I'm sorry...my intent was to highlight the submitter, in this instance, as a serial self-linker. Would this invocation, even siftbot derided, not accomplish this?

I spent a few months in New Zealand, including some nights in Rotorua and a trip down the Shotover. Rotorua is funky and reeks of sulfur from the vents everywhere, and the Shotover jet boat ride is fantastic. But the highlight was a flying lesson in a Piper Cub over Wanaka, north of Queenstown. It's a bucket list must!

Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat.
I'll start with you tho.

Carrera is upset because:

Sar-sleaz-ian is an new-age-feminist hack who finds porn disgusting, and feels pity for any women who performs sex acts for money.

She belittles porn actresses like Mercedes & Cytherea as lowly abused victims.

Then, at Mercedes' request, refuses to support Cytherea when she ACTUALLY becomes a victim.

Anita is literally profiting off the fuax-oppression of women in gaming media & culture. [Cherry picking instead of highlighting the actual corruption in the culture]

Yet, she denies the agency of sex-workers to choose their profession, referring to them as "prostituted women".

This is why Sar-shittyhumanbeing-ian is a hypocrite, a fuax-intellectual, and [as Mercedes succinctly puts it] damaging gender relations.

Anita Sarkeesian is a troll and a puppet.
She's only stirring up shit to further her career.
It's more vile & disgusting than any of the stuff she's railing against.

Shit, this whole thing is some stupid first-world problem bullshit.

Hm, completely forgot to add the link.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116553&page=31&p=1856104&highlight=#post1856104

Modified the sidebar so that *quality posts are highlighted.

It seems like such an oversight that *quality videos, despite being the tagline for VideoSift, don't get too much spotlight.

Well not anymore, sister.

Would it be possible and feasible, within "Possible *Invocations," to include those invocations which are "second" invocations such as (*)isdupe or (*)ban that would not be highlighted until the prerequisite invocation is properly submitted and recognized.

Would it be possible and feasible, within "Possible *Invocations," to include those invocations which are "second" invocations such as (*)isdupe or (*)ban that would not be highlighted until the prerequisite invocation is properly submitted and recognized.

Sounds nice. In my experience, no, it isn't that easy. Books tend not to be available in the library and PDFs are few and far between. Even if those were options, I usually needed a hard copy I could highlight and annotate. And a semester's books did always cost into the hundreds of US dollars.

@bareboards2

Oh, I totally get what you are saying. You've seen my comments in other threads. You know I think there are definitely social issues with how women are both perceived and treated in real life and portrayed in media. Yeah, absolutely, we can look at this story from the perspective of "men behaving badly" because they have the power and they can. And they certainly did. Totally agree with you that it is misogynistic behavior and that we can use the story as an example highlighting social problems and showcasing how one woman tried to turn the tables.

But that's only one perspective to view the story from. We can also view the story as a cautionary tale about Internet safety in the 21st century and comment on how the victim in this case actively (albeit completely unintentionally) contributed to her own victimization. And that's another valid perspective. Personally, I don't see them in conflict, nor do I see the need to shout down one perspective in favor of the other. I could see someone coming along and trying to use the 2nd perspective to negate the 1st (i.e. something along the lines of "she got what she deserved because she behaved like a slut") but ironically a comment like that would only validate the 1st perspective even further.

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

You opened your comment criticising someone for assuming that everyone was a certain way, and then finish your comment by telling everyone else how they would react in the face of provocation. So either you take back your criticism of the act of assuming things about people, or you can take back your assumption about other people. I've highlighted it in the quotes to demonstrate just how much of a contradictory statement it was. You can't have it both ways.

If i had that kind of temperament, i wouldn't work in law enforcement. That's generally a good rule for all kinds of work - if you don't have the temperament to do the job professionally, don't do it.

By the way, your way of dealing with the face-slapping scenario demonstrates only your poor approach to conflict resolution. Why does it have to be ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ok flip out. That's the way an ape goes about learning. Humans try to learn better ways of handling problems so that they don't allow themselves to get pushed to the point of losing their self control.

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

Don't understand why you are asking that question? The video is the answer, and it's summarised for you in the description. The answer is that they were handed a piece of paper that did not have any current (at the time) American law on it - but were misled by someone into thinking that it was. I hope that's clear enough and i've highlighted it so you can see it easily.

Are you trying to make a point, or did you not get that from the seventeen different ways it was said in the video and description?

Additionally to that point, i strongly suspect that in the professional legal industry, mistakes like that simply do not happen by accident. They are at the very top some of the most important legal decisions being made in the entire world, and i'm supposed to believe that they accidentally overlooked something that had been decided over 30 years ago and entirely changed police policy? Whoops i just printed off a 30 year old law, and i thought it was the present day one? Do you think the members of the jury didn't think, "Hmmm, are you sure it's legal to shoot random people as long as they're running away? We don't see that very often anymore.... Odd!" And when they ask that they're told, "Well there's the law right there for ya, i'm as surprised as you but i won't double check the modernity of it!" Only to be told days before the decision that perhaps maybe parts of the second bit of the bit i gave you earlier might not be valid, but we don't want to get into technicalities here, don't worry about it.

It's fucking corrupt, someone's (more likely to be many people) pulled a fast one... but worse still, someone's pulled a fast one on a HUGELY important case and had the arrogance to think they'd get away with something that simple. When you think of the protests in Ferguson and many many people showing support, how could they be so flippant? It doesn't just point towards racism, it confirms every racist suspicion that you might have had about the American legal system. It's not a one-off when it happens at the very top of the pyramid, that's how the best of the legal eagles in America deals with the problem of a white policeman killing a black man.... it was his fault, he's bad, he deserved it.

They were right under the microscope here - are you racist? And what did they do? Surely this is evidence of a system that lets down black people, and therefore it urgently needs to be fixed... and what about past offenders? I'd be pretty angry, if i were a black American. It's not just a let down, it's a dupe.

"But when people are not only wrong, but so dismissive of those who know a thousand times more than they do, one realizes that such people are simply ineducable: they don't know how to assess evidence or argument; they don't know what real scholarship consists of; and they don't know who the real scholars are; yet they do not hesitate for even an instant before insulting and ridiculing scholars whose shoes they are unfit to tie, often people who have spent decades immersing themselves in the study of a particular subject." -- Trancecoach's inspiring profile quote.

@Trancecoach - keeping in mind that you hold scientific rigour in the highest regard, judging by your love for the text above - could you please tell me what you think of the paper after my criticism?

You can either claim that i do not have a scientific objection to the paper, or you can admit that the paper is unscientific, and therefore meaningless in the context of a scientific discussion about climate change.

Surely a man of science such as yourself (see above paragraph, very inspiring) wouldn't disagree with me - no uncertainties, highlighting of meaningless data points showing a total lack of statistical understanding, no key or legend for plots rendering them COMPLETELY useless, not listing sources therefore none of it is provable, having sarcastic digs at previous scientific work..... It isn't as though i've nit-picked problems with it, these are problems that render the work meaningless. The author is not making a scientific argument, and this is a scientific debate.

Right?

Would you say, perhaps, that you don't 'know how to assess evidence or argument?' That you 'don't know what real scholarship is, nor who the real scholars are?'

Please. Please read your own profile quote back to yourself and consider it and how it relates to your own approach. I would love you to come out of this with a net gain in understanding, i am not trying to ridicule anyone. Ensure that you are one of the educable.. I have also had to reconsider my own approach in the past, i would say it's a good thing.

The first comeback was really weak. I have the feeling that he couldn't think of anything good.

The second one I've heard him do more times than I can count.

I couldn't help thinking 'O.o' when the audience laughed [as much as they did]. It felt like a sitcom where there was a laugh light, and people just laugh over the smallest bit.

Jimmy Carr is a funny guy, but this particular moment was not a highlight. Simply passable.

Granted, it's unlikely I would have done any better - but I'm not a comedian either. Whatevz.

-scheherazade