibly borrow and then some, and has just voted not to stop spending.

Hey Greece, you will have to stop spending one day, the only thing that is not certain is how long this mess can be drawn out. While stopping spending may not look like it can help restart your economy, not getting any further external economic props might just make something happen.

It will be interesting to see how the political bits and pieces will work themselves out.

Its like your cousin borrowed some money from you and leased a fancy car like you have. He cant start paying you back just now, in fact he cant afford the downpayments anymore and now you either have to lend him more money or he has to go back to riding on the bus and the whole car is lost. You hate him because he lied to you about his income and he hates you because you cant really afford to "lend" more money right now.

PS: my bet is Greece gets to keep the car somehow.

@oritteropo

There are analyses floating around by just about every major player. A majority seems to agree that it would be manageable for the Eurozone and better for Greece. Others, including Varoufakis, argue that Grexit would destablize the Eurozone and be a catastrophe for Greece. Too many variables, too many vested interests... who knows what would happen.

The projections on the other hand were a hoot. What a joke they were.

What was the fiscal multiplier in their initial projections? Something along the lines of 0.75, right? Reduce public spending by a Euro and the economy contracts by just 75 cents. Too bad it turned out to be at least 2.5, probably even far more during certain phases. Ricardian equivalence, my ass.

Here is the IMF outlook of 2010. Bill Mitchell made a nice table for comparison. They did a crackerjack job, didn't they.

IMF research admitted their mistake in 2012, but the policy department doesn't seem to care. Shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone, given the role the IMF played in the application of the shock doctrine all over the world in the last decades. Chicago School of Economics, all the way.

If I look at the list of countries that were ruined by the IMF through policy advisory and loans with strings attached, I wonder just how they still manage to paint Syriza as the ones lacking credibility. Is it because they lack the experience of destroying an economy?

Yet with all that in mind, the Greeks actually prefer the IMF as a partner if the alternative is German officials. How depressing for me as a German.

Remember what Christine Lagarde said about Greece in 2012? The Grauniad still has the goods. Or how she argued for expansionary austerity in 2010? Krugman, to his credit, made fun of the concept back then, but even he severly underestimated just how willing these people are to turn this stuff into policy.

But still preferrable to German officials. Ouch.

@RedSky

Ah, we've been down this road... I totally forgot, sorry.

Just briefly then: Greece fucked up prior to the crisis. Fudged numbers, corruption, banks run by the worst of the worst, economy exposed to exterior shocks, the works. They were hit hard when the crisis began, and it magnified the pre-existing conditions to a point where the entire thing became unstable.

When their banks finally admitted to being completely screwed, Greece was "motivated" to socialize the problem by bailing out the banks. If the Greek banks had gone bust, the German and French banks would have had to crawl back to Merkel and Sarkozy and beg for a bailout, only a year or so after they were bailed out the first time. Both governments would have been thrown out of office if they had bailed out the banks again, after swearing not to do it. So it was left to Greece to deal with the mess in a way that kept German and French banks out of it.

They did the same in Ireland, just like Bill Black testified before their parliamentary committee three weeks ago.

But the real mess, the social devastation, was primarily a result of "The Program". Some say it was the Greek government who enforced the measures, nobody told them to cut pensions in half. Well, the IMF still provides access to the Memorandum of Understanding, which clearly outlines just that. It was mandated by the troika and the Greek government went along all too willingly. As a result of the first troika program, GDP went down the toilet.

Anyway, the establishment in Greece is to blame for most of this, but the German/French banks (and their governments) are also to blame. Yet somehow, it is the lower/middle class in Greece who receive the punishment, and the lower/working class in Germany/Finland/Netherlands/etc who are expected to foot the bill this punishment causes for the entirety of Europe. Pisses me off to no end.

When you think about it hard enough you come in to conclusion that since the only external self-image we have are from looking at mirrors and that the mirror actually shows you back-to-front.. (shudder...)

