I think it's super important people recognize that Bob's point here is actually very correct.

A huge part of Trump's support IS reactionary against runaway liberal ideals.

The most blatant was on University campuses:
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score as a 'liberal' ideal
-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in

All of that filth was and still is almost universally wide spread through Academia as 'liberal' good ideas.

People need to very seriously wake up and recognize how many of the quiet folks who openly detest Trump, are also going to silently still vote Republican because of their disgust and push back at the above ideals.

Only AFTER trump changed the numbers, the CDC has repeatedly announced the horrible truth only to have to retract it for political reasons, meaning Trump insisted and put their jobs on the line, and fired many that wouldn't ignore results to spread his propaganda.
The CDC has been politicized by Trump and is no longer a good source for information, only propaganda until Trump's temporary sycophantic administrators are removed and professional administrators can be confirmed. That's why doctors and scientists are fleeing the organization. That's why they said 400000+ dead by new years then retracted, it's why they said 6' isn't enough indoors, then retracted despite there being no new data or conclusions. Flu season starts soon, and we sit in the worst position possible for that, still wave one and it's accelerating again.

200000 dead/7million cases =....can you do that 2nd grade math?
.
.
.
.
.
It's an overall death rate of 2.8% Bob. Not .003%, not .02%, not way less than the flu (.1%) like Trump lied to America, but exponentially, up to 50 times worse like he admitted in private Feb 7 (now 30 times worse). 2.8% after we got an idea how to treat them.

That doesn't count deaths from complications, like going into a coma, surviving the virus in that coma, then dying from the damage it did to your brain and lungs. That's not in the covid death number I give you, neither are permanent disabilities like brain deaths, needed lung transplants, neuropothies, heart damage, etc.

My college math friends in the mid 90s did Matlab on Macs.

"This is what happens when you elect a commie who can't do math."

What boggles my mind is how Foxists continue to ignore the root cause of things like riot and crime, and the solution to everything is "use force". That quells the symptom, not the problem.

"People need to work, that's the problem."

Good God, how many people are working 2-3 jobs without a day off and still can't make ends meet? Where's their solution for that?

So angry...

Sorry for the delay @greatgooglymoogly - to keep it simple I just modified the video submission form so your account won't be required to answer the math human test question.

Hopefully it works for you now. Let us know!

You got that symbol backwards, not surprising since math and science aren't conservative strong suits anymore, and you clearly hate your dog.

My dog > Biden > a ham sandwich > Kanye > a full, leaking, and fermenting diaper in the bed > a racist strain of Ebola > Trump

FTFY

Edit: perhaps I misunderstood...are these rated on how destructive these things are to America? If so, you may be correct, but then that's one bad dog.

Any math teacher I've ever had would fail you for that. The only reason to remove units is to hide how ridiculous your measurements are....but fine, let's just use ratios...you still fall flat.

Then your trig and measurements suck, because your measurements put the stage floor at a minimum of 4.5' and the ramp a maximum length of 23.5', both of which are obviously excessively wrong.
The SS at the corners of the stage are waist high to the stage floor....are they 9' tall SS? When on stage, two stripes are waist high to Trump, is he 9' tall? I guess to save Trump, you say yes.
The stage segments are at least 10' long, using Trump as a 6'+ measuring stick....is Trump now only 3.5' tall? The ramp covers 3 segments (one slightly short with a podium) then continues for 5-8' beyond the stage (more if I use your breitbart photo)....sure, it's only 23'...that makes sense. *facepalm

Measuring on a curved screen is useless....which you have proven. Measuring based on a photo is also useless unless it's a top down long distance shot, as perspective skews the image. I guess all your college math classes omitted the concept of perspective? Just for giggles, I did it anyway, and still got a slope under 7 degrees, higher than reality thanks to skewed perspective.
It's clear you must insist your measurements are perfect but our eyes lie. Very Trumpian of you, congratulations, and bye. Enjoy your perfectly healthy, not obese and demented president and your near vertical ramps that are suddenly everywhere. Don't come to my house, my ramp is nearly 3 times the slope of the one you claim is 11 degrees, it should be impossible to climb (oddly it's not).

