I think it's on point.
Doctors rarely tell people forcefully enough that being obese will kill them and make their lives miserable and prone to disease. Not being obese helps your health in every way.

No, it's not a guarantee you won't get sick, a seatbelt isn't a guarantee you won't get hurt in a crash, but it absolutely helps your odds of not being hurt and minimizes injuries when you are.

No, being healthy doesn't mean you can't spread disease, but being health conscious means you would know better, and know how to be safer. If you weigh 500 lbs it's clear health isn't your priority with very few exceptions.

Bill has been saying this for decades....it's like he's suggesting fireproof surrounds for wood stoves. Just because people are burning their houses down in huge numbers now is not a reason to stop advocating for safety, it's more reason to be louder.

Most doctors don't. They nudge, hint, maybe say "if you eat more baby, we're going to have to take your foot" (Simpson's), they don't tell 65 year old women "you weigh 350 lbs, you need to drop 200 lbs now or you're going to die and we aren't going to waste money and effort treating you if you won't lose weight". They should, imo.

Being overweight should be treated like smoking, it's a choice for 99%+, and that choice effects others. Covid proves it, many can't be treated at all because so many have horrible illness, far worse than most other thinner and healthier countries.

Fat acceptance, even fat pride is a thing, there are millions who claim they're obese and healthy, and it's fine to be obese. Take Lizzo as an example.

Full disclosure, I'm not obese, but I am overweight at 5'9" 170lbs.

Never really cared for baseball. I prefer my sport players to be wearing fireproof suits.

For reference because this confuses the shit out of me.


Nonflammable -

non·flam·ma·ble
adjective \-ˈfla-mə-bəl\

: not burning or not burning easily : not easily set on fire
Full Definition of NONFLAMMABLE
: not flammable; specifically : not easily ignited and not burning rapidly if ignited

Flammable -



flam·ma·ble
[flam-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
easily set on fire; combustible; inflammable.
Origin:
1805–15; < Latin flammā ( re ) to set on fire + -ble
inflammable -

in·flam·ma·ble
inˈflaməbəl/
adjective
adjective: inflammable

1.
easily set on fire.
"inflammable and poisonous gases"
synonyms: flammable, combustible, incendiary, ignitable;
volatile, unstable
"inflammable fabrics"
antonyms: fireproof


WHY NOTS THE ON FIRES OR NOT ON FIRES-ABLE ??

I think it's a fantastic piece of woodworking. Very clever design. The intent is to hide guns from thieves that break-in to his home (presumably when he isn't there, otherwise this guy would shoot them).

I also think he needs more books and less guns.

It wouldn't be too hard to add-in a hidden combo lock or key lock for customers that want an extra level of protection. If there are kids in the house, then every gun should have a trigger-lock (which kids might find the key anyway).

Main disadvantage I see of this design versus a gun safe would be that this is in no way fireproof or waterproof.

seems reasonable to me its a common issue with batteries.

>> ^longde:

Jalopnik is a site of car enthusiasts. That said, way to attack the messenger. Has Tesla disputed this widely known and very harmful claim? Not directly.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.


Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

Jalopnik is a site of car enthusiasts. That said, way to attack the messenger. Has Tesla disputed this widely known and very harmful claim? Not directly.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^longde:
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.


Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

>> ^longde:

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.



Quality source you got yourself there. This is most likely bullshit...like the Toyota Prius crap that turned out to be a BUNCH of Fucking lies. I'm waiting until more evidence comes out...but I'm sure sensationalist news sites won't.

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.


[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.


Are you mental in what way does your comment make sense ?

electric from nuclear coal gas or whatever is as tax funded as the oil people put in cars It might even be the case that oil requires and consumes more tax funding if you include military expenses required to keep oil coming.

electric cars specifcaly might be tax funded projects but evan then when you calculate all involved costs I'm sure its negligible or comparable to the tax oil industry receives or other industries have received for RND.


Also why would it be inherently bad for things to be tax funded? even if electric cars are a bag of shit at this point in time and the technology might be debatable, at least if it did work out it would move america away from international dependencies which is what most conservatives, liberationists and liberals want.

Because you haven't made a coherent point your comment is redundant.

Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.

I'll tell you something. The hero was the starter. He jumped down there with no fireproof suit and got busy. Awesome.

>> ^marinara:

Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours, and then raise (fireproofed) steel to over 1000 degrees? What we know from other videos of WT7, is many of the fires extinguished themselves (burned themselves out).

I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)


Actually, cinder blocks will ignite and burn if hot enough and they make up most people's chimneys in their house. Different materials burn at higher and higher temperatures. The heat from the fire pulls in more air, which causes higher temp things to burn, which pulls in more air, etc. etc.

ANY large fire can burn over 1000 degrees. It just needs oxygen in quantity. If some sweaty bastard with a set of bellows can melt iron and steel in a forge, then air sucked in by a huge, uncontrolled fire can do the same. The whole structure doesn't need to bend, just parts of the bottom.

You can't equate a single-room fire test of material combustion with a fully involved structure fire.

...and yes, you are quite right, most fires, if not brought under control, make highrises into death traps.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.
I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.
That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.


http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm#implode
In a controlled demolition, the interior structures are removed first, in order to make the building fall inward. This video frames this fact as being against the theory of controlled demolition. How misleading.

Also this video compares a tanker truck fire to an office fire. Still need for someone to explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel.

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.

I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.

That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.