"It was important for me to create a film that lets people come to their own conclusions about the truth"

While I completely agree that Kavanaugh's posting was horribly corrupt and partisan, I don't believe the above statement for a moment.

Hopefully the film itself will prove me wrong by being an unbiased uneditorialised documentary of facts, but I think that's pretty much impossible in this political climate.

It smacks of the "do your own research" q-anon freaks, even though I don't expect it to by one tenth as manipulative.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Okay, the whole last statement is Bullshit.
"Americans are subsidizing the cost of drugs for the rest of the world." "The reason drugs are so expensive in the US, is becuase they are cheaper everywhere else."

BULL
Talk about shifting the blame.
The reason the drugs are so expensive is because the Drug companies are "for Profit" private companies, and they know people will die without their product so they also know there is an urgency for people to have the drugs. So they jack up the price for bigger profits. Stock owners want better return on their investments, so the board and CEO do everything they can/get away with to get as much as they think they can without breaking the bank. AKA, the consumer - of course, there is an acceptable death rate that they factor in, which they feel is safe to shield them from backlash, staying as close to that line as possible.

As always follow the money - see what these companies make in a year.

<iframe src='//players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6007817856001' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>
http://players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6007817856001


"As a result, even with major R&D spending, pharmaceutical companies remain highly profitable. They have the tenth highest average after-tax profit levels of more than 100 different industries. And according to figures from Axios, while drug companies bring in 23% of health care’s U.S. revenue, they make 63% of the total profits."

Your video, 1 Trillion to the tenth power, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your video, Siri answer of 1 trillion to tenth power., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 42 Badge!

Your video, Siri answer of 1 trillion to tenth power., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

It's not quite true to say it would take thousands of years to reach our nearest star. If only people weren't pussies about the small matter of exploding hundreds of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, we could use technology that existed in the fifties to accelerate spacecraft to as much as a tenth of light speed. Proxima Centauri in a matter of decades, no problem.

There's no reason to actually do that; nothing to be learned, nothing to gain in terms of technology or resource exploitation or potential for the future, but god damn it, it would be cool.

Oh all right. Vi Hart is always deserving of an upvote, especially if it's a tenth.

He seem pretty confident about a bunch of theoretical stuff..

Wouldn't you need an enormously powerful computer to stimulate a universe?

In what reality or universe does that computer exist?

Aren't we right back at the "big bang doesn't work because what happened before it" paradox?

Interesting.. but sorta silly.

I feel like the Tenth Dimension theory explain things better.

Even if the human decency argument makes absolutely no headway, you'd think the bottom line of one tenth of the expenditure would resonate which such a staunchly capitalist nation.

"Oh, it's far more cost effective? Fuck yeah!"

How dafuq do you get to a point where it makes sense to treat people far worse for 10 times the cost?

I'm at the point where anything that begins with a number can go fuck itself.

Click bait "listicles" need to die. Click here to see 10 reasons why. The tenth one will shock you!

I also found it interesting they highlighted the Ryugyong Hotel (the huge pyramid building). It's been under construction for 25 years, largely halted since the Soviet Union collapsed and the slush fund train ended. While the exterior is done according to wikipedia, the interior is not and it's always be unoccupied.

China's metropolises feed a similar misconception. They are similarly impressive that it's easy to forget that the country as a whole is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is half of Brazil, a quarter of South Korea and a tenth that of the US.

While China is obviously not as repressive as NK, the hukou dual citizenship system has a similar effect of segregation rural and urban dwellers. While rural workers may be able to move to work in the cities, they will enjoy none of the social benefits and protections that local citizens do. This has a lot to do with China's disparity of income and accretion of wealth to the large cities.

If only the film were a tenth as exciting.

Would you say drawing random hands of cards is what makes poker interesting?

Racing, by whatever limited definition I assume you're using that excludes all application of intellect, isn't one tenth of Formula 1.

Actually attending the events, incidentally, is quite the wrong way to appreciate the complexities of the game. It seems to me that you're nothing more than a shallow, gawping spectacle-whore.