240 what? Pixels slope?
235 what? Elephant ball hairs run?
46 right angle what? 46 mouse penises rise?

No it isn't calculus, it's barely trig, and fuck you, my math is spot on...and they're WAY closer.

It's measurements we disagree on....yours suck donkey balls. You claim the stage floor is 4.5' high and the ramp run only 23.5' long....neither is close to right.

I estimated rise, 3' based on the width of stripes, and run, 40' based on the length of stage segments. That's 4.3 degrees. Do you disagree with the estimation, gleaned from pictures and video of the whole stage/ramp?
You can only be saying it's a 23.5' run and 4.6' rise, that's insanely off on both counts, but granted does give you the 11degree number.

The stripes are 1.5' high, the top of the ramp floor (and stage height) is two stripes high....stage segments are at least 10' long, the ramp extends well beyond 3 segments as seen in the full descent video. If you need to nitpick, it might be 35', but 11 degrees still puts that stage floor at 6'9". It's not 1/2 that....It's 3'. 3' rise at 11degrees makes the ramp 15' approximately....also clearly not the case.

It's Trump that makes himself look awkward, and his attempted bullshit excuses are just awkward icing on his cake of awkwardness.... it was not in any way a steep ramp.

Lol. Yes, they got it wrong by about 1.3 degrees. They should commit seppuku in contrition....
But you got it around 6.7 degrees wrong, and now are still fighting about it using unassigned units of measurement on values pulled from....measuring an off center picture from breitbart of 1/3 of the ramp on a monitor?!... to do calculations, and are clearly measuring it insanely wrong, or they altered the picture, or both.

Put 40' run and 11 degrees into the calculator, you get 8' rise, 35'run gives 6'9" hight. It even gives you visual representation. Do you honestly think that stage floor is 8' up, or even 6'9"? If so, you are insane and no math, picture, argument, or fact will change your mind, because it's clearly waist high, two stripes, about 3'. If you aren't saying it's at least 6' 9" high, admit you got it wrong at least to yourself, and let's move on.

They were incredibly closer than you are.
Nope, you don't get 11 degrees...well, I don't, and I did well in math classes through AP calculus and statistics.

3ft rise in 40ft run is 4.3 degrees, or a 7.5% slope. Look it up yourself....

https://www.blocklayer.com/riseruneng.aspx

It's NOWHERE NEAR 11 degrees. The stage floor would be about 8' high to be 11 degrees at that length. It's actually 3' high.

Sorry you don't understand math.
When the factors are the same, they're the same, so cancel out. Tested under the same conditions, those things are the same, or better under the roll over situation because it doesn't put as much energy into the stationary object. I'm being generous and calling it a wash.

50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. Get it? What you're talking about is infinitesimal compared to the forces involved. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs.

By what factor of risk? That statement is meaningless. It doesn't mean you get hurt more, it means they don't test every factor in rollovers in this test, so can't say you won't also break a nail. It absolutely doesn't mean you get hurt worse every time, or even on average. Doing the math, it's about an 8' movement over about 2+- seconds to roll, so under 1/2 g. That's what you say makes it worse than a 50g forward hit....1/2 g. Really?! I'm pretty sure you're just playing with me pretending you don't understand.

Now leave me be....please. I've been frustrated for a while with this discussion.

Hahaha.. Cancels out. OK, yep. It's basic math here not a complex collision simulation...

Did you even read this bit,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

I'm only discounting some things it because it's irrelevant to the point which is you stating rolls or "flops" are better than an arbitrary situation that generally doesn't exist and certainly isn't the other option to a roll in this test.

You're massively oversimplifying things again. Where is your crumple zone math? Where is your math showing how much force is imparted into pushing the car in front forward based on whether it has it's brakes on, is still moving, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal experience is not extraordinary. I have been in accidents, I didn't bother to bring it up because it doesn't mean anything.

I'm not arguing that higher G forces don't correlate with more severe injuries, that's not the point . The point is that CSI injury is very complex, complexities that can cause severe injury with minor force in situations like.. a rollover.

from the report you mentioned,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

How much money did you calculate the officer personally stole from you? Please show your math.

The things you can do when you get the math right.