search results matching tag: LEAP

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (262)     Sift Talk (9)     Blogs (19)     Comments (894)   

Time-Lapse Of Fastest Scaling Of "The Nose" on El Capitan

greatgooglymoogly says...

The difficulty of each climb are vastly different. Lover's leap is easy difficulty, never any danger of falling for skilled climbers. The Nose is usually aided, or placing gear in cracks to hold body weight directly for the incredibly hard parts. This is much slower. Comparing feet per minute doesn't make any sense, even between two similar climbs.

newtboy said:

Around 20' per minute is clearly pretty damn fast, but remember, Dan Osman climbed lovers leap, >400' of similar climbing in just over 4 minutes, almost 100' per minute....without ropes or assistance. I wonder what his record would have been on the nose.

Time-Lapse Of Fastest Scaling Of "The Nose" on El Capitan

eric3579 says...

Alex Honnold beat Dan Osmans lovers leap record (free solo) and these guys beat Alex Honnolds record (speed climbing).

Alexs lovers leap climb https://youtu.be/Mi4iR4clDGs

newtboy said:

Around 20' per minute is clearly pretty damn fast, but remember, Dan Osman climbed lovers leap, >400' of similar climbing in just over 4 minutes, almost 100' per minute....without ropes or assistance. I wonder what his record would have been on the nose.

Time-Lapse Of Fastest Scaling Of "The Nose" on El Capitan

newtboy says...

Around 20' per minute is clearly pretty damn fast, but remember, Dan Osman climbed lovers leap, >400' of similar climbing in just over 4 minutes, almost 100' per minute....without ropes or assistance. I wonder what his record would have been on the nose.

Cancer Screening Myths

newtboy says...

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

transmorpher said:

9037 studies demonstrate that red meat causes cancer. I'm well aware that you can manipulate statistics, which is why there is an organisation called the World Cancer Research Fund. They've sifted through 500,000 studies and currently have identified 9037 legitimate studies. wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/animal-foods

You might not like vegans or Dr. Greger, but you cannot argue against over 9000 peer reviewed, and medical journal published studies, that are unrelated, done by non-vegans, and then filtered through by non-vegan scientists to assess the quality of the results.

EDIT: They say that more than 300g of red meat a week puts you in serious danger of developing cancer - that quite clearly means it is at least as dangerous as smoking.

a black man undercover in the alt-right-theo wilson

Jinx says...

I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. It's just... hyperbole - using literally in a sentence that should not be taken literally. To me it's exactly like somebody saying "no exaggeration..." and then exaggerating wildly. Would people not expect to be called on that shit? It is too much like lying! It will turn into an arms race - we'll have to develop other means of saying "literally" when we really mean it and in turn those means will be turned against us until ALL LANGUAGE DIES!!!1

but then. Sarcasm. My standards are double. I can offer no defence.

but also, quantum leap. It might be an abrupt change, possible overcoming some sort of previously imagined impenetrable barrier... but it surely must still be a very small change

MaxWilder said:

I admit that I still find it annoying, but the use of the word literal as pure emphasis and not meaning actual reality is over a century old.

a black man undercover in the alt-right-theo wilson

Jinx says...

I almost closed the tab after "literally a quantum leap" but I'm glad I didn't because the rest was pretty smart and insightful.

The Battle Over Confederate Monuments

MilkmanDan says...

I'm part way there. In government buildings, city parks, etc., sure -- take 'em down. State flags incorporating the confederate flag? Yeah. Probably time to change.

Civil war battlefields / memorials? Leave 'em up. Stone Mountain? Leave it. Placards noting that these people fought for the wrong side, for wrong reasons (90% of which boils down to slavery) can / should be included. Make it clear that the efforts of these people to try to keep slavery around were evil and wrong.

I've seen it noted that there are no monuments to Hitler in Germany. True, but reminders of the terrible Nazi legacy remain, in Germany and elsewhere. Concentration camps remain, still standing as a reminder of the human capacity for evil. Nazi flags, logos, and equipment remain in museums.

In China, images and monuments to Mao are everywhere. In spite of the fact that even the Communist Party there admits that his policies and actions were terrible -- the devastating Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc. Some Chinese can remember and celebrate the good that Mao did (perhaps a small list) while simultaneously acknowledging his extremely tarnished legacy.


I think that being very quick to say that ALL people on the Confederate side of the Civil War were evil and wrong while their counterparts in the Union were clearly the "real Americans" is entirely too easy. The CSA was founded almost entirely in support of a very evil primary goal -- to keep slavery around. But the people in it, even the people running it, were different from the people on the other side mainly due to accidents of birth location. They fought for what they thought was necessary / right. They were wrong. But, they were real Americans -- and acknowledging that they could have been wrong in that way reminds us that the potential to end up on the wrong side of history also exists for us.

