Anyone else getting this error:

Video unavailable
This video contains content from NFL, who has blocked it from display on this website or application.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

Sentry Mode adds a unique layer of protection to Tesla vehicles by continuously monitoring the environment around a car when it’s left unattended. When enabled, Sentry Mode enters a “Standby” state, like many home alarm systems, which uses the car’s external cameras to detect potential threats. If a minimal threat is detected, such as someone leaning on a car, Sentry Mode switches to an “Alert” state and displays a message on the touchscreen warning that its cameras are recording. If a more severe threat is detected, such as someone breaking a window, Sentry Mode switches to an “Alarm” state, which activates the car alarm, increases the brightness of the center display, and plays music at maximum volume from the car’s audio system.

If a car switches to “Alarm” state, owners will also receive an alert from their Tesla mobile app notifying them that an incident has occurred. They’ll be able to download a video recording of an incident (which begins 10 minutes prior to the time a threat was detected) by inserting a formatted USB drive into their car before they enable Sentry Mode.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/sentry-mode-guarding-your-Tesla?utm_campaign=cooke&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

No Bob, you don't need to keep crying "but I love him"....we know you'll gladly ignore any foibles he has while viciously attacking others for the same, or similar but lesser crimes he claimed they were guilty of.
We know you allow him to bold faced lie to you about anything.
We know you're ready and willing to repeat any stupidity or nonsense he feeds you.
We know you're 100% prepared to accept his word over your own eyes, ears, or memory.
We know you're prepared to claim financial and civil gains even though reality disagrees.

You really don't need to keep telling us you love your lying fraud of an abuser....we know.

Do I need to remind you about Carter again? A politician who was never two faced or untruthful. Please, please don't display your stupidity by attempting to attack his undeniably excessive levels of intelligence or morality. Dumb people don't design nuclear submarines, immoral people don't command them with honor....they get phantom bone spurs that miraculously disappear the minute the draft ends so they can screw the wives of their honorable associates while they go to war.

Good, if Trump is really done playing politician, that's great for all of us. I hadn't heard he had quit.
It's just asinine to claim the person holding the most powerful political position in the world isn't a politician. You might as well claim he's not a fraud, not a thief, not a philanderer, not a business failure, not a hypocrite, not immoral, not a misogynist, and not dishonest while you're denying reality.

As noted above, your video evidence and your claims have nothing in common.

There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

snuff?

3. Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).
*return

(edit) Not that it matters regarding this being snuff, but the only thing i could find regarding the dogs health was this..

"But a spokesman for the Royal Spanish Hunting Federation said the dogs had been treated at the scene before being taken to nearby vets."

Things I think we agree on......

Trump is a disaster.
Bias in media, especially news media, detracts from facts being clear and is a bad thing. (We disagree strongly which outlets display what levels of bias....even on which outlets can be properly called news).


I would rather share a foxhole with someone who will disagree with me civilly than someone who either agrees with me constantly or can't be civil, it makes for better conversation, the main entertainment in foxholes, so yes.

I wasn't thinking about including YT ad revenue in the economics, but I guess that certainly could be counted and definitely motivate many people.

However, I guess that confirms that it is passion for the work, the machines themselves, and the feedback that are the primary motivators for him. Would probably still be doing these repairs even if YT income / encouraging feedback wasn't a factor, and even without more traditional motivators like plans to resell or use the repaired devices.

I guess the closest parallel would be repairs and restorations for museum displays. There's a financial element there too, but the people doing the restorations do that job more for the love of the objects and seeing them restored.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

@ChaosEngine

I fully agree with you that rape/sexual assault is a bigger problem (in magnitude and frequency) than false accusations. And that being an actual victim of sexual assault would be worse than being falsely accused of sexual assault, although it seems a bit pointless to debate the relative extent of how much these things could fuck up lives when they are both horrendous.

That being said, there's a reason that presumption of innocence and requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are the law of the land. And assuming that we follow through on those things (which I think we largely do), that's all well and good. BUT, that's all pretty strictly just in the legal realm.

False accusations of sexual assault don't need to get as far as the actual legal system to seriously fuck up a person's life. Employers, partners, friends ... these connections might choose to sever ties without requiring the same rigorous proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that the legal system does.

As much as I personally tend to believe Ford as opposed to Kavanaugh, I think that given the span of time since the incident it is nigh on impossible to prove that her version of events is true beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the hearing put his current demeanor and partisan/biased attitude on blatant display in a way that seemed to me should be disqualifying with regards to the sort of standards we require for Supreme Court Justices. Apparently the GOP disagrees, and we can hold them to account for that at the ballot box.

