I've said it before, i'll say it again - all women films are fine, all women remakes are fine, but for god's sake let it not be this tokenistic gesture of bullshit.

This wasn't done because it was a good idea. How do i know? Because a ghostbuster remake at this point wasn't a good idea. If you think otherwise name the 4-person cast, women and/or men, that would make this a good idea.

We're not ready for a ghostbusters remake, but i imagine a lot of shrewd businessmen in hollywood saw a gilt-edged opportunity in the booming equality scene and Ghostbusters scripts were being floated at the time. Not done for any good reason; done for money. And now this will be cited as to why female led films don't succeed.

People so easily forget about the aliens franchise. Potentially one of the biggest franchises. All of them have been female led (Noomi Rapace, Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder) in a genre that is barren of other successful examples, and it was originally written for a man.

So - when decent people see the right actress for the right role performing quality material, you get successful female led films. You don't say "let's remake something but they're all women lol." It's something that natural and happens when those at the top are blind to gender - that's what you need to sort out, but they throw a few breadcrumbs "here, make a boil-in-the-bag all woman film" and we look the other way.

I feel lost in a world of extremes, where equality is that we split up and write ALL WOMEN films and ALL MEN films and never the twain shall meet, and we argue over which are more successful. I guess it's like our evolution through racism all over again; we're using segregation to solve an equality problem? And some who claim to be egalitarians cheer it on!

I think this narration makes a lot of assumptions.

That wolf was never domesticated. Domestication is a genetic adaptation that involves retaining juvenile traits that allow an animal to overcome the boundary that would instinctively cause them to flee or fight. This would take many generations. You can imagine how that adaptation would be advantageous to animals that benefit from living at the edges of human settlement.

There's no way to know why that wolf interacted the way it did but it was wild and posed a potential risk due to it's instinctive programming.

Happy that it remained an uplifting story. But it's not responsible to spread the narrative that you can domesticate a wild animal.

I think both results were discarded because the voter turnout was crazy low.

From my standpoint, I would prefer we give them independence. We really do not need another state and they are pretty much going to declare bankruptcy as soon as they are granted statehood. The island serves no strategic or economic purpose and we have enough states/cities that are skirting the edge of falling into insolvency as it is. Illinois, for instance, is having massive money issues and is likely to default on close to a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in pensions.

We could build in a period where people there could still move here as citizens, say 10 years or so.

That one was cool. Very interesting to try to infer what their algorithms / strategies are based purely on their emergent behavior.

I'd label 3:46 a "come at me bro" strategy -- present a target and attempt escape when the opponent charges.

Lots of "spirograph / can't hit what you can't see" in there. Never sit still, go straight until the edge of the ring is detected, turn and repeat.

And the "matadors" are also very interesting, with their distracting / confusing actuated flags.


As an aside, I'd assume there are weight classes?

You can get almost any steel to be really sharp, the difference in quality comes in with how long it holds that edge.

Yes definitely a performance. True that it takes the edge off a bit.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

I'm thinking that the bag was open at the bottom when Teller stepped in. He stays upright long enough for us to see that his head is in the bag, then quickly crouches, pops under at the bottom, and seals the bag after himself.

He tugs gently on the bottom to remain hidden, and so the guy holding the string doesn't notice the weight change.

We never get to see the bottom, because the lights are still too dim immediately after he is revealed.

The helium quickly lifts the bag too high for us to see the bottom, but it does have a sort of heart shape at one point, suggesting a seal in the middle of the bottom, rather than the straight edge a factory-made bag would have.

He, and all the conservatives, will NEVER care. Fox News, and the conservative media machine are still sucking the chrome off Donald's cock. They'll point out how Markovic smiled when pushed out of the way, and so it was just being playful. Even if it came out that Donald himself worked with the Soviets Russians, to hamper the elections, they still wouldn't care, because he did what was necessary and smart, to prevent Hillary and the Deamoncrats from winning. Like he said, he could shoot somebody in the street, and his supporters wouldn't care.

The only people who regret their vote for him is likely to be the liberal, Never Hillary people who voted for him, those who somehow thought he'd actually disrupt Washington and drain the swamp, and a few others who may have been on the edge of voting for Hillary and at the last moment voted for him.

Until conservative media actually turns against Trump in a real and meaningful way, and not the occasional thing to pretend they are "fair and balanced", but really turn on him the way they were against Obama for 8 years (where one couldn't watch Fox for more than 30 minutes without them bashing him), then most of the conservatives out there will never turn against him, never admit there are huge issues.... of course they'll say, "yeah, we had those fears too" once conservative media turns against him.

And today being a beautiful day and the Monday of a long weekend hordes of people were back there to see if they could spot the sea lion. And they could and they were still feeding him and sitting on the edge of the dock with their backs to the water.

Am I missing something or is that the edge of his shoulder? I mean that's already amazing footage, no need to misrepresent it.

Recently I was surprised to see a ruler that had centimetres on both edges.

I have no fucking idea what imperial weights are but more often than not I'll give my height in feet.

OK, dumb question; how do you know where the edges of the road are? Non-military spec GPS can't be accurate for this application to within 6 inches...

So---how do they know?

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

If im reading this right you guys are talking about two different things. You about hitting the guardrail and him about actually plunging over the edge.