Can't imagine how the tiny one can win unless the last of the big ones drives itself off the platform. So 2nd place is good enough as a strategy?

LOL, East Palo Alto. I volunteered at the Boys and Girls Club there for a year when I lived in Mountain View. Two cops got shot and East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate ever that year. It's utterly insane how on one side of the 101 you have these multi-million dollar mansions and Stanford University and on the other side you have gangland.

Meanwhile, back on topic, when I moved to Mountain View in 2002 my rent was $800 a month for a studio apartment. The rent went up by $100 a year every year until I finally called it quits in 2007 when they wanted to charge me $1300 a month. I gave up ever actually being able to own a home in the Bay Area (let alone rent) and left in 2009.

In Japan now, and things aren't quite as bad as the Bay Area, but we've been house hunting recently and we're shocked at the disparity between what we want versus what we can actually afford, even with both us being full-time professionals. I know that 2nd place he goes to is supposed to be a joke but it's not that far off from the truth, at least as far as our experiences go. While the places we've been shown by the real estate agent are certainly habitable, they aren't particularly nice. So we're going to have to decide whether we want to live someplace not so great with the advantage being the mortgage will be paid off by the time we retire or just rent in a place we're comfortable with and wind up having to really budget hard after retirement since rent will consume a sizable portion of our pensions/social security.

Ah thanks, that's an interesting rule.

There is no benefit to the helper but quite clearly a big benefit to the person being helped. He retained 2nd place in this case which is not insignificant, it seems strange to do that with assistance.

I do like it but it is surprising to learn there is that level of compassion written in to the rules.

0:04 Guy in orange, 2nd place had his back wheel skip off a reflector. Such a tiny thing makes big.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

You are pretty much in 2nd place.

Goncratulations

So, all the schools were penetrated, and the 1st and 2nd place was a difference between scores of 59% and 57% ?
way to celebrate mediocrity!

(just kidding though - it's nice to see students having these kinds of training competitions. I'm sure the Red team could easily break into most professional installations as well.)

If the 'overage' of A's 67 votes is 33, D would not inherit all 33.
D had 1 2nd place out of 67. So he inherits proportionally.
D would get 33 * (1/67) = less than 1 vote.
33 * (66/67) would simply be non transferable, because they have no other place option.

Personally, I prefer a system where each candidate is individually rated from -100% to +100%.
So a ballot with 3 people, would let you write down 3 numbers. 1 per candidate.
- Each candidate's final result if the average of his rating.
- Final ratings are sorted by highest average, top N rated candidates are elected to N positions.
- All candidates are required to have an above 0 rating to be electable.
Meaning that there can be a vote of no confidence and no one is elected. (Aww, I guess we'd have to keep the laws we have until the next election cycle. No one elected to write more laws. Too bad )

-scheherazade

I've only seen half the telecast... it was shown in the middle of the night, so I taped it. The part of the race I've seen, and all the reports, were excellent. This one race should have put the haters back in their box... there was plenty of racing, plenty of action, and all it needed was someone to be excluded and have an appeal pending for the final outcome and it would be exactly like the F1 of old Only better!

Actually, given that Dan Ricciardo's appeal for 2nd place from Melbourne is still outstanding, I think we can even take that.

2nd place?!

In feminist theory there are many branches. There are two main branches that have sub-branches.

Liberal feminism - the idea that we are all equal through our capacity for rationality. Equality will come about through the practice and recognition of this equal capacity for rationality and as institutions change so too will women's capacity to demonstrate this. The reason that this currently can't be exhibited is because of a patriarchal system that views women as weak and soft minded. This leads lib fems to try to be "man-like" of mind so as to assert their equal status; girly but strong minded, ie. Thatcher(extreme example), Clinton, Rachel Maddow.

Radical feminism - Men are the oppressive class and women are the oppressed. (Try to deny it seriously. If not within the West then within the rest of the world) As a result women must form a opposition to this oppression by mens of taking sides. Women can still be equal of any attribute such as reason etc but none the less by virtue of their biological sex they are relegated to 2nd place based on that alone. The response is to form an equally if not more powerful class to overthrow the patriarchal system. Now this is where the original video things its anti men. It is anti patriarchy, anti a system millennia old that places political capital on birth right/biology. To argue against this risks committing a naturalistic fallacy whereby what IS is what is RIGHT. Through time we can cite all sorts of examples where that is not the case - slavery, pederasty, segregation. One way of addressing this patriarchy oppression is by banding together and attacking overt examples of gender/sex discrinination and oppression as is put forward in the video as reverse oppression (whatever). The other more radical feminism asks that women forgo their own proclivities and become political lesbians. This requires that they become a lesbian not only in solidarity with their sexed brethren but also actively reject men as a necessary part of a flourishing life.

So much of the discourse, on both sides, confuses the aims of which ever brand of feminism they prescribe (sometimes a mix of both) with instances of activism/oppression. Anecdotal evidence can only do so much in a systematic and ingrained norm such as gender roles.

The original video is laughably inane and self-agrandising in its selective use of anecdotes and conflation of one idea with another. It is as worse than radical-radical feminist arguments insofar as it cherry picks examples to highlight that which is unsystematic whereas rad fems point out things that are systematic but their ends are not understandable, or acceptable if understood, by most. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

TLDR; Lib fem, go with the flow and ask for gradual change. Rad fem, form a opposition of power and overthrow current system then restructure from what is divorced from historically contingient oppressive gender description.

Thanks to everyone who participated and congratulations to all our winners!

Grand prize goes to @ZappaDanMan for 82 votes on 6 player networked - Starship bridge simulator game

In 2nd place is @eric3579 with 35 comments and 242 comment up-votes on Videosifts Lann Walking Around "Your Rainbow Panorama"

In 3rd place is @UsesProzac with 10 comments and 41 comment up-votes on You're 5 foot nothin'

In 4th place is @mintbbb with 10 comments and 28 comment up-votes on F1 Belgium Grand Prix: First Crash on Corner

In 5th place is @Hive13 with 5 comments and 18 comment up-votes on Five Dollar Milkshake

All winners will get a VideoSift coffee mug:


The grand prize winner gets his choice of any VideoSift exclusive from the Sift Shop!

Jan. 11 It was near the first of the episode too. Around 3:21 time index

>> ^notarobot:

I'd like to see what he has to say, do you know the episode date? Hulu is blocked outside the US.

The guy at the front of the marathon has the pace car watching him non-stop, along with at least 1 of the mobile tv cameras.

The cheater probably had to wait for the gap between the pace car with the 1st and 2nd place runners and the rest of the group.

I was accused to cheating in a race once when I was a kid. A parent saw me behind her son near the end of the race, only to see me ahead of her kid by 50 feet at the finish line. The only possible explanation is that I had taken a shortcut to pass her son. When my dad brought me and my identical twin to the judges booth, she walked away without apologizing.

>> ^Yogi:

Before I clicked on it I thought that they were gonna talk about Ron Paul winning and THEN start talking about Herman Cain. I can't believe they could show that poll while immediately talking about the 2nd place winner, does this happen anywhere else in the world?!


This.

How they can manage to do this stuff so consistently and still call themselves "news" is totally beyond me. It terrifies me that some people take everything Faux News says as gospel.