That's rather cold comfort given that Justices serve for life. There'd be some constitutional crisis drama if Agent Orange gets removed from office as a result of some proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt of misdeeds. Robert Kennedy's quote about the ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" seems apropos. Things have been entirely too "interesting" for my taste for the past 2 years...

Bob. You're just being stubborn.
They didn't refute anything..
Guess all logic escapes your brain. "I don't know" is different from "it didn't happen", they all said "I don't know, I don't recall, I don't think he would do that", not "I know it didn't happen"....guess that's too nuanced for today's republicans' education levels. Sad.

Democrats (all senators) are barred from discussing the FBI report in detail at all, so it's against Senate rules for them to refute any details. They did contradict the idea that it's a report of an investigation of the charges since the fbi refused to interview the accused, the accuser, anyone the accuser named as having knowledge, or inspect her medical records, or any other evidence she has offered them.

No, democrats aren't saying you have to believe her, they're saying you have to actually investigate her charges, democrats and independents are saying his demeanor is unsuited for the supreme court based on his Senate testimony, which was all a display of Republicans spinning on their uncontrolled emotions. Watching it confirmed that "feeling".

Jebus Christ, you can't even keep your own made up numbers right, yesterday it was 17, today it's 10, by next week it will be 15 agreed with her at this rate. Facts are Ford said one thing, others say they didn't see that, only Kavanaugh says it didn't happen.

You heard RGB is upset with democrats enough to quit? Lol...from where, Alex Jones or Trump?

I hope Dumbocrats pull the same move retardicans did and refuse to hold hearings if there's another opening, but they have no spine so likely won't.

Yeah, that lone number looks good by itself, you must be so proud of winning so bigly, and pleased your president has strengthened our union so well instead of dividing us further. Unemployment rates are down, but so is average worker income. More people are working more today, but for less money. I would prefer much higher unemployment with wages high enough that single worker households and stay at home parents become a thing....we're going the other direction to the point where multiple wage earners require multiple jobs just to keep a modest family solvent. If full employment still leaves one in poverty, having more people employed hardly helps escape poverty.

Congratulations on getting a hugely divisive temperamental judge forced through by the skin of your teeth. No whining if democrats do the same things in 2.5 years.

No Bob. That's just a lie.

Only one account refutes Ford's testimony, that's Kavanaugh's. Many refute his.

Up to 16 others (your number, not mine) have said they didn't see him do that, and some of them said it's not consistent with his character as they know him. That is not refuting anything, it's saying they don't know, and some saying they don't believe it.
No one besides Kavanaugh and his drunkard friend could possibly know it didn't happen, because they were the only ones involved. That's the point of shoving her into an upstairs bedroom, so others don't see it.
We have no idea what his drunkard friend told the FBI, if anything.

He clearly lied under oath about his drinking, and displayed a temperament wholly unsuitable for any judge, yet every brain dead (they aren't actually conservatives) right winger is in hog heaven to confirm him anyway simply because he's anti choice and clearly prepared to be a Trump loyal right wing political activist from the bench.
Trump loves him because he's also (now) anti presidential prosecution (especially odd since he apparently zealously worked for years to prosecute Clinton while he was in office).

Worst is the ridiculous whining of "delay" by the same people who delayed the last appointment almost a full year in order to outright steal it from Obama, not for any cause at all. You people are such hypocritical infantile crybabies, were I Spartan I would toss you all from a cliff before you reach childhood.

More like Ford said he drunkenly hit and ran, Kavanaugh denied it, and 5 friends said they saw nothing and they think he's a good driver even when "going to sleep in public" drunk (he doesn't pass out, remember) in writing with no cross examination (making their claims completely meaningless under the law).
And let's not forget the other two who claim he hit and ran from them as well, still totally uninvestigated but the FBI is interviewing Ramirez today.

So, because there was no witness examination, there are no witnesses, so it's her word against his (now x3), by Republican design. If her (their) word(s) against his isn't enough to create reasonable doubt about his past actions to you, I declare you unreasonable.
If you're prepared to put another probable sex abuser on the court because they'll vote to protect Trump from his crimes (exactly why he's nominated, and why they won't rescind the nomination under any circumstances) I again declare you unreasonable.
If you think his demeanor and professionalism displayed in the hearings are appropriate for a lifetime member of the highest court in the land, yet inappropriate for a teenager caught drinking, I declare you unreasonable.

After seeing his temperament on display, that's probably a good thing.
It's odd to me that a terrorised reluctant witness was incredibly more composed and professional than an applicant for a job that requires calm detachment and a firm control over one's emotions, during what is essentially his job interview.
Instead of remaining calm, he went so far as to attack the senators in his answers, not a good move in a job interview and a clear indication he's not able to put aside personal feelings to judge fairly or professionally.

I hope the next nominee has less baggage and is closer to center, or we'll likely repeat this process.