There are some that suggest May or the tories in general are trying to lose the election so that Labour WILL take the backlash. Ultimately no way to know how that will go, but right now there is severe backlash towards the tories and the narrative is swiftly changing towards Labour. I see an election win as the start of a very, very long conversation. Activists will have to continue the fight, press standards will have to be changed either through public pressure or through legislature. And in Britain that might happen because the press here are the most distrusted in europe (52% disapproval, or 52% considered biased/corrupt, or something).

I said in the past that the UK was ready to change. Essentially, the narrative was there to be taken right back, but I didn't know if Corbyn's team had the skill to do it. I have to say that I am blown away by Labour's campaign, it has been almost flawless. I say that because i think the narrative is there to be taken on Brexit. The tories called the referendum to hold onto power. They arrogantly called the general election to consolidate power, with Brexit talks imminent, only to whine about being too busy to do interviews because they're thinking about Brexit! They have then made a catastrophic hash of their campaign, u-turned 5 or 6 times, contradicted themselves, and generally shown themselves to be weak, without answers, and bullies. In 10 years time, who knows what we will think? But in the short term at least, this can be framed as a "they fucked it up, but we'll take over in a crisis and try to fix it."

At the end of the day, a Corbyn government has always been so out of the question that i don't know what to expect if that were to happen. Is another referendum on leaving out of the question?

At the very least, for now, i would say Brits prefer the idea of Labour sorting out Brexit than the Tories, and the average attitude towards Brexit in the country is rather one of resigned acceptance - we know it's bad, but we did it, so now we better get on with it. But we're very suspicious, and don't want to get shafted by irresponsible or reckless politicians. True for the left and right, but obviously for different reasons.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

That's just irresponsible to keep having children when you find out that you are both carrying the genes for SMA.

Adam really does ruin everything - in this case, it's his credibility.

There are many reasons home ownership is better than renting - not the least being that you have far more flexibility in your lifestyle than a renter would. And while you are paying off a mortgage (which, in part, is subsidized by the mortgage deduction on your income tax) you are building equity and paying off the bank with progressively "inflated" dollars over the life of the mortgage (that's why they charge "interest"). The rents go up with the inflation, the mortgage payment doesn't (unless you are fool enough to buy into an adjustable rate mortgage). In the end, if you are careful and smart about when and where you buy, the home is nominally worth more than you paid (in inflated dollars - and possibly in constant dollars) and that value can be recovered if and when necessary. Renting, you walk away with a bunch of receipts...

Of course, if you are lazy and irresponsible in when and where you buy and how you maintain the home, then you could again walk away with nothing...

It's a combination of wishful thinking and ignorance. He wishes she had something that might kill her (not thinking that that would leave the Democrats with an arguably better candidate), and also wishes she had something that would make her being in public irresponsible, and not knowing any better he makes that claim.
Of course, there's absolutely no evidence of any such thing, but that never stopped Bob from spouting conspiracy theories.
Now, if Trump had pneumonia and collapsed, you can be certain he would be talking about how it was no big deal, he just tripped, and would say the whole thing is just the liberal media making things up and making mountains out of molehills.

I will say, knowing the position of her opposition that's been making claims about her health for weeks, it was a terrible idea to ignore doctors orders and go out in public, especially without hydrating thoroughly and taking it easy. This video just gives them ammunition...but only with the gullible or pre-decided....but they aren't in short supply.

Irresponsible, non-compassionate, and unmotivated? I think your artificial system is very flawed if it picks those leaders.

I don't recall anyone claiming the path to losing weight is exercise alone. This video is based on a straw man argument.

It's just as irresponsible to claim that exercise plays no significant part in weight loss. There just aren't definitive results yet from studies of how exercise affects metabolism. So we can't draw conclusions.

So what's the purpose of this video? There's a message at the end that we need to push politicians on food policy. So does this video provide biased interpretation for a political agenda? Maybe I was wrong on that count. But then, what IS the point of this video? They can't be trying to convince people to lose weight from diet alone. There is no reasonable study that makes that conclusion.

Maybe it's a clickbait video. What it is not, is a reasonable analysis of the available data. Because any reasonable analysis says, "we don't know yet, so diet AND exercise."

