Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 392 of 394 FirstFirst ... 292342382390391392393394 LastLast
Results 29,326 to 29,400 of 29523
  1. #29326
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I'm not saying anyone needs to take it to the barricades, I'm saying they should probably try to argue for their rights, not against them.
    I agree. But if you're saying that's what we're doing, then you're completely mis-representing our arguments here. So for the last time: We're not saying they don't have rights, we're saying they're not the only ones who have rights.


    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Attitudes matter, in fact they're almost the only thing that does. No one can actively be for every single oppressed group's rights, but what they can do is try to not actively be against them. Everyone can do their part by re-evaluating their own stances and the justifications behind them, standing up for them when they see someone acting or arguing against them, supporting the causes either with their work or donations, voting etc.

    Then you need to find someone who is guilty of this and try to change their attitude. So do all of us. I just don't think any such people are currently active ITT.


    More generally, I think this is why people get frustrated with "wokeness." It's admirable to champion the rights of people who are oppressed, and most reasonable people agree that that's fair. I do it myself. Where it can turn otherwise reasonable people off is when someone instantly rejects any concerns expressed for anyone other than the oppressed group and assertions that the non-oppressed group's rights are no less important than the oppressed group's rights. And then call the people saying that assholes on top of it.

    I'm not saying you guys are doing this deliberately ITT, but it is coming across that way.

    To take an extreme example, let's say someone comes out in favour of freedom of religious expression. Fine, none are us are going to object to that. But then they say "all religions and all expression, including satanists who want to sacrifice virgins." Then someone says "uh no, virgins have a right to live too," and the response is "arrggghghg! You anti-religious asshole! Don't you care about satanists' rights?" That's kind of similar to how you guys are responding to me and Ong here.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  2. #29327
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @ong's wall of text

    All this changing of the subject. All this energy to defend ignorant people's irrational fears. All this energy spent on what amounts to justifying the continued mistreatment of a minority group that is, at its core, just people being people. All this BS about laws and bathrooms and sports and other distractions from the point.

    All that is stuff you've brought up, not me. All of that is your incomprehensible counter to my statement, "Don't treat someone like a jerk unless they're being a jerk." How can you even honestly argue with that sentiment in good faith?
    You're not that guy, ong. I'm not friends with people like that, and I think I know you well enough by now.

    You say I'm usually rational, but now I'm just trying to accommodate your speculations and questions in an area which I have no expertise. I'm not a lawyer or politician or psychologist or historian, and you're asking me how to solve greater social problems than just your and my personal choices and behaviors. Obv. I'm not trained in any of this, so my answers can't be good. But again, none of that is my point.

    Please don't conflate my lack of expertise in these areas to mean I'm being irrational. You're dragging me off topic, and frankly, it feels like you're just trying to find any excuse to not grow or learn or recognize that there are enough problems in the world without adding on irrational jerk behaviors into someone else's life.


    My original point was just to accept what people tell you about who they are and to not be a jerk to someone who's not being a jerk to you. That's my point. If someone says, "I'm gender non-binary, please use they/them pronouns for me." and you respond, "I can't even tell what gender you are." That's rude. Their gender is non-binary, which they just told you, and your opinion about how they look is shallow.

    If you don't want to talk to them, well, that's a separate question. If you simply choose to continue to call them something they don't want to be called, then that's grade-school level bullying shenanigans. Well, grow up. Stop being a jerk to people who aren't being a jerk to you. Just call Jeff, Jeff and call Steve, Steve. You already just call people what they tell you to call them, so just extend that skill you already have onto pronouns. It's minimal effort for you and it makes other people not feel like shit.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  3. #29328
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,638
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think this is a common theme with you though. You're quick to take the moral high ground with someone and when they point out why that's not on, you dig in your heels.
    Yeah it's funny to get him going over stupid shit though.
  4. #29329
    I mean I don't even know how you can argue with someone who's jacket says "Prime Minister," but whatever.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  5. #29330
    *whose

    That one annoys me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #29331
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    All this BS about laws and bathrooms and sports and other distractions from the point.
    You're the one that appears to be distracting from the point.

