>> ^csnel3:

>> ^legacy0100:
LOL Native American of guitar players?!? What does that even mean!! LOL OL

I think it means, This guitar player can't grow a beard worth a shit, but will always have full head of hair. He has mastered an art, but probably is lousy at real estate deals.


HOLY SHIT LOL LOL LOL

>> ^srd:

Off topic: Whats up with the tinkerbell powered status updates and tickers at the bottom? Is that now standard in US tv? Them stealing screen real estate is annoying enough, but with all the tinkles its more annoying than ever.


MSNBC, yeah it sucks.

Off topic: Whats up with the tinkerbell powered status updates and tickers at the bottom? Is that now standard in US tv? Them stealing screen real estate is annoying enough, but with all the tinkles its more annoying than ever.

>> ^legacy0100:
LOL Native American of guitar players?!? What does that even mean!! LOL OL

I think it means, This guitar player can't grow a beard worth a shit, but will always have full head of hair. He has mastered an art, but probably is lousy at real estate deals.

I heard he came downtown looking for a condo, but he should have not bothered. Noboby can afford real estate in Vancouver any more.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Ornthoron:
I don't always visit VideoSift from a mobile device, but when I do I like to check Sift Talk as well. I find that difficult with the mobile version.

Can you expound on that? What specifically do you find to be difficult with browsing Sift Talk in the mobile version? If we have an idea what the problems are with it, perhaps we can improve it.


Never mind, I somehow have stupidly managed to always overlook the Sift Talk link at the bottom. I still find the full page easier to navigate though, with all the links on top.

A suggestion from me would be to put some links to often used functions on top of the mobile page, instead of the bottom, if it doesn't take up too much valuable real estate.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The problem with exposing all of the queue a little more is that it's not really curating. It's a rising tide, lifting all boats. We really want to get better at surfacing quality new stuff more effectively. Which is not to say we're bad at it now - we aren't - but we could be better. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I think finding a way of giving all unsifted videos a little front page visibility would be the easiest way to get more people to watch them. In my experience on this site, a little bit of momentum goes a long way. A video might sit there for a day unnoticed, but you promote it and it shoots to the top 15 in 24 hrs or less. I know dag and lucky were experimenting with some videos on the header above the promotes. This seems like prime real estate for spotlighting unsifted vids. The only downside is that it, in some ways, defeats the purpose of quality control. Some offensive piece of crap could perch itself atop the site and drive away new viewers.
I know buzzfeed has a system where it tracks what you think will go viral, and then gives you a viral accuracy percentage, which works well for a site about 'buzz'. I don't think this is a good idea for our 'quality control'-based site, because it might cause people to be even more fixated on popularity than quality. Then again, maybe not.
Another big problem is music. I find personally that watching clips, lectures, debates, comedy shorts, etc. activates different parts of my brain than listening to music. When I'm in the mood for music, I have no interest in watching videos; when I'm in the mood for watching videos, I have little interest in music. Also, I find similar dichotomies when listening to music itself (soft or loud? Up or down? Populist or sophisticated? Jazz, concert music, hip-hop, rock, indie, world, electronic? Does my brain want to deal with new stuff or just stick with comfort food? Flow is really important to the enjoyment of music.
I'd love to see a part of the site dedicated only to music. Perhaps something where you could post audio clips and playlists. A place where you could get deep in discussion about the art, share, explore and discover new stuff and new ways of thinking about music. Kind of like a more sophisticated, videosift-ised version of lastfm. I know this is probably unrealistic and that the tech might not be there yet, but just throwing it out there for the heck of it.

^I think finding a way of giving all unsifted videos a little front page visibility would be the easiest way to get more people to watch them. In my experience on this site, a little bit of momentum goes a long way. A video might sit there for a day unnoticed, but you promote it and it shoots to the top 15 in 24 hrs or less. I know dag and lucky were experimenting with some videos on the header above the promotes. This seems like prime real estate for spotlighting unsifted vids. The only downside is that it, in some ways, defeats the purpose of quality control. Some offensive piece of crap could perch itself atop the site and drive away new viewers.

I know buzzfeed has a system where it tracks what you think will go viral, and then gives you a viral accuracy percentage, which works well for a site about 'buzz'. I don't think this is a good idea for our 'quality control'-based site, because it might cause people to be even more fixated on popularity than quality. Then again, maybe not.

Another big problem is music. I find personally that watching clips, lectures, debates, comedy shorts, etc. activates different parts of my brain than listening to music. When I'm in the mood for music, I have no interest in watching videos; when I'm in the mood for watching videos, I have little interest in music. Also, I find similar dichotomies when listening to music itself (soft or loud? Up or down? Populist or sophisticated? Jazz, concert music, hip-hop, rock, indie, world, electronic? Does my brain want to deal with new stuff or just stick with comfort food? Flow is really important to the enjoyment of music.

I'd love to see a part of the site dedicated only to music. Perhaps something where you could post audio clips and playlists. A place where you could get deep in discussion about the art, share, explore and discover new stuff and new ways of thinking about music. Kind of like a more sophisticated, videosift-ised version of lastfm. I know this is probably unrealistic and that the tech might not be there yet, but just throwing it out there for the heck of it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?


I agree with you 100%, and I think most people would too. It's my money too dang nab it; true capitalism has no bailouts. The problem today is that we have a corporate-socialist-capitalist government. In other words, the banks got a bailout and the people didn't. I speak for myself here when I say that any amount of money spent on somebody else's greed (whether it's personal buying a house, or corporate buying toxic mortgages) was a waste of money. People talked about the real-estate bubble bursting since 2004; everyone had 3 years to get their act together (capital gains on homes is 2 years, so they had plenty of time to refinance or sell), yet some actually paid attention and limited their losses, and others believed that during recession (2001) it still made sense that house prices were on the rise.


Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.


I agree with you here as well. I like the practice of democracy and I don't have an issue with these people voicing their concerns, and like I said before, I don't see this problem solved by any existing politician today. I have no faith in the federal government, Democrat or Republican. So far I am liking the movement, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Tea Party. The moment I see the OWS people align with an existing corrupt party (choose your flavor), then I'll polarize against it.

Good day to you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> MonkeySpank:[snip]

I hope the OWS crowd doesn't count her as one of them. It would mean the message is "I made a bunch of bad financial decisions and now I don't want to deal with the consequences".

Taking out student loans you can't pay off is as much the fault of your underpaid HS teachers that told you University was the best way to go as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Buying an overpriced home you couldn't afford was as much the fault of your real estate agent as any Wall Street trader. Mostly though, it was your own decision, take responsibility for it.

Seriously, the Wall Street upper class have done an awful lot to create an uneven playing field to enrich themselves at the expense of others. They have made an environment were people who have made GOOD financial decisions, paid off their debts, and started investing are the ones getting hurt. Their investments are getting devalued, or more often just growing much slower than that of the ultra rich.

I'm sorry, but people like this reporter are flattering themselves to try and claim their lot in life is Wall Street getting them down. People like her have failed themselves, no help from Wall Street required.

This sort of protection is becoming common practice. Watch the Hot Coffee movie.

>> ^http://hotcoffeethemovie.com:

.........Mandatory binding arbitration clauses have become standard in credit card and real estate contracts, applications for bank loans and leasing cars, employment contracts and even some HMO policies. In some states, they may apply broadly to insurance contracts. If you’ve bought a car, had a credit card, purchased a computer, used a cell phone, invested in stocks, had insurance, saw a doctor or worked for a large corporation during the last decade, chances are you unwittingly forfeited your constitutional right to access the courts by “agreeing to” mandatory binding arbitration, even though you may not have even realized it.

Okay, explain how this magical fixed money system works? What would be used to fix the money supply? How could we ensure that people don't decide to keep their money in banks, where the banks can issue "bank notes" which people then use as surrogates for your fixed money supply? When we had a specie backed currency, these problems still existed.

Also, yes, the derivative securities market is the largest driver of inflation out there at the moment. Many estimates put the value of all these unregulated securities (that's right, poof, I have money, securities) at around $600 Trillion dollars. Makes our debt seem kinda trite doesn't it?