You know when you look at a photo of yourself and it looks really really odd? That is because pictures are in normal order along depth axis, which means they are not reflections, you are not used to seeing yourself that way. The tiny tiny little details only you know so well are all reversed in your head and thus the creature from blue lagoon is what your brains see in that photo. Only others see you as you really look... And only you know how it looks from inside out, ie, depth axis reversed.

So in a sense, every time you look at yourself in the mirror, you are inside out.

That's kind of a silly thing to say.
Do you really think they could say anything even if they wanted to?

They have no choice but to return respect, even when it's not given in return. It's their Royalty. And in cultures that are so closely ruled by the system, no one would ever dare speak up against them. (out of fear)
You never speak out against those who rule you. Speaking up against the Saudi Royalty would mean instant death.


Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan Al-Saud, who spoke to RT from Dusseldorf, Germany, confirmed reports of increased prosecution of anti-government activists and said that it’s exactly what forced him to defect from his family. He accused the monarchy of corruption and silencing all voices of dissent and explained how the Saudi mechanism for suppression functioned.

“There is no independent judiciary, as both police and the prosecutor’s office are accountable to the Interior Ministry. This ministry’s officials investigate ‘crimes’ (they call them crimes), related to freedom of speech. So they fabricate evidence, don’t allow people to have attorneys”, the prince told RT Arabic. “Even if a court rules to release such a ‘criminal’, the Ministry of Interior keeps him in prison, even though there is a court order to release him. There have even been killings! Killings! And as for the external opposition, Saudi intelligence forces find these people abroad! There is no safety inside or outside the country.”
http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/

Unfortunatly, it's not just Merkel and her cabinet. It's the press, it's the economics departments at universities, it's politicians at all levels. Call it an economic nationalism, hell-bent to defend what they know to be the moral way of doing business. Everything left of this special flavour of market fundamentalism has been systematically attacked and suppressed for at least 30 years.

For instance, our socialist party, still referred to as the fringe of what is acceptable, runs on what is basically a carbon-copy of social-democrat programmes from the '70s. Similar to the British Green Party and Labour. Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, Wolff, DeLong -- they'd all be on the fringe in Germany. Even the likes of Simon Johnson (IMF) or Willem Buiters (City Group).

If you speak out in favour of higher inflation (wage growth) to ease the pressure on our brothers and sisters in southern Europe, you'll be charged with waging a war against German saver. "You want to devalue what little savings a nurse can accrue? Don't you support blue collar workers?"

The same blue collar workers have been stripped of their savings by 15 years of wage suppression, the same blue collar workers are looking at poverty when they retire, because the PAYGO pension system was turned into a capital-based system that only works to your benefit if you never lose your job, always pay your dues and reach at least age 95. The previous system survived two world wars without a problem, yet was deemed flawed when they realized how much money could be channeled into the financial system – only to disappear at the first sight of a crisis, eg every five to ten years.

Similarly, you could point out that a focus on trade surpluses might not be the greatest of ideas, given the dependence it creates on foreign demand, a weak currency and restricted wage growth domestically. But they'll call you a looney. "The trade surplus is a result of just how industrious our workers, how creative our scientists and how skilled our engineers are. It's all innovation, mate! Are you saying we force the others to buy our stuff? That's madness."

You simply cannot have an open discussion about macroeconomics in Germany. Do I have to mention how schizophrenic it makes me feel to read contradictory descriptions of reality every day? It's bonkers and everyone's better off NOT reading both German and international sources on these matters.


Any compromise would have to work with this in mind. They'd have to package in a way that doesn't smell like debt relief of any kind. People know that stretching the payment out over 100 years equals debt relief, but it might just be enough of a lie to get beyond the level of self-deception that is simply part of politics. If they manage to paint Varoufakis' idea of growth-based levels of payment as the best way to get German funds back, people might go for it. Not sure if our government would, but you could sell it to the public. And with enough pressure from Greece, Spain, Italy, and France most of all, maybe Merkel could be "persuaded" to agree to a deal.

As for Syriza's domestic problems: it's a one-way ticket to hell. Undoing decades of nepotism under external pressure, with insolvency knocking on your door? Best of luck.

