search results matching tag: layers

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (258)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (14)     Comments (832)   

Blown Sugar in China - Ox, Monkey, Tiger, Dragon, Horse,...

newtboy says...

What I gathered is yes, it somehow forms a tube he blows through to inflate them. While the part actually in his mouth is discarded, the insides are now coated with a thin layer of his saliva. If these are intended to be eaten, I sure don't think that's sanitary, but the description said they aren't supposed to be eaten.
That said, the video I first found that pointed me to this one was a guy in a small market making caramel colored pigs....those were definitely made to eat, and we're definitely unsanitary.

Sagemind said:

SO, tell me, Is the piece in his mouth like a straw? Is he blowing into it to inflate it?
and if so, is that even sanitary?

GUARDSMAN - 2018

moonsammy says...

My knowledge of 40k lore is limited, perhaps someone can fill in a bit. I know these dudes are both generic archetypes from the game, and are zealous supporters of their God-Emperor.

Is there a bit more info anyone knows that would add some layers of understanding to the interactions here, particularly at the end?

Vox: Why we say “OK”.

MilkmanDan says...

Great sift, I find that kind of stuff massively interesting.

Reminds me of Cockney rhyming slang, which seems like a completely counterproductive layer of complexity impeding the basic intent of communication. But I imagine that given the right circumstances, some Cockney rhyming slang phrase could take off and go global...

Track rebuild: Toronto Transit Commission finishes work fast

spawnflagger says...

It still took 2 months - I assume they had to wait a while for the lower layer of concrete to cure, which is just a jump cut in the video.
But it's nice to see a sense of urgency by working at night and not wasting time or people.
Here in PA, every PennDOT construction site that I've ever seen has a ratio of 1 guy working to 5 guys standing around.

McCain defending Obama 2008

bobknight33 says...

Again, you take the lying media word over facts.


The FAKE Steele Dossier constituted the bulk of the facts submitted to United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain FISA warrant(s) against POTUS….

The Dossier is proven to be fake and baseless.

If Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel based on the Dossier - and the Dossier was proven to be FAKE/DISINFORMATION - and the Dossier was proven to be the 'bulk' of the information submitted to FISA in order to obtain the warrants

(+FISA signers 'pre-mediated' neglect to disclose the actual FACTS (lied to)) -

Then how is Mueller still Special Counsel ?

And you say Trump is the bad guy. You might want to rethink you good guy bad guy idea.

Fyi Muller has a team of 17 layers and staff to witch hunt Trump. Sessions hired Huber and a team of 420 to find the truth... Well see..

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/31/turley-sessions-using-utah-federal-prosecutor-much-better-trump-2nd-special-counsel/


https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/AG-Letter-Re-IG-and-Huber-Reviews.pdf

newtboy said:

Short answer, yes.

He, personally, has done severe, possibly irreparable damage to our government and it's safeguards, and the rule of law, has been the most divisive president in my lifetime, a high bar, is driving the very companies he claimed to have saved overseas, like Harley Davidson, is starting multiple trade wars, even with our allies, wasting tens of billions already, and has been mired in criminal and moral scandals since before day negative 45 when he told the Russians he would remove sanctions over election tampering even as Obama was instigating them, well before taking office which is a crime if you don't know.
Trump himself has divided America, intentionally, with his own words and policies. Reporting on those words and policies is not slanderous or fake. If they lied about what he said, Trump would sue for slander/libel like he did over Steele, a case he just LOST. He hasn't, and he won't.

Again, you take the lying convict's word about the evidence and the law over court rulings and fact. I know you won't investigate, so you'll continue to be duped. That's a conscious choice you are making, to be wrong but righteous instead of correct and guilt ridden.
The investigation predated the Steele Dossier, and it was never a key bit of evidence or the cause of the investigation....and it is not some baseless fantasy fabrication like you believe, it beats any Trump speech for honesty and correctness by a factor of 10.

His Twitter is his official policy, they are clear about that. It is almost always bat shit, and is never civil or honorable.

Yanny or Laurel

newtboy says...

The NY Times tracked down the first poster, an 18 year old kid in Georgia, who says it's the pronunciation of Laurel, recorded through his speakers, directly from vocabulary.com with no layering or tricks.

Thanks for playing.

Most vocals you hear are fake

vil says...

You can record anything, but please do not pretend to be performing it live if you are not. And if you are forced to pretend, do it in a way that makes it obvious you are pretending, or be prepared to be labeled a fraud and scum of the earth.

If the performances in the video are billed as "celebrity dancing & karaoke" all is perfectly fine.

I find records with one person recognizably singing more than once at the same time weird and uncomfortable, yet hundreds of layers of guitar or synth or percussion noise (by one or two persons) do not faze me. No idea why.

This is all obviously a very pre-sequencer approach to music which must sound really stupid to current computerized generations.

Diamond turning an acrylic dome for an underwater camera

Sagemind says...

The dome is spinning on a lathe, while the diamond cutter, takes off a this layer, removing the translucent outer layer, leaving it clear.

makach said:

talk about satisfying video. but what is going on here?

A Burger Scholar Breaks Down Classic Regional Burger Styles

Sarzy says...

A few things:

A) You should read this article about American cheese:

https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/whats-really-in-american-cheese.html

It's not gourmet, but it gets a bad rap -- it's easily the best type of cheese for a certain type of cheeseburger.

B) Louis Lunch broils their burgers in a custom upright broiler they've been using since day one. Their burgers definitely aren't steamed.

C) Pressing burgers during cooking is a no-no, but pressing the beef onto the griddle before it starts cooking creates a magical layer of crust on the beef that you can't get through any other method.

artician said:

I grew up with grilled burgers. A tiny bit of BBQ sauce, mixed with a small amount of diced onions, and lots of black pepper, is gourmet to me.

This deep fried shit seems like just that, though interesting.

American Cheese, isn't. (Cheese, that is).

Pressing your burgers while cooking seems like amateur bullshit that only came about to produce hamburgers faster.

He says that "jacks lunch" in Middletown CT originated the steamed burger, but today "Louis Lunch" at 261 Crown St. in New Haven CT claims to have "Invented the Hamburger" altogether, (and they steam their burgers) so YMMV.

I also prefer to eat my burgers without condiments, because when they're actually cooked well it has the best method for bringing out the flavor of the meat. I couldn't imagine the flavor of a steamed burger being such, but I still hope to try it some day.

In recent memory, perhaps ever, Yarde Tavern in South Hadley MA makes the best burger I've had, to date.

Reference = My family owns a ranch, and I grew up with cattle, so red meat was the diet throughout my youth, and have a lot to say on the subject.

Painting a dragon with acrylics

kir_mokum says...

shows you the importance of layering. this has bad design, bad lighting, bad perspective, bad composition, but it has a shit ton of layers that gives the impression of detail and purpose.

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

newtboy (Member Profile)

Throwing water into lava may not be a good idea

Fantomas says...

It could be related somewhat to the Leidenfrost effect. the pockets of water quickly becoming surrounded by an insulating layer of water vapour, slowing the boiling process.

Jinx said:

Curious that it splutters for a good while. I expected the water to boil more or less instantly and all get released at once.

Sticking Together, No Matter What

Vox explains bump stocks

harlequinn says...

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

newtboy said:

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.



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