By far the best class I took while getting my Computer Science degree was "Software Engineering Project". We got assigned a project and divided up into teams including CS, CIS, and MIS majors. The MIS people managed and divided up assignments, and the CS people handled different aspects of the programming, like data structures / algorithms / UI / whatever.

This looks like an extremely fun and interesting extension of that. There's CS guys programming, EE guys doing hardware / sensors / haptic panels, full-on Engineering guys doing fluid dynamics, etc.

Destin seems like a great "jack of all trades" type that can get in there and ask really smart questions off the cuff. All the guys geeking out and being impressed with his intuitions and yet hesitant to confirm anything is hilarious to watch.

Two thoughts:

1) Remembering something shameful or terrible can cause a person discomfort that they don't know how to deal with particularly well. They might go numb and blank. They might cry. Or, they might laugh -- which can seem incredibly inappropriate from an outside perspective.

2) Even if one were to give Lance the benefit of the doubt here with regard to part 1 there, a person in a position of authority (like a Superintendent) needs to follow up and try to make amends, along with showing some empathy and understanding that it is his job to try to prevent that kind of shit from happening NOW.

I guess it is possible that after the meeting, he went out and apologized and said that he regrets what he did when he was a young, stupid kid, and that that motivates him to work hard to prevent that kind of stuff now that he is in a position to do so. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

I got way too far into that still thinking "there are ski slopes in Georgia?!"

Why yes, I am an American idiot.

Never had a python inside my house here in Thailand, but have had a couple of ~1m tree snakes (non-venomous) sneak out from behind dressers, etc.

But I am kind of known as the crazy snake-loving foreigner in my area, so I got called in to a neighbors kitchen one time and discovered a young monocled cobra (also about 1m). I really wanted to try to hold it by hand, but decided it was probably better to use a broom handle and guide it into a box. Then released it into an empty lot. Later, I realized that I probably should have opted for some eye protection -- some of the local cobras are spitters.

Generally, Thais kill snakes and then fire up the grill. Nice to see they kept this one alive, for the time being -- although the older fella yanking on the head probably didn't do it any favors. Snakes are quite tough though. Also fun to hear the chatter in Thai.

I follow comfcore with near-religious fervor. Quoth the prophet Andy Dwyer (Chris Pratt from Parks and Recreation): "Do I have to tuck my shirt in? Because, honestly, that's kind of a dealbreaker."

(as an aside, quite surprised I can't find a YouTube clip of that quote by itself)

I think I can remember seeing a few ties, but mostly back in the pre-Ken Jennings era when it was capped at 5 wins as you say.

I've been in Thailand for over a decade, pretty hard to get my Jeopardy fix here. YouTube has full episodes sometimes, but I haven't found a torrent source for reliable dailies. So, I haven't watched very much in the past 10+ years.

They used to just carry both (or all 3) players that tied forward to the next day, correct?

Why change?

Hadn't considered that. Seems too good and varied, but then again there was just that "Photoshop for Audio" thing that sounded like Obama, etc...

"Should I tell them this script is incoherent nonsense? Wait, the check cleared? Fuck it, carry on."

Been there, my friend. Been there.

Am I missing some reason why that restriction on declaring a dupe is sensible?

I suppose it could be abused ... but has that ever actually happened? Seems like it would be easier to allow it, and then revoke that invocation if/when somebody does actually abuse it.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

I'm honestly rather confused about the NRA stance (or lack thereof) with regards to mental health.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." OK. So... Wouldn't it make sense to go after those people that are the problem, then? Crazies with guns equals pressure to take away the guns from everybody, which is exactly what you don't want. Wouldn't mild inconvenience of background checks / licensing be better than bans? (from NRA perspective)

I felt like: