I had to read about it on James Cameron's website to figure it out.

They are being converted into eggs.

Dude, 20 years is a long time to go without eating.
People were paying up front for games 20 years ago... so yes.

Anyway I've worked for several free to pay companies, and while South Park almost gets it right, they've missed an important aspect. It's all about landing whales, the vast majority of people do not, and never will pay for a game, I think the percentage of players who pay is something like 0.3% So it's all about making the whales feel important, they are essentially paying the developers for the admiration of other players. Anyway, I got out of free to play because I think it leads to bad game design (something the South Park video gets right.)

This is of course different from PC to console and mobile.With mobile being the worst, but PC MMOs, for example, have almost all gone free to play.

The bottom line is that if you're not paying for something, odds are whoever owns (and pays for it) it will have to end up selling you.

Game developers gotta eat too. Until grocery markets go free to eat, or people pay up front for content, this is what we get.

He didn't, at least not according to "Einstein: His Life and Universe." where he is reported to have said that his happiest thought was that Gravity and Acceleration are equivalent. It was a breakthrough for him to realize that a man in a falling elevator wouldn't feel the force of gravity, because they are the same thing.

Do they ever say what the cat is staring at? (I feel like I'm missing something when the camera pans)

Even the stuff that's not really harassment seems really annoying, it reminds me of the charity collectors that I have to deal with every time I go to the grocery store(I don't want to have to explain why I'm not donating to their homophobic charity every time I buy toothpaste). Makes me want to start a kickstarter for a t-shirt that changes to read "f*ck off" whenever someone you don't want to talk to talks to you.

There's a serious lack of information on both sides. I don't believe in damning someone until I know all the facts, and I think the situation as presented by the vloggers is disingenuous because they present the attack as being unprovoked, when it looks like it has something to do with a man being unwilling filmed. Yes, violence is wrong, but it looks like the attackee had a chance to deescalate the situation and instead chose to "poke the bear".

Reminds me of a discussion I got into with some friends about why is it okay to be a ninja for Halloween but not a geisha. They are both Japanese professions, both have had non-Asians in said profession, it seems a little random about what's racist and what isn't.

Hmmm, if you watch the beginning carefully the guy he attacked was filming him without his permission. The angry guy asks him to stop, and the man tells him, "I'm not going to stop." The angry man calls the man a homosexual because he's filming him without his consent, and then attacks him. But he does not attack the man simply because he thinks he's homosexual.

Wheel Chocks FTW

http://www.amazon.com/FloTool-11930MI-Heavy-Wheel-Chocks/dp/B000BQYH6Q

Hey sorry, I didn't mean to piss you off. I'm actually a big fan of ranked voting, and was just wondering why this issue wasn't addressed in the video. Also as a software developer, I would caution you that edge cases happen all the time, and it's a lot easier to fix a software bug then sort out corrupted data.

That doesn't work. Take a situation with candidates A,B, C and D; and 100 votes. If candidate A receives 67 votes (with D receiving 1 second place vote, and 66 "no second choices" ). B Receives 20 votes (with A as a second choice for all voters). C receives 13 votes, and D receives no 1st place votes. In your method D would inherit 33 votes and get elected, even though only person voted for D (as a 2nd choice behind A!)


I'd expect each candidate to receive 8/34ths of a vote with the extra 16/34ths staying with the original candidate. Regardless, the video itself doesn't address this situation, and it therefore flawed(Even if the voting system isn't).

What happens if white tiger gets 34 votes with 6 to orange tiger, 6 to silverback, 6 to monkey, and 16 to "no second choice"?

Except it doesn't work, the flaw occurs when applying unused votes to other candidates, this video assumes everyone who picked white tiger for their first choice will pick orange tiger as their second.