    We agree on one thing here... don't be a jerk for no reason. Where we don't seem to agree is on the actions that make someone a jerk.

    You seem to think women's spaces and sports are an irrelevant side issue, but this isn't the case at all, not from my pov. You telling me this isn't the point is basically you dismissing my concerns, leaving me only able to debate stupid things like pronouns. And I made it clear already, I don't care about pronouns.


    Please don't conflate my lack of expertise in these areas to mean I'm being irrational.
    The reason I don't think you're being rational is because you keep dismissing me when I talk about sports, even though both myself and poop have cited examples where it's happening. It's like you don't want to discuss the social consequences of what you would call "not being a jerk".

    My original point was just to accept what people tell you about who they are and to not be a jerk to someone who's not being a jerk to you. That's my point.
    Ok, but you told me it's offensive for me to suggest those who identify as women, but aren't actually women, should not be allowed to use women's restrooms. I'm disputing this. I think it's offensive for a man to put a dress on and walk into the women's restroom. I don't think it's offensive for a man to put a dress on. I'm not being a jerk. This isn't transphobia. It's not manphobia when women say I'm not allowed in their restroom. It's just social decency. We respect the spaces of other sexes and genders.

    If someone says, "I'm gender non-binary, please use they/them pronouns for me." and you respond, "I can't even tell what gender you are." That's rude.
    This isn't a discussion. Everyone here agrees with this. Nobody is going to say to the face of a genderfluid individual "I can't tell what gender you are". The most awkward it gets face-to-face is when they correct you if you misgender them. That should happen once max.

    Nobody here is going to be a jerk to a trans person. We're all socially competent enough to be polite.

    This isn't something we disagree on. This isn't why we've got mileage out of this. We disagree on other aspects that you don't seem to want to discuss.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #29332
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    *whose

    That one annoys me.
    Good catch. I saw it after I posted but couldn't be bothered.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  8. #29333
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    If your position is to always use the pronouns people ask you to use, then I missed that. I'm sorry if I've been pressing a point that you already agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by ong
    This isn't a discussion. Everyone here agrees with this.
    I basically quoted how this conversation started.


    If you agree with me that gender is a spectrum and it always has been...
    If you agree with me that denying rights like restrooms in public spaces (that have restrooms) is a problem...

    Then why are you only putting up reasons to maintain the status quo?

    Why can you only cite 1 person from over a decade ago in MMA which had some advantage in bone density without any medical connection to how much of an advantage that was or anything.

    The majority of the hubbub around trans people in sports that I'm aware of in on the high school level. Where a trans person has been on hormone suppression since age 14 or so. That person has no bone density advantage... and I'm not at all clear if this bone density advantage plays out to so much in sports that aren't MMA (or even in MMA).

    You have a right to be offended at the man in a dress.
    I'm totally cool with you being offended over what you perceive as a threat to women.
    But 2 things:
    (1)Why does the mere presence of someone who looks other than you expected using a bathroom you don't intend to use matter at all?
    (1a) What "rational" reason? (Other people's irrational fears don't count as your rational reason, mind)

    (2) Why should your offense matter to anyone but you and people who care about you? Why should your offense have any bearing on someone else's behavior? People do things that offend you all the time. Why does your offense mean nothing there, but something here?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  9. #29334
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Then why are you only putting up reasons to maintain the status quo?
    I'm not. I've said I'm ok with trans toilets, with trans sports. I'm fine with progress. I'm not fine with this coming at the cost of the progress women have made.

    If you agree with me that denying rights like restrooms in public spaces (that have restrooms) is a problem...
    We agree it's a problem and disagree on the solution.

    Why can you only cite 1 person from over a decade ago in MMA which had some advantage in bone density without any medical connection to how much of an advantage that was or anything.
    Well I can't speak for poop but I cited one example out of laziness, also it's not the point. Trans athletes competing with women is not something we have a long history of. There are examples, but not many.

    That's likely to change in the coming years. I'll be sure to post examples when they arise.

    The majority of the hubbub around trans people in sports that I'm aware of in on the high school level.
    My concern is elite level. Sport at school is a different matter, not something I feel strongly about. Although, the restrooms and shower issues are still very much relevant here.

