Hmm. I guess it isn't flapping nonstop for an extended period of time, but I'm still surprised that an invertebrate has the metabolism to expend the amount of energy it would require to flap/fly like that... Cool.

Thanks for the update.

That obviously makes things much different and worse. But "criminal homicide" would be a murder charge, right? Manslaughter would be a slightly lesser charge, so sounds like they are going full tilt.

That's a good sign I'd say, although still too early to be confident that it will stick.

"Maps" doesn't adequately describe the extent of information that things like these convey. They are more like "animated visualizations".

I took a computer graphics class in college where we learned about data visualization. One of the most famous examples in that field is Charles Joseph Minard's map/visualization of Napolean's march into Russia in 1812. On the surface, it is a 2D map. However, the width of the line showing the path of advancement conveys troop numbers, the color denotes whether they were advancing or retreating, and a connected chart below shows the air temperatures that the soldiers were exposed to, etc.

Basically, at a glance you can easily see the broad strokes of the advance and retreat, and you can get much more depth of information if you look a little closer. These kinds of animated visualizations are definitely continuing on in that same vein -- packing a lot of information into a presentation method that is easy to pick up and also very deep with some more inspection.

Wikipedia article about Minard showing that famous Napolean march visualization if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

@greatgooglymoogly -- "Lethal force is only for when someone's life is actively being threatened."

and @Mordhaus -- "You can't shoot a fleeing suspect in the back unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect 'poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm'."


A fair investigation absolutely needs to happen. BUT, it is at least possible that it was reasonable for the officer to make the judgement call that the kid was an active and significant threat of death or bodily harm to other people.

If he's running away from a car that was clearly used in a drive-by, with weapons in the car... I dunno, man. However questionable the officer's actions are, the kid getting himself into that situation requires a rather longer and even more questionable chain of life decisions.

I'm not saying that stuff is known (I haven't read or watched anything beyond the video), and again a fair investigation into the officer's actions is absolutely necessary. But at some point, I think @transmorpher makes a solid counter argument -- again, IF the stuff about him clearly having just been involved with a drive-by is true. Live by the gun, expect to die by it.

The bit about Schumer's graduation speech is sort of a weird thing to poke fun at.

In my experience as a teacher, if I find a lesson plan that works well I'm going to repeat it near-verbatim to multiple different classes of students, and I'm going to do it every year/term until it stops working. Same thing often goes for comedians, stage actors, musicians, etc.

Is it funny when you clip those together and show a near-robotic adherence to cadence, tone, etc.? Yeah, kinda. But it doesn't really show anything that is a valid criticism, which is what John Oliver's show is usually all about. Like, for example, criticizing citing the bible as justification for ridiculously draconian separation of families during immigration arrests... (hence the upvote)

Hillary's three word response on twitter:
"But my emails."
( https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336 )

I'm not a fan or supporter of hers, but that right there is a grade A quality burn, like when Obama called Dick Cheney the "worst president in his lifetime". Props where props are due!

@ChaosEngine --

I was mostly just being facetious. Although I do think that "blissful ignorance" is a fine approach when it comes to appreciating media / art / whatever. As such, I'd rather ignore any of the behind-the-scenes stuff and evaluate such works strictly in their own right.

I think that works well (for me at least) for existing, completed stuff. But it is honestly a shame when that behind-the-scenes stuff gets in the way of expansions, follow-ups, or graceful conclusions to the good stuff that came before. Doesn't mean I will enjoy the good earlier works any less, though.

@ChaosEngine -- Meh, I don't care except to the extent that any actual assholery prevents or negatively influences future media with him in it. (Which to be fair sounds like it has actually happened...)

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to watch Mel Gibson and Weinstein movies, Louis CK standup, and reruns of the Cosby Show.

I wondered if your use of the past tense should be taken to mean that they are no longer in business, so I googled. It appears that they are still going.

Interesting stuff in the Wikipedia article. It notes that the Surgeon General warnings about tobacco still apply, and in fact they have to include a disclaimer that says "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".

So now I guess I'm back to being surprised and a bit suspicious about the lack of evidence for smoked marijuana causing cancer, as opposed to tobacco being very clearly linked to cancer...

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

Ugh.

insert [I-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore.gif]

I personally can't even begin to imagine wanting to teach in an "at risk" sort of environment. It's awesome that there are people like her that do want to be part of the solution in those kinds of places, but you couldn't pay me enough or otherwise motivate me to voluntarily work in that kind of environment.

That being said, it makes it all the more obvious that if you do have somebody like that on your staff, you'd damn well better listen to every single suggestion or idea that they have and do your utmost to keep them there and happy. If the environment is so bad that it forces someone like that out, that really wants to be there, it is a massive red flag.

I doubt that the school stays open. That might be for the best -- sometimes it is best to put a wounded beast out of its misery.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

Oh yeah -- non-Thais generally don't have to worry about the "attitude adjustment" camps etc. Deportations are a possibility, but like you said you have to be really pushing it.