I've been having fun practicing my spoken Thai by using the microphone input button in Google translate, saying something in Thai, and attempting to
A) get it to "hear" what I said in Thai correctly, and
B) predict how it will translate what I said into English.

Since Thai is a tonal language, if I'm off a bit I sometimes end up with bizarre randomness like shown here... Fun way to practice though.

Really hard not to get a sense of smug superiority since uBlock Origin has kept me from seeing any of this Youtube ad crap for years. And somehow, I don't even feel guilty about it.

While the uninformed masses wallow pitifully in a mire of advertising, I gloriously dance on the surface of their pit of writhing flesh. I, God among insects, transcend their hellish torture of video ads and clickthroughs, reveling in the ability to watch whatever I want as soon as I click the play button! Muahahahaha!

...OK, maybe that strayed slightly beyond "smug superiority" and into "disturbing sociopath" territory. But it still feels good!

They could have spent a couple bucks online and just bought the guy a button hook.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/136-6348609-6033755?url=search-alias%3Dhpc&field-keywords=button+hook

Why all the melodrama?

I SAID ENOUGH!!!1

It's significant because it's reactive. He wasn't just "pressing buttons" and hoping, he knew where is opponent was in relation to him and he knew what his opponent was doing. Maybe its kind of like the difference between throwing a ball and catching it.

I continue to be amused by the long lines of "inventors" of new gadgets, gizmos and things that go bing that are very simply re-discovering items that already exist. Case in point, the button hook, the button loop, the fastener loop or other names as it was known being rediscovered here. The original button hook, serving the same purpose as this device, was patented in 1851, with many variants following. Give yourself a pat on the back kids, and don't forget to pick up your trophy.

Your video, Fixperts - A Button Fastener for 82 year old Tom, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I have problems with some buttons, but shoe laces are the worse!

Daaamn that's one big ass drone. I had no idea pushing such a small button in my fear and duty to protect public property would unleash such violence and brutality upon the person I was aiming it at. *thinks about it for a while* Cool. It was just a job, but now wow i can instant karma a bitch at the time of my choosing AND get away with it.

Hai! this is most assuredly the country where the Game Boy was invented. *humble bow to the master of mobile button mashing and then back to my knees where I belong*

Man this video really presses my buttons. Sorry, didn't know about the dupe.

I'd have hit the ejection seat button on the little bugger long before we got to "It's a Small World". Or better yet, right after.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

They WANT the apocalypse. If you hang around these evangelical far right people, they truly want it. They want Jesus to return.

Even when I was evangelical, I wouldn't want the end of times. Not because I cared for myself, but I thought the longer the better. I never got the thinking that so many seemed to have, which is why it scares me when they get close to being on the button.

And for Mr Baker here to actually mention the anti-Christ... if I were still Christian (back after I stopped being a Republican and was a Libertarian), I'd be likely thinking Trump is the anti-Christ as I was starting to think the Republicans as a whole were the anti-Christ system, as so many Christians seemed deceived into believing that it was THE Christian party, when the party was so opposed to the teachings of Jesus. I'm frankly surprised more crazy people aren't out there calling Trump out as the anti-Christ... he fits the bill... though going back to my original topic, perhaps that's why some of them voted for him, to help bring about the end.