Again, stop getting defensive. Nobody is talking about slaves. You and I have privilege because of our skin colour. That situation is not cool. That is all.

I'm watching this, and I'm thinking to myself, how strange it is, that I've never noticed how much the legs of a Chameleon look exactly like the arms of people, that it looked almost like a man in a costume.

Then the thingy on his head moved and then they were feet, and I was like, oh, didn't see it, even though my subconscious did.

Is it Ironic, that people can hide by changing their colours to look like a Chameleon?

Not at all

Pardon the slow reply, I've been on holidays and ran out of internet (well, technically, ran out of laptop, but it ended up the same).

I think that the Kool Aid would end up more expensive than the ordinary dye here, but even in the States the thing about it is that it would be safe and fun for kids to use Kool Aid to dye the eggs, whereas the normal dye is... well... not exactly dangerous except for really little children, but awfully messy

I certainly think that the equally fake cordial syrups we have here would work just fine, green or red certainly, but they don't come in as many colours as that Kool-Aid pack.

Actually, they seem to have taken an interesting angle this time. Colour me curious, but hesitant.

That's pretty much my favourite physics fact right there. From the point of view of a photon, travel is instantaneous. From the sun, from the next nearest star, from the big bang... It seemed to the photon that it was emitted and absorbed instantaneously.

We also had a brilliant bunch of lectures by Don Kurtz who told us about a book called Mr Tompkins in wonderland, in which the narrative was written by a guy who was a bicyclist in a world where the speed of light, c = 10 metres per second or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins

We then did a bunch of questions about what that man experienced, what colour traffic lights were, what length his bike and roads were, and what time it said on the clock tower. Just great, that's what makes me want to lecture one day.

The way it's designed seems like it's intended for use on cell phones and tablets, and not really a computer.

The entire page is streamlined in a single column where you have the video information / comments / permalinks all in the same area with no differentiation.

The way you have it now where everything is noticeably different based on colours has completely fallen by the wayside, and everything is just kinda lumped in together on the same crummy grey(dark mode) background.

The permalinks section needs to be off to the side more, and maybe put in with a different colour? Otherwise it just seems like you've slapped everything on a page. May not hurt to put them as smaller and off to the side aswell.

The explanation I heard was thus:
They didn't want to go with red, the tradtional Labour colour, because they wanted to make a statement that they were trying to reach out to women and break from the norm. So they went with pink, which is close to red but not red (symbolic of a change or break from the mainstream), is not affliliated with any of the other major parties, and is a bright, warm colour. Clearly they are still guilty of being so out of touch they couldn't see how it might be perceived, but I can sort of believe that the thinking wasn't purely " girls like pink, lets make a pink bus".

This all came to pass because of polls showing that voter turnout for women is abysmal (frankly I can't blame them...) so here is Labour making a clumsy stab to try and engage with half of the voting public.

I think it is silly to deny that men and women care more about different things. Is it patronising to focus on education, or childcare, or care for the elderly (all things women ranked higher than men) in order to try and score votes, or is perhaps the greater sin to simply ignore any difference and continue the existing dialogue which seems to be turning women away from politics in droves?

Impressive breath hold, but would be nice to have a bit more info, like how deep he was (I'm guessing pretty deep from the lack of colour saturation).

Boring dive site though.

Lasers have a pretty amazing attribute where you can use a wavelength that is only absorbed by certain materials, leaving all other materials entirely untouched by the photons (as they have a very high reflectivity or transmission index for the wavelength).

No idea whats going on with this system, but its possible they are using a colour that is optimised for maximal paint absorption (heats up the paint the most), whilst at the same time maximal metal reflection (doesnt transfer any energy into the metal).

Source: telecom engineer (I work with lasers...)

This simple, but beautiful message transcends race, creed and colour, it should be shown - regularly - to every child on the planet. This form of brainwashing - unlike the religious sort - is a doctrine we should embrace.

I partially blame the dolls they are using.
I don't think there was any consideration taken to find ethnically accurate dolls. Maybe that black doll was ugly. It looked ugly to me, and not because it was black.
I think doll makers and the companies purchasing the dolls need demand new scupts for different ethnicity. Just changing the colour, doesn't make it a black doll..., or an oriental, a native, or any other ethnicity.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

I'm inferring here, but it might have something to do with the skateboard in the background. During tricks skate shoes will accrue wear on that spot from the sandpaper-like tape on the top of the board. Looks like the painted sole has been worn through to the white-coloured rubber and the black cloth parts in that area have been frayed.

</absurdly detailed shoe examination>