Oh Bobby

You don't see the hypocrisy of Trump's whining, constantly (and incorrectly) claiming the FBI engaged in a politically motivated investigation of him based on Russian lies while he was a candidate, while at the same time he's undeniably trying to force a politically motivated investigation of a rival candidate based purely on Russian lies?

You also don't want to admit Steele was a personal friend of the Trumps when he began his report....or that the evidence that the lied is lying Russians claiming he lied.

I wonder, how do you think stating "I was responsible." is distancing himself?

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

No, I don't talk as if there has never been an amendment. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that since I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Changing the constitution is very difficult. It was made that way on purpose. Article 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability."

Whether you believe it is unsupported or unpopular has no bearing on anything. Just to be clear, I never wrote or implied they don't have the ability, only that the constitution prevents "government from effectively regulating arms."

The party in power may not fully represent your views, or the views of the people who directly support the party, no party ever does. But enough Americans wanted them in, and not the opposition who resoundingly lost, that they rule the roost. Considering how many Americans don't vote there is no such thing as a majority of Americans - there can only be a majority of those who vote. And this is not a measure for winning an election. The measure for winning is electoral college votes. The rules were set, one side played it better, the other side lost and whined about the rules.

"You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!"

I'll answer straight up. You. You are acting dumb. And paranoid. I don't know who those people are. Your "popular opinion" of what? I literally gave links to authoritative statistics for anything under contention. You need to see someone about your mental state.

Try to make people feel welcome. There is a reason this website is sinking into obscurity (look at the rankings).

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

I'm saying you're mistaken.
If you repeat it with the same certitude, now knowing you may be wrong, then you're a liar.
Lies are intentional misrepresentation, not just being incorrect.

So, the argument is two fold.
One, this issue of personal freedom/choice is important enough that it can't be left to states who might eliminate individual choice in favor of a state's choice. This is the liberal position on this issue, that states will take the choice away from individual woman in favor of the choice made for them, usually by groups of old men. That's why Roe V Wade is essential, it denies the states the right to enslave women to their unwanted, potential, in some cases forced upon them, offspring.

Second, he argued we can't allow laws that take away the freedom of individuals to choose, which slavery did...as do anti abortion laws. You cannot crush the choices of another person....this includes the choice to not be an incubator for another "person" (to misuse the word, assuming they're incorrectly insisting a blastocyst or foetus is a person, all medical and scientific evidence notwithstanding). The "developing life" (doesn't realize he just blew the "life starts at conception" argument with that phrase) cannot take away the rights of the womb's owner, cannot make them a slave to the blastocyst/foetus. The right to life argument fails when you realize no person is forced to donate blood or organs, which people need to live. Real right to life would extend beyond birth and require people become medical slaves to those who need them or their parts.

If it can live without help, fine, develop an abortive processes that allows that at any point in pregnancy, fund it across the board, and start the debate again. Until then, this dumbass just made two arguments for pro choice.
Pathetic.

Actual racists only use these new symbols when the mainstream recoils in horror and labels the trolls incorrectly as racists instead of as trolls, or just ignoring them. I think many spreading the "it's ok to be white" slogan are trolls too. They enjoy seeing people freak out at a phrase that says nothing negative about anyone, but many people will read into it a hidden meaning. You can't discern intention in these cases, only assume based on your personal previous exposure. I seem to understand it as a response/analog to "black lives matter" which most people don't think secretly means white lives don't matter, and the posters think the disproportionate response is racial bias.

Hey @ant, Can you do something about this click-bait title which is 100% incorrect as to the content in the video?
I know you just use the video title from YouTube, but since we have the ability to fix and change titles, this one especially is so far wrong that it it is just confusing.

Good for him. It's nice to see someone reevaluate their position and admit their mistakes publicly.....which is why it was so disappointing when Kurzgesagt pretended their correction video was all their idea and totally unrelated to and unprompted by coffeebreak asking about their mistakes.

Sadly the original angry video he's talking about is *dead....but maybe for the better.

I still would like a better answer about why Kurzgesagt, for years, left up a video he KNEW was misleading or just wrong and poorly researched than 'people said it helped them'....that's absolutely not an excuse to continue spreading misinformation, particularly when you pride yourself on being scientifically honest. He never even added a note to the video explaining that it was incorrect but somehow helpful, just left it up until he took it down after being called on it.

This goes down that road about the "Right to Repair". Apple isn't incorrect in their statements, but any answer that refers people to 3rd party repair services would fundamentally require them to condone the "Right to Repair" and essentially support / condone 3rd party repair services. Apple will not do that. That's a very hard line for them.

For a good time in a very related story line, google "apple right to repair" and you'll get tons of stories like these and some good insights into how Apple almost militantly protects its property and prevents you, the consumer, from even considering repairing a product owned by Apple.

I'm leaving this up for posterity, but it's clear I should have done my research on this. It is definitely incorrect.

"Postal child"

Hmm, that's something a Russian with only moderate ESL training would say.

"There is always a bit of truth in comedy."

As was pointed out, this isn't comedy. Comedy has to at least try to be funny, this is why Conservatives can't do comedy, they're such pitiful, self-hating creatures they think insult=comedy. Also, factually incorrect. There are plenty of jokes (word play, for instance) that have nothing to do with reality.

We know you're not ashamed. You lack the level of self-awareness required to know shame.

OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.