that is a problem.

for others than just the beholder.

thru life experience have found bright, reasonable pleasant, and competent humans - that have death grips on untested beliefs.

what is unsettling, is how many more of these people hold positions that are untenable. thoughts that have no reasoning behind them. beliefs like maggots being laid into torn flesh.

many just placed there and accepted.

became acutely aware after a course where the instructor challenged, ridiculed, and taxed his students' values. it was a course in cognitive dissonance (not many made it thru). drove home how many of our beliefs were 'gifted' and never 'opened'.

'tho like to think am not unaffected but less infected, it takes effort to keep one's mind tidy. that's where being open to the idea that you're wrong helps. w/o evidence there's no trial, and w/o a trial there is no conviction or judgment.

...or at least that's my theory.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

You film Alan Rickman's face while Ellis gives his 'guns...pens...what's the difference' speech offscreen. He gives the 'Hans...Bubby' line. It throws Rickman off for a moment and makes his reaction that little more genuine.

Then you film Ellis giving the speech. Probably after it has been tidied up and reworked a little bit.

Then you edit them together.

Hiking near mt Aconcagua in Argentina (tallest mountain in the Americas, 22800 ft; across the border from Santiago Chile).

The original text accompanying the video is in Spanish, a tidied up Google Translation version is as follows:

“Avalanche between Horcones (park entrance) and Confluence (first base camp of the Aconcagua field). Julian Insarralde [who posted the video], Nico Aguero and Naco Choulet were working for INOUT ADVENTURE. During a trek lasting three days. We are going to customers to avoid them being splashed with mud as it is an area of avalanches at that time of year. The warning was a sound similar to an airplane sound, which is why Julian Insarralde is looking back and is able to warn that an avalanche is coming. That’s why we ran and we did not abandon people so that we were in the safe zone. They are things that can happen when we work in real natural environments”.

Well, send them back for a FULL refund**


**less the $45 shipping+handling.


It's kind of hilarious. The "Shipping and handling" on these sort of things completely pays for all out-of-pocket costs plus a tidy profit. Even if everyone sent them back, the scammers would still make money.

In fairness, I don't think these guys are quite like a certain other British game dev who is famous for hugely over-hyping his games. I think it's just the nature of their game that people can see how expansive it is...but not necessarily determine if there is really much going on beneath the skin. Ultimately I'm not sure its their fault people can't manage their expectations.

Either way I am super glad that they will probably make a tidy sum given that their studio got badly flooded a few years ago.

I know it's not the best solution for homelessness, but damn it... this type of thing should be done a lot. The guy spent 500 dollars and the rest was donated. I doubt it cost 1000 in total. Imagine if it was sold as a kit ready to assemble. Even if it had a small solar panel and battery inside, and a closet to store stuff, it could be done pretty cheaply, and all cities have empty lots where these could be placed. With just a few dozens of thousands of dollars, you could give lots of people a shelter, and a constant in their life. And if city halls actually made the plot of land where they were built, nice and tidy, with green areas and public lighting, it could even be a nice looking spot.

Did he get up to tidy up a bit before going back to finish his beer?

It looks surprisingly neat and tidy. The tour, being authorized, was probably directed just so to show the nicest face of the city: morning rush hour so it looks like there's traffic, not too hot, only the most monument-studded roads, avoiding the slums and whatnot.

@eric3579
totally agree my man.
in the realm where i reside they are like roaches.

i used to run a metaphysical shop with my ex girlfriend years ago and there was a constant influx of charlatans and con artists trying to find a way to exploit and manipulate our customers.didnt help that my ex girlfriend almost ALWAYS bought that bullshit from the get-go.

i used to just play dumb to see how far they would dig themselves into a nice and tidy corner and then publicly humiliate them.

no matter how you slice it,this form of manipulation is bullying and preying on the emotionally weak and i despise anyone who practices this form of exploitation.

Later in that episode (episode? show?) they tear up the box and there is pair of tidy whities in there, some cotton undergarment for reasons unknown.. Maybe they are not allowed to store food in the props dep. even thou it's dry food and probably never goes off.. The rules on those larger studios are sometimes just a nuisance..

He seems to understand the effort put out to (nicely, tidy) take it all apart.


I would have bought another kit, half-assed it together for an hour or two, then left it and the rest of the bricks on the floor beside the table.

1) More evil than merely hiding it, like he initially thought.
2) Takes far less effort than what they did.
3) He gets another Falcon.

Fastidious little fekker-Bet he keeps his shit tidy when his cute little ass get's out in the world wreakin' havoc...

Wow, that's a whole storyboard. A very very tidy story, but it felt a bit complex. I hope they get funding together and do an animated alternate-universe telling of the horrible originals.

I'm not voting for any of those options.

Instead I wonder if there's mileage in rethinking the site navigation. Because putting promoted videos at the top of other videos seems a bit awkward if you think about it. And from there we have differing design options that seem to satisfy no one.

Look at it now;
VIDEOS - COMMENTS - CHANNELS - USERS - SIFT TALK FORUM - MY VIDEOSIFT

For a site concerned mainly about the viewing and sharing of quality videos I just feel this isn't quite right. The VIDEOS bit is what needs emphasis.
If reorganised you could provide an obvious entry point for promoted videos and other video content.

Let's look at what we could do.

Videos. We need all of these, somewhere. Random could go into in the footer. Dead pool and Thumbnails Wanted will need reassigning.

Channels. Who clicks on this? Is it a huge number? Dunno. But it is video-related so let's keep it, I think we'll have space.

Comments, Users and Sift Talk Forum could be combined into one Community link and moved to the right. I certainly don't feel Users deserves it's own space up there.

My Videosift should really be combined with the username on the right. So I'll see Deano and there's a dropdown navigation from that showing the contents of My Videosift.


REVAMPED MAIN NAVIGATION

Let's get to the point;

NEW - UPCOMING - PROMOTED - TOP - CHANNELS - COMMUNITY

All of these are fairly obvious. Community includes the above plus Dead Pool and Thumbnails wanted.

PROMOTED - click here and a nice list of promoted videos gets displayed, interfering with nothing else. Yes you have to click the link but it's a major navigation link.

Not good enough? How about swap PROMOTED with NEW? It becomes the default page of Videosift and we like that because our wonderful users promote great or under appreciated videos. All visitors will like this, rather than the current compromise. And you see ALL the promoted videos.

There are a few things to tidy up here but I quite like it. I know it's unlikely to happen but just wanted to articulate something different.