Italy is hard on Greece's heels in terms of institutional corruption. Southern Italy, in particular, is an absolute mess. Given the size of the Italian economy, Syriza better succeed, so their work can be used as a blueprint. Otherwise we're going to need a whole lot of popcorn in the next decade...


Edit: Case in point, German position paper, as described by Reuters. As if the elections in Greece never took place.

My post is not hyperbole, but actual personal observation.



You also have to factor in cost+ funding.

On one hand, it's necessary. Because you don't know how much something truly new will cost - you haven't done it before. You'll discover as you go.
It would be unfair to bind a company to a fixed cost, when nobody knows what the cost will be. It's mathematically unreasonable to entertain a fixed cost on new technologies.

(Granted, everyone gives silly lowballed best-case estimates when bidding. Anyone that injects a sense of reality into their bid is too costly and doesn't get the contract).

On the other hand, cost+ means that you make more money by spending more money. So hiring hordes of nobodies for every little task, making 89347589374 different position titles, is only gonna make you more money. There's no incentive to save.



F35 wise, like I said, it's not designed for any war we fight now.
It's designed for a war we could fight in the future.
Because you don't start designing weapons when you're in a war, you give your best effort to have them already deployed, tested, and iterated into a good sustainable state, before the onset of a conflict that could require them.

F35 variations are not complicated. The VTOL variation is the only one with any complexity. The others are no more complex than historical variations from early to late blocks of any given airframe.

The splitting of manufacturing isn't in itself a complication ridden approach. It's rather normal for different companies to work on unrelated systems. Airframe will go somewhere, avionics elsewhere, engine elsewhere, etc. That's basically a given, because different companies specialize in different things.

Keep in mind that the large prime contracts (Lockheed/GD/etc) don't actually "make" many things. They are systems integrators. They farm out the actual development for most pieces (be it in house contractors or external contractors - because they are easy to let go after the main dev is over), and they themselves specialize in stitching the pieces together. Connecting things is not difficult when they are designed with specified ICDs from the get-go. The black boxes just plug up to each other and go.

The issues that arise are often a matter of playing telephone. With one sub needing to coordinate with another sub, but they have to go through the prime, and the prime is filtering everything through a bunch of non-technical managers. Most problems are solved in a day or two when two subs physically get their engineers together and sort out any miscommunications (granted, contracts and process might not allow them the then fix the problem in a timely and affordable manner).

The F22 and F35 issues are not major insurmountable tasks. The hardest flaws are things that can be fixed in a couple months tops on the engineering side. What takes time is the politics. Engineers can't "just fix it". There's no path forward for that kind of work.

Sure, in a magic wonderland you could tell them "here, grab the credit card, buy what you need, make any changes you need, and let us know when you're done" - and a little while later you'd have a collection of non-approved, non-reviewed, non-traceable, non-contractually-covered changes that "just fix the damn thing"... and you'd also have to incur the wrath of entire departments who were denied the opportunity to validate their existence. The 'high paid welfare' system would be all over your ass.

-scheherazade

I think there is already evidence of its negative consequences. Check out the movie Gasland. It shows people near a fracking site being able to light the water coming out of their tap on fire. I do agree with your point on the politicizing of this issue (and a million others) and that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We are too polarized and there's not enough fact seeking and sometimes refusing to believe the facts. I see the companies portraying this as safe trying to set a belief level and that then allows them to be more profitable through the externalities they create, but at the expense of the public. This has been going on forever in almost every industry and is just a normal trait of capitalism. Not to say that is right. Since you're between the two sides, does that make you a shilpie?

For a Venus Flytrap

The process continues until all that's left of the insect is its hard exoskeleton. (Unlike humans and other vertebrates, who have an internal rigid skeleton made out of calcified bone tissue, insects and arachnids use a more flexible, external exoskeleton to both protect and form the framework for their bodies.) Once the nutrients are depleted from the acidic bath, the plant reabsorbs the digestive fluid. This serves as a signal to reopen the trap, and the remains of the insect are usually either washed away in the rain or blown away by the wind.
See more @ http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/venus-flytrap4.htm

Also before and after video http://youtu.be/pFGoZMld_Gs