this video reminds me of a pet-peeve I had - when people used flatbed scanners but didn't crop the image down to the actual content...

???
https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/1400608443_jocelyne-wildenstein-zoom.jpg?quality=86&strip=all

What is their range and top speed? Can content be cooled, how is weather affecting the uav?

this channel is high quality content

content *promote

When you start posting videos, you can not post trailers. You have no right to tell other people to not post something (that doesn’t violate guidelines). Don’t like trailers? No one is forcing you to watch them. *redacted*

Your griping, as if you have some right or authority to determine the content others like, only makes me want to post more trailers. In fact, here’s the deal, every time you complain that someone posted a trailer, I’m going to post another one until you start posting videos yourself.

I, and others, like good trailers.

Again, what is your major malfunction?

Content *promote

*quality *doublepromote

And if you haven't seen it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0


Coincidentally, this is one of the sites i used to regular prior to social media and widespread smartphone use. I think taht's why I keep it on my regular loaded tabs. Can't find all of my comments because of siftpocalypse or siftmageddon or whatever we called it when the servers went poof~! Ive lost a hard drive or two in my day. Rough stuff.

Speaking of which, we should make an effort to revive this site and get some more sifters sifting. We do have something unique here, something I miss from record stores and Blockbuster, actual human curators of content.


actual human curators of content
^ we don't have algorythms, we have voting
We don't have bots, we have people

I, for one, am sick of over-monetized-bullshit that all sounds the same constantly being shoved in my face, so i end up here. Maybe some of us are still affected by the crazy propaganda bug, +cough cough+ but the debates look closer to an actual townhall than one infected with too much nonsense for its own good.

Perhaps this would be better in a sift talk post. :-p

Looky here, You have no right to complain since you don’t ever post a thing. If you don’t contribute, you have no say about content…by your own choice.
Not that you would be right to complain if you had. No one is forcing you to watch them…..wtf man!? What is your major malfunction?

laowhy86, who made the underlying video, lists his sources in his YouTube description as:

* https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-china-bgi-dna/
* https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/its-high-time-germany-fund-and-fix-its-military/159149/
* https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Directors-Select-Articles/Nanatechnology/
* https://nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/scientific_risk_assessment_genetic_weapon_systems06_cover.pdf

I've not checked the video's claims against his sources, but didn't hear anything about bioweapons or the PRC/CCP's interest in them that seemed surprising.

The video did strike me as partisan: I have no doubt that the USG is also working on weaponizing precision medicine. While I don't like partisan presentations, I recognize that may be acceptable to keep a topic tractable (thus, "Chinese genetic bioweapons" v "all genetic bioweapons").

I think this is a very important topic, so would like to see the _ideas_ discussed - not just our political differences exposed.

Can anyone expressing concerns about the original video indicate which _ideas_ they think are incorrect or overstated? (I'm not interested in the partisan aspect of the video: I'm aware of that already.)

*promote for the content...also pretty cool trailer

content *promote

content *promote

Howdy - I don't know if "addressed" is the right word. Commented on, but not given sufficient perspective. Having said that, the problem is incredibly complex, so there should be no expectation that Mr. Oliver's video or any other single thesis on the topic could possibly suffice.

Your "one chemical bond difference" is an appropriate consideration, but with recognition that once we reach on the order of C20-C40 length dispersable or emulsifiable molecules as surfactants / surface energy modifiers, the insoluble polymers come into play, with not 30'ish bonds growing one at a time, but leaping to 20,000 or more. No doubt the pool has already been irreversibly pissed into by the irresponsible producers that convert small molecules into very, very large ones, but with some control, responsibility, and integrity in our industrial process owners (yes, hell just froze over) there is no reason why we could not safely continue to produce the polymeric forms of PFAS. We do so for substantially more toxic chemical conversion processes today.

It's interesting to note the (usual) examples brought forward by others in this post (Teflon cookware), just waiting for someone to mention Gore-Tex, but by far the biggest impact won't be on consumer goods that we all touch regularly and recognize the name brands of, but will be on the industrial / commercial uses of these polymeric families that are pervasive in the systems / processes that we all derive benefit from every day. Ironies exist, that perhaps confuse the "all PFAS are bad" premise ... consider - effectively every seal, gasket and control valve in a water purification plant is most commonly made of a PFAS polymeric compound, PTFE included, all tested to rigorous specifications and compliance by specific agencies that do nothing other than deal with potable water (thankfully not the EPA - it's National Sanitation Foundation (the other NSF), or Water Research Advisory Scheme (WRAS) in the UK etc.) .

So my contention and the view of many in the end user community is that it's not the final form of some of these compounds that are bad, it's the horrendous messes we leave producing them. We can't unwind our Clock of Dumb, but killing the entire crop just to get rid of the long ago seeded weeds doesn't solve the actual problem, it makes it much, much larger.

Thanks for your comments.

Let me guess, another from the college level advanced creative writing class for seniors in high school being presented by her as a normal everyday class book (and hinting it’s in 4th grade classes).

If you’re upset a senior in high school might be voluntarily exposed to this material in his college prep class, you need to move into the Westboro Baptist Church compound and hate sex and freedom along with them, leave the public out of your puritanical shariah insanity.

You get worse language on prime time broadcast tv, WAY worse on say, Howard Stern, or Jersey Shore…this is maybe pg 13+ content, not xxx….and guaranteed not required reading. Get a grip.