search results matching tag: skeptic

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (175)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (10)     Comments (1000)   

Tesla Demo of Tesla Bot GEN 2

spawnflagger says...

IANAL but I think internal prototype names can be anything - it's only if they bring it to market that there could be some chance of consumer "confusion".
I'm still waiting to see the lawsuit from Microsoft, who has owned the "X" trademark for many years.
Also, Elon has been promising such a robot for years - at least it's not a human in a robot costume this time... but could easily be CG. I'll believe it when I see some 3rd party people putting it through its paces. (yes, I was skeptical of the Boston Dynamics videos as well until they let others in to film)

newtboy said:

I hope Hasbro and Takara Tomy and Paramount and Dreamworks made them pay through the nose for using their IP, but my guess is Elon just did it without permission.
I can find no press release or documentation that Tesla bought the rights to Bumblebee or Optimus Prime or any transformers robots. Looks like theft.

Hasbro and Takara Tomy and Paramount should sue the pants off of him for blatantly stealing their IP for advertising purposes.

Fuck you Elon, you’re a thief and a liar.

"A Fourth Car Absolutely Buggered!" - Deadly Mexican Street

100 Days Building A Modern Underground Hut With A Grass Roof

eric3579 says...

Don't be so sure. Due to the incredible amounts of views/money these videos generate, I had/have always been skeptical of the legitimacy of them. The below video had exposed at least one of these channels builds https://youtu.be/YCyLWhPnq1M

(edit) a quick google estimated $3000-5000 for a million views. This video at 114 million views would come in at between $340,000-570,000. Seems like it would be a lucrative business to be in.

BSR said:

Don't need no stinkin' tape measure

A brush with fentanyl almost killed this deputy trainee

CrushBug says...

Most of the feedback from the medical community on this issue has stated that it simply doesn't work this way. "Faked" might be over stating it, but let's not ignore the police lying for their own ends as a factor.

For example, one of the feedback items from a doctor was how fentanyl "patches" take about 6 hours for their first effects to start happening, so that is one of the reasons this doctor was very skeptical of this.

A brush with fentanyl almost killed this deputy trainee

Brian Stelter Gets HUMILIATED by His Own Guest

robdot says...

Ex-Nashville council member, a coronavirus skeptic, dies from Covid-19
Tony Tenpenny had been in the hospital for more than a month before succumbing to the deadly virus he questioned.

How Road Barriers Stopped Killing Drivers

Drone Pilots Playing In Quarantine

moonsammy says...

I am extremely dubious about this being something other than CGI. The ball just moves too smoothly between the two, they don't seem to ever make any course corrections to intercept it. Perhaps on a perfectly windless day an AI could control the drones well enough to look like this, but two human operators? I'm skeptical. No info on the YT page.

BSR, do you know anything about where this came from?

Why you can't compare Covid-19 vaccines

noims says...

I've seen a few people expressing doubts and spouting stats recently, but I've been skeptical so it's good to have a counter-argument. Obviously I'm not going to take this at its word either, but *promote.

Tucker Carlson: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Maxwell

newtboy says...

Whataboutism...the refuge of the desperate.

As far as I know, neither visited the island, but Trump is more likely to have based on their respective relationships. Clinton rode in Epstein's plane a few times, Trump rode in Epstein's plane a few times, partied with him for decades during his pedophilia spree, hosted multiple parties for Epstein including those attended only by Trump, Epstein, and underage girls, and Epstein had 14 phone numbers for Trump.

Clinton has not been accused of any specific sexual misconduct connected to Epstein. As for Trump: During the 2016 campaign, Trump was sued by an anonymous woman who claimed he raped her at an Epstein party when she was 13 years old among various other accusations of sexual assault now numbering >25. However, several journalists who dug into this allegation back then came away voicing caution or downright skepticism, and the accuser withdrew her lawsuit shortly before the election.

So there hasn’t yet been corroboration of Epstein-related wrongdoing on Trump’s part by media outlets, or any accusation against Clinton at all.

Lol....He only finally kicked him out in 2011, >4 years after he pleaded guilty to multiple child rapes and being accused of dozens upon dozens of others, and we now know his abuses never stopped....but that didn't bother or surprise Trump one bit until >4 years later when Epstein started being publicly accused of recruiting multiple young girls at Maralago to be sex slaves while he was visiting Trump and assaulting them on the premises. Did you even read what you linked?! Holy crap!

bobknight33 said:

O great oracle of knowledge AKA TOOL


What about Bill Clinton?
Of both how many times did they go to Epstein island?

2011 Who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, for messing with a girl?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

I did read about 'doxxing' those artists but the owner of the Gallery is also quoted as saying she did NOT send it to Amerika, but published the list for everyone, and sounded like it was what she always did.

I am a skeptic, and I've too often seen people just lumping others into camps of either friend/foe, and then accelerating the process by identifying anyone that associates with a foe is obviously now a foe too.

I'm sorry, but evidence against the gallery and the guy in the video here looks pretty limited. Might be right, but also might be wrong and I've seen too much witch hunting in Canada where anyone not on board is automatically alt-right, and alt-right is really just code for nazi, and if you've called them alt-right long enough then you can just start calling them a nazi.

It's dishonest, divisive and dangerous.

newtboy said:

Reading comprehension, not a strong suit?

They didn't just reference Amerika, and didn't just host it's editor/creator, they actively supplied it with the personal information of artists that had discovered the secret agenda and publicized it.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not interested enough in the Canada thing to investigate, I've spent hours on this extensive discussion, I have no need to spark another discussion on another politicized topic today just to fight over every statement and act, but I'm fairly convinced the video clip she showed included the actual promotion of violence and hatred, not just a person who is well known in certain circles for promoting them. If that's against the rules, it's against the rules. Even in the unlikely event it did just include her innocuously, if she is a well known alt-right extremist provocateur and it's against the rules to discuss extremists and their views, then it's against the rules. I find that silly and unproductive, but institutions have a right to be silly.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

EDIT: drafted this and sent while you were writing previous reply, so maybe some of this is addressed?

Alright, I've gone one step further and read through the shutdownld50 tumblr 'evidence' seeing as they of all places probably gather the most condemning evidence they could.

The evidence amounts to putting on 1 event/exhibit that included far right folks, and included "Brett Stevens", whom I'm not familiar with but the quote from him on Breivik certainly sounds bad. In addition to putting on this exhibit, the even worse accusation is that they didn't really advertise it much publicly. Now, call me skeptical, but I have to believe that if they HAD advertised it heavily that ALSO would have compounded their guilt.

To me it still looks like guilt be association. The gallery had the audacity to host speakers that people disliked, so ergo-nazi!

Please though, if there is more or better evidence then please do let me know, or point me to what I'm missing. Is the Stevens guy so vehemently pro-nazi and and pro-violence that the association really should be enough? I'm inclined to believe no else they'd have better and more extensive quotes to use against him.

Again, I'm coming from a place of not knowing any of these people's backgrounds or history, but if we are supposed to believe them to be villians of such a high degree, I want a stronger case than those people say so and if you spent a few weeks of research on it you'd agree, trust us.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Citicorp Center | NYC skyscraper saved by a student question



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