>> ^davidraine:

First, to my original point, a fixed money supply does not allow for fractional reserve banking -- By definition, fractional reserve banking varies the supply of money. Second, I don't remember massive inflation caused by the sale of unregulated securities, though I do remember a massive speculative bubble bursting and an economic crash.
>> ^bmacs27:

Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with the medium of exchange. Banks have engaged in fractional reserve banking since long before the abolition of the gold standard. A better argument is that the securitization of debt (deregulation of finance) has caused massive inflation by encouraging the underwriting of bad debt by allowing the risk to be sold off.

First, I'm not proposing anything -- I was just pointing out that inflation and speculative bubbles could be largely mitigated making the supply of money fixed. Second, a fixed money supply does not presuppose (or require) price fixing, so you can still use various property as a value store.
>> ^bmacs27:
Further, the video doesn't seem to explain that in our current system I can use my wages to purchase gold at market, and can thus use it as a store of value (if I actually believed it to be fairly valued against e.g. wages or real estate). In the government price fixing system you are proposing that wouldn't be possible, and the value of my gold would be subject to systemic risk (bad policy) just like currency is today.
>> ^davidraine:
I don't think they're calling for anything -- Simply explaining. Also, the point is that everything they point out is not true for any medium of exchange. The hallmark of fiat currency that makes it true is banks' ability to conjure money out of nowhere, which starts the inflationary and speculative balls rolling. With a fixed money supply, this can't happen.

I dunno, man. You make a good point about asking for fraud to be prosecuted. But a lot of the things that contributed to this collapse weren't fraud. They were just clever (albeit arguably immoral) ways to exploit the system.

For example, Goldman was pushing mortgage-backed securities at the same time he was shorting them. So they were actively selling securities that they were also betting against, making money on both ends. That represents a conflict. However, the information was publicly available, so there could be an argument for investors to do their diligence.

The problem wasn't just caused by corporate greed. Everyone had a part in it. Consumers thought they could get rich on real estate, and started buying (and borrowing) more than they needed. People were betting in the derivatives markets at a record pace. Many private investors got greedy, and 70% of us leveraged our credit too heavily. Now that credit is tightening up, the economy is adjusting to the new reality that there's just not as much liquidity in the market.

The sheer arrogance and stupidity of this guy, and his inflammatory rhetoric, perpetuates this ridiculous situation. Claiming that his imaginary god, acting as some sort of celestial real estate broker thousands of years ago, gave HIS "people" the land, and HE "came back and claimed it," is ignorant, bronze age nonsense. If it were palestinians building next door, and he was happy to live in harmony with them, as a fellow human being should, that would be true "progress my friend."

First, to my original point, a fixed money supply does not allow for fractional reserve banking -- By definition, fractional reserve banking varies the supply of money. Second, I don't remember massive inflation caused by the sale of unregulated securities, though I do remember a massive speculative bubble bursting and an economic crash.
>> ^bmacs27:


Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with the medium of exchange. Banks have engaged in fractional reserve banking since long before the abolition of the gold standard. A better argument is that the securitization of debt (deregulation of finance) has caused massive inflation by encouraging the underwriting of bad debt by allowing the risk to be sold off.

First, I'm not proposing anything -- I was just pointing out that inflation and speculative bubbles could be largely mitigated making the supply of money fixed. Second, a fixed money supply does not presuppose (or require) price fixing, so you can still use various property as a value store.
>> ^bmacs27:

Further, the video doesn't seem to explain that in our current system I can use my wages to purchase gold at market, and can thus use it as a store of value (if I actually believed it to be fairly valued against e.g. wages or real estate). In the government price fixing system you are proposing that wouldn't be possible, and the value of my gold would be subject to systemic risk (bad policy) just like currency is today.
>> ^davidraine:
I don't think they're calling for anything -- Simply explaining. Also, the point is that everything they point out is not true for any medium of exchange. The hallmark of fiat currency that makes it true is banks' ability to conjure money out of nowhere, which starts the inflationary and speculative balls rolling. With a fixed money supply, this can't happen.