First Footage of Alex Honnolds's Free Ascent of El Capitan

Bear Breaks Into Colorado Home, Plays Piano

ulysses1904 says...

Many years ago I was up all night reading "The Exorcist". And we had an old piano on other side of the wall behind my headboard. One of our cats leaped onto the piano keys and it made a sound pretty much like the bear made. You can imagine my reaction.

First Footage of Alex Honnolds's Free Ascent of El Capitan

NYC's Best Burger, Explained

newtboy says...

EDIT: Based on past experience with his claims, that's not presenting the science, it's completely misrepresenting it. It's what this guy does, he cherry picks someone else's data, totally misrepresents the study and it's conclusions, and makes huge leaps and extrapolations to say things like 'eating meat is now proven to be the same carcinogenic cancer risk as being a chain smoker'....but anyone who can understand the study he cites, limited to highly processed cured meats and mentioning the levels of possible carcinogens was not measured but are likely infinitesimal, can see it said no such thing, and didn't even come close to implying it. That type of misuse of data gets my goat....I think lying about science and data are crimes against humanity, and I wish they were actionable.

Bullshit, that's not true at all. My wife eats cheese about 3-4 times a year, and enjoys it those times. Same with beef. No addiction cycle exists with that long of a period that I'm aware of.
Food preference/taste is in no way the same as addiction, and any "doctor" telling you differently is a liar.
Habits and addictions are different concepts, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently.

transmorpher said:

He's just presenting the science, he's wasn't involved in the research he's talking about.

But it's true, once you break the addiction cycle, cheese is no longer appetizing. It's very similar to quitting smoking in that sense.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

bcglorf says...

Maybe more simple would be to observe that from the evangelical interpretation, if you were to go out and kill every person that failed to live up to the law, the global population would be zero. From there it is hardly rational to believe that Jesus was teaching anyone was supposed to go around meting out judgement. I don't find it such a harsh leap of logic then to read the old testament laws stating if person X commits crime Y they must be killed as being admonitions against the crime. I think it's not that bizarre to read them as the act of stoning others as not a law itself, but a sentence, and a sentence that Jesus death rendered moot.

newtboy said:

Again that doesn't jibe with the text, or his exact words "For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
That also contradicts the theory that his death ended the laws....."until heaven and earth pass away" clearly is a different thing from 'until I, Jesus, pass away'.
This is clear that the letter of the laws, not just the spirit of love, are the focus here, and anyone ignoring a single jot will be judged harshly.
In the old testament, those punishments are for failing to live by the specific, set forth rules as written, not failing to live up to some underlying, contradictory, unwritten, hidden message of love behind them.

That's not what the bible says. It's what 3rd parties have told people it says. It also clearly warns about those people....warns against listening to them, and tells you what happens to them....they are called the least, which I interpret to mean considered unworthy of heaven so are sent elsewhere.
It clearly, unambiguously, undeniably tells believers to murder infidels themselves, personally, with rocks. Any other interpretation ignores clearly written specific and detailed instructions in favor of insane mental gymnastics to think " You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God" somehow, inexplicably means 'love and tolerate them with respect and kindness' and not 'go murder them ASAP'.

Evangelicals have never once lived up to your theory of what they believe, they can't even follow the basic golden rule. The respect they demand for their beliefs is never returned to others, in my experience.
Evangelicals in practice usually take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and force others to love their version of God and the righteous, not all people, and without a hint of humility, and that they must accept the grace of their version of God or else are deserving of hatred and damnation.


Edit: As I read it, Jesus said follow every letter of the old laws, but instructed people that he without sin should cast the first stone (that would have been him, wouldn't it?). The old laws said he who casts no stones is committing a horrendous sin and should themselves be stoned to death. Believers somehow don't see the contradiction, while I see nothing but.

Flynn's White House Tenure: It's Funny 'Cause It's Treason

bcglorf says...

I hadn't seen the agreement that Flynn had discussed ending the sanctions, but had instead acknowledged that sanctions had 'come up'? It's not much of a leap to deduce that Russians would be discussing potentially ending them, but from what I'd seen so far it sounded like Trump's circle was implying Flynn never committed to anything, and potentially even said that wasn't appropriate to discuss. There is of course zero reason to extend that benefit of the doubt, but I hadn't seen anything concrete.

newtboy said:

Those transcripts are classified, so we'll have to wait for someone to hack his emails and release them to WikiLeaks to read them, but the administration has admitted that they would show that he discussed their intention to eliminate the sanctions Obama had just implemented that day, even though he was a private citizen at the time and Trump was not yet president, contrary to what they've been selling us for the last month.
Subverting foreign affairs in collusion with a foreign nation's diplomats, that's called treason.
Allowing someone you KNOW subverted foreign affairs by colluding with a hostile foreign nation and it's diplomats and lied about it repeatedly both in public and privately to the administration to retain high security clearance for almost a month after the subversive crimes come to light...that's complete incompetence that rises to the level of impeachment, IMO. Far worse than what Nixon did.

Nature is better than Isaac Asimov's Brain

Canada's new anti-transphobia bill

dannym3141 says...

Sounds like an exercising in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

In a world where discrimination and separatism is qualitatively and quantitatively on the rise, people in charge must be ecstatic that they can appease people without having to do anything meaningful that might piss off the extremists on the right, or "shareholders". And people are so used to being told that change is only possible through incremental adjustments that they'll eat it up like candy and think this is progress.

"People people people, if you're going to call someone a filthy tranny and throw fast food at xem on public transport, at least use the proper pronoun when you verbally abuse xem."

When there's a hole in the boat and you're taking on water, the least of your concerns should be about what language you use to describe the in-rushing water or shape of the hole, nor arguing over the colour of the material you use to repair it.

I'm sure some people will see this as a victory. Until next time they apply for a job and not get hired due to transphobia. And the manager of the company, with a gleam in their eye, begins the rejection letter with 'Dear bun/bunself', then sniggers to themselves and says "fucking trannies."

What I'm trying to say was summed nicely in a tweet i saw the other day:
ALTRIGHT/NEO NAZI: your all going to the gas chambers!!!
NEOLIBERAL: you're*

If this is the extent of what activism is able to achieve, i should say that the establishment/elite have won by pacifying and declawing the protesters. It's no longer about breaking the shackles of oppression. We can't go around breaking shackles everywhere - think of the effect on the economy? And what about people getting hit by shrapnel? No, instead the LGBTQ community will be given multi coloured chains, the black community will be given slightly longer chains, and we'll pad the shackles with silk so that everyone is much more comfortable. Don't complain about the concept of being chained, instead complain that your chain is not as nice as the next guy's chain.

It's as though the great struggle of protest and civil disobedience has been taken over by the liberal intelligentsia, and the worst kind of discrimination faced by a 20 year old middle-class university student with rainbow coloured dreadlocks and a nose piercing is the letter they receive about their student loan that begins "dear sir/madam". So they go out and march about it and think they've made progress when they get their own pronoun. In their life, in their experiences, they are treated equally in other respects, so they think they ARE fighting inequality.

But for the working class male or female transsexual who gets filthy looks and a seat isolated by themselves on public transport, to travel to their entry level job where they've been skipped over for promotion for not looking the part, or getting the right level of respect from the trans-phobic staff, getting snide whispered comments from customers about the size of their hands, getting abuse yelled at them as they travel to have a night out at the ONLY trans-friendly bar within a 20 mile radius....... I get the feeling that receiving a letter with the correct pronoun isn't exactly going to change their fucking lives.

To remove a weed, you go for the roots. Some wanker calling you him/her when you prefer bun/bunself is not the root of this problem. The problem is that they are trans-phobic, not the language - which is just the tool they use to discriminate against you. To change the language and think that you've won is a bit like redefining room temperature and claiming you've warmed everybody by a few degrees.

If you march for equal rights, fair pay, fair treatment then people are going to see that and join your protest because they also want those things. Those things will solve the problems faced by the trans community, feminists, masculinists, minorities alike! And through common goals and by supporting each other en masse for simple, unified goals like EQUALITY, progress will be made, change will happen. It is a concept called solidarity and seems to be going out of fashion, but our grandparents knew.

The objective for the establishment is to drive a wedge between groups of people so that their demands are more manageable, and they can be turned on each other. Feminists, masculinists, LGBT, everyone... can't you see how better off you'd be marching together for common values that lie at the core of what every human wants?

Wall of text, sorry... and I know it looks like i'm being insensitive. So congratulations, genuinely, for getting someone to use your preferred pronoun if that makes you feel better. But whilst people have been fighting tooth and nail to get their own pronoun (in civilised settings only), we've suffered huge leaps backwards in freedom and tolerance behind their backs whilst they were bent over intently concentrating on the finer detail of what their ideal equality looks like.



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