Interesting to see how it selected that upper-left corner as an integral part of its strategy, despite its inefficiency. I'm guessing it wouldn't have developed that had there been a lower number of moves allowed - would cause it to favor strategies which optimize movement a bit better.

@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...

They mispronounce February.

*moves toothpick to other side of mouth*

"Perhaps this is because placing the r sound in the word makes it slightly more difficult to pronounce, and since laziness tends to get the upper hand when we speak, Febuary has become the common pronunciation. However, despite this, the word is correctly pronounced February."

www.grammarerrors.com/pronunciation/february-pronounced-febuary/

Upper right corner next to your name

I'd say it isn't overly depressing. It's not San Junipero level happy, not even Hang the DJ. Perhaps somewhere around USS Callister and Nosedive. It's not overly depressing.

There are certainly sadder endings than others. I've watched/played it twice and basically hit 4 or all 5 endings. though I'd say there are only 3 or so "real" endings. As one can perhaps tell by the trailer, he's making a game called Bandersnatch, and there are 3 reviews of the game, which is what I'd call the real endings. The other hard endings, generally let you reset, and go back to one, or even two, key moments to reset the story lines. In those two viewings I don't recall the Jerome F Davies laughing scene that is seen in the trailer.

There are a few cool points. Like you pick which cereal you want in the morning, it'll be noted later in the show. Your music choice will effect a line later. There are some Black Mirror Easter Eggs as one would expect.

It's not the best Black Mirror episode, San Junipero is impossible to beat I'd think. but it is far from the worst. It's in the upper half, perhaps upper 3rd or even quarter.

My understanding is <7% of the tax cuts were used to raise wages or create new jobs, the rest mostly going to upper management, stock buybacks, and automation (eliminating jobs). Trump and the Trumpeteers have called that a win for the working class.

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

Your statement.....

"Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave. "



Is quite naive. You give the woman a victim hood mentality .

What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation.

The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.

The woman carries internal pain.

Which is hurt most?


Agreed most cases are he said she said and she mostly gets the wrong end of the deal. But this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman.

Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed.



Trump has nothing to do with this. False accusations of woman are. And it will ruin you.

From my understanding the whole point of rhyming slang was obfuscation.

The idea was to be able to communicate in plain sight while "outsiders" (police, upper class, etc) missed the true intent, although this mostly speculation.

Why? Were they cursing in Japanese?
Certainly it's not because you can see her upper chest, right? There's no nudity here.

As usual, you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

Manafort was convicted of repeatedly committing felonious frauds with the express purpose of hiding his massive financial ties to Russia and hide the fact that he is a foreign agent working for them and has been for years if not decades.

Paying out of your pocket to women to not say anything in order to help your campaign for president, which Trump did repeatedly (according to his personal lawyer who has released tapes of them discussing it) without disclosing it as a campaign contribution is absolutely a crime, as is making a personal contribution in those amounts.

Lying about it can also be a crime, which is part of why he cannot testify. He knows he'll also be asked about them and all the other women he's screwed and paid, and he doesn't know what they can prove, so has no idea which lie to tell. He also cannot testify about his finances without admitting many more felonious frauds. No blue dress needed when you're talking about an admitted criminal fraud and consummate liar like Trump, and btw, making a blue dress dirty wasn't a crime either....hiding it and lying about it under oath was....and Trump lies 3 times per sentence. He will never survive any interview under oath....he just isn't capable of honesty.

These are high crimes, felonies, not even misdemeanors. If Clinton had 1/10 the ties to Russia you would call her a Putin stooge and be calling for her head, and you know it. If her administration had 1/10 the convictions you would be frothing at the mouth for impeachment and be irate there was any obstruction to the special council or delay in getting her testimony, and claiming the convictions were absolute proof of her guilt. The smoking gun will be found, huh.....now that the multiple decades of investigations are over and she's been cleared of any crimes, and there's no accusations of actual criminal activity forthcoming (if you say pizzagate I'm going to assume you're actually mentally deficient and stop talking to you)...NOW the smoking gun will be found. *facepalm

If there's a log of smolder and smoke on the Clintons, there's a blast furnace on Trump. His entire upper echelon is either convicted of high crimes against the state, fired, both, or at odds with him for unpresidential actions and for trying to politicize the justice system like a despot. So much for his "I have the best people" lie, eh?

You are so blatantly hypocritical it would be funny, if only there weren't tens of thousands of you willing to say any kind of ignorant nonsense if you think it distracts from the overtly and undeniably criminal administration you support. That's pretty damn unpatriotic of y'all.

I'm not horrified by what was shown in the video. Not in the least. I'm just interested in the gender bias and how it affects application of the law.

With regards to your comment about physical size, what if a young (or just petite) male server weighing 130-140lbs, was groped this way by a heavier woman? Would he then be justified in throwing her down? I suspect the media outcome would still be different and result in the male server being charged. This is gender bias because men are supposed to "suck it up".

As I said, if a man grabs a woman or shoves another man, he should expect to get blasted in the face. I was brought up to never hit a woman (or anyone really) and do believe men need to show more restraint in confrontations with aggressive women because men are typically stronger and, probably on average, more physically capable in a fight.

Getting off topic a bit, but the problem I have with the modern feminist movement is that it is becoming much less about equality between the sexes and more about gaining an upper hand on men. Many modern radical feminists seem to want to be treated equally until it doesn't suit them. So I agree with you that modern society has gone a bit crazy trying to say that there are no differences between men and women. But that is getting off topic.

Not only is there no rim left, there's no brake rotor or stub axle, even the upper A-arm is just gone.
Running from a hit and run I expect....or it's just a Wednesday in Florida.

I’m shocked the cop didn’t try and say the cyclist ran into him and blew the stop sign or something. So, at least the cop was professional (or inexperienced) enough to admit his guilt and not try to screw the cyclist over. That’s going to be an expensive replacement though. Looks like an upper end bike, with Di2 (electronic shifting $$$), and carbon wheels, which will probably need to be replaced as well (at least the front). I’d say that bike could be $5k-$8k. This is why I’ve started riding with a video camera front and rear. You just never know when you might need clear evidence, especially as a cyclist.

Ants do have three times the upper appendages we do, if you include the antennae.