But I agree about HIIT. It is personally the only way I can stay at a healthy weight. Along with careful nutrition.

Yep. I stopped playing the series because they began creating fiction about current scenarios, and to me that just seems irresponsible and incredibly stupid. The level of pro-western pro-militancy was too much.

The result in and of itself may be satisfactory to some degree, but i'm more afraid it validates the incredible stupidity and irresponsibility leading up to it.

I listen to that child barely contain his pride and it really gives me chills.

You are so right, so lets not try. Everyone, just accept your place in society and please stop trying to make anything better.

Wait a second, that sounds a lot like the attitude that is so reviled by the socially irresponsible Republican party of late. Isn't that the problem with poor people? They just accept their lot in life and live off the welfare system.

The hypocrisy is everywhere.

It's like the magic trick where you hold something so tight that you don't even realize it is gone until you open your hand and see it hasn't been there for most of the trick. Keep paying for your security and the hope that you can get rich, don't pay attention to the people making it impossible for you to ever make it there.

No matter how well Obama did, vote for Sanders. At least you are trying. When you stop trying you are now part of the problem.

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

If you can trick someone to install something on their PC, i'd call that social engineering. You'll be able to do what you like, if you're clever you'll get anything you want, but it takes little technical knowledge to do. I'm sure this guy knows his stuff, perhaps it would be irresponsible to show something a bit more technical and hacker-esque?

Or is hacking like magic and once you learn how it works, it all seems like cheating?

Self *promote because HOLY CRAP!!! This hasn't even made the news here in N California, and it certainly should have.

Methane is 25 times more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100 year period, even though it's quite short lived compared to CO2. I don't think that is taken into account when claiming 2.3% of the carbon footprint, they're just measuring the carbon by the ton. If you want to measure the damage over the next 100 years, you need to multiply tonnage of CO2 by 1, and tonnage of CH4 by 25.
CH4 makes up about 10% of greenhouse emissions in the US, making it FAR more damaging than all the CO2 we produce. An extra 21% CH4 (2.1% of all greenhouse emissions) should cause the same damage as adding something like >50% more CO2...which everyone agrees would be disastrous.
Why is this not front page, leading story news? Cover up, or just terrible and irresponsible reporting all around?

EDIT: Thanks to @eric3579 for the heads up on this story.

I thought DMT lasted much longer. I thought I had experienced it before. From his description it sounds exactly like Salvia.

Also, I agree with everything @newtboy says. Most of these videos have their little "educational use only" disclaimer at the beginning, but this guy actually sounds like he is advocating use (and irresponsible use in many of these cases), despite saying exactly the opposite.

Clearly he's not met many people who have had negative experiences; there are many.

Also, I can name many people, alive today, who have absolutely killed it in terms of contemporary success in the modern world, to speak to newts point about evidence of positive, individual evolution. If that's one way you measure success, I personally know multiple people who have made, literally, millions (billions in one case) and were significantly inspired by experiences like these in their lives. Two problems: It's an illegal substance, and it would be taboo to tie public figures names with it. Secondly, there are too many factors to attribute personal success to one event or influence, but there are also very few things in the world that can provide an experience so profound that it does impact your entire life long world view.

Yes, my teenage years were irresponsible, and a main reason I often chime in to suggest at least having serious knowledge about what you're doing and safety precautions before going this route.

Yes, because it is different for different people, and even different for the same person dependent on their mindset when they take it, it's impossible to be totally 'safe' when taking it, even with full knowledge. You can't know for sure how it will react with you, or how you'll react to it until it's too late.

Making your own, if you're a decent chemist, at least gives you a good idea of WHAT you're taking, but without spectral analysis, you can't know the strength of the psychoactives for certain. Also, that probably leaves you open to more legal trouble for manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic...more reason to not go in public and take it and get caught.

The fear is that, when someone is having a bad trip, they aren't likely to think straight enough to take something to counter act the effects...even if they're smart enough to have that handy. Unfortunately, a clinical setting is probably also not conducive to a great experience, so 'under a doctor's supervision' isn't really totally helpful or practical.

The quantum mechanics part can be understood, he seemed to have just miss-stated/miss-understood what the experiment was about in his wish to find some science that explains his experience, which may not be understandable.