    That person has no bone density advantage...
    There's a great deal more to this than bone density. Testosterone is the obvious example, but there are all sorts of hormones playing a role. There are other physical differences too, like average weight and height. Men are, on average, stronger and faster. I'm not fact checking this, but I would close to 100% of sporting outright world records will be by men. Even Serena Williams is probably only something like the 50th greatest tennis player of all time.

    (1)Why does the mere presence of someone who looks other than you expected using a bathroom you don't intend to use matter at all?
    It doesn't matter that I don't want to use that toilet. This isn't about me. It's about the kind of society we live in. And that's something I know will resonate with you, because it's the same for you. Only you want a society where there's no discrimination. I want a society where women are safe. Both great causes. Only, there's inevitable conflict. If you protect women, for example by giving them somewhere to take a shower after swimming, then you discriminate against others by saying they can't use that facility.

    (1a) What "rational" reason? (Other people's irrational fears don't count as your rational reason, mind)
    The same rational reason that women and men already have separate facilities. Privacy, comfort, and to a degree, safety.

    (2) Why should your offense matter to anyone but you and people who care about you?
    This is basically what I asked you when you told me your were offended by my comment. I asked you why your sense of offense trumps mine. You told me it was because you weren't being a jerk, or words to that effect.

    But see above. This isn't about me. It's not like I'm personally offended, like someone shat in my cornflakes. It's that I don't think it's healthy for society. It offends my sense of morality. And I am definitely not alone in thinking such. I think I'm speaking for the majority on this issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #29335
    MMM, you don't see the conflicting interest here? For example, you can't see how it rubs some people the wrong way that a person who has enjoyed the privileges of being a man their whole life can suddenly occupy space reserved for women? I don't love the term TERF, since it's not neutral, but openly derogatory, but for lack of a better phrase: some TERFs are surely motivated by transphobia, as any position critiquing a group will be populated to some degree by those bigoted against that group-- but nonetheless they do have some reasonable concerns and handwaving/accusing people of bigotry doesn't actually get rid of the conflicting interests.

    Zooming out, I think it's a bad dynamic that has arisen where disingenuous status quoists try to halt progress with "what aboutism" and "reasonable concerns" and in turn those for progress ignore or hand wave all concerns, even legitimate and/or earnest ones.
  11. #29336
    The term TERF is stupid, and you've proven it for me boost by using terms like "status quoists" which is somewhat more accurate. TERF means trans exclusionary radical feminists. Emphasis on "radical". To be radical, one must push for change. You can't be both radical and a status quoist.

    The trans rights activists are the radical ones. Not that radical is a dirty word. It's not. It's just inaccurate when used in the acronym TERF.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #29337
    I think the idea is that they're radical feminists first, and that's what makes them TE. A radical doesn't necessarily want to change everything.

    I also agree with Boost's point that it's easy to make the mistake of seeing issues as black/white, right/wrong, when they are usually more nuanced than that. You can be in favour of both trans rights and non-trans rights, and acknowledge they sometimes conflict. It's not about taking sides, it's about recognising that there aren't always easy answers.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  13. #29338
    I agree it's nuanced, and I acknowledged this during the discussion. I'm not really picking a side, I'm simply trying to protect social norms that are already established where there is conflict. When trans rights comes into conflict with women's rights, then I'm picking women's rights. Where there is no conflict, there is no problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #29339
    I see jyms doing his monthly check to see if dwarfman has a new account.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #29340
    How long until it breaks free and terrorizes the population? Any bets?

    https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/st...83232710991875
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  16. #29341
    I would not have thought this would be amusing. But it is. Seagulls walking on a tent.

    https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/s...66175421091851
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  17. #29342
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  18. #29343
    I'm surprised the glider didn't disturb the delicate balance of air pressure, causing this to collapse. Seems like an intricate cloud formation.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #29344
    I think it's closer to a tornado than a cloud. We had things like this back home, they were called dust devils.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  20. #29345
    I don't mean to be a pedant but a tornado is just part of a larger cloud system.

    What we have here is the local low pressure region. This region drifts with the overall air current, and is accompanied by a rotating column of air. When there's dust, or water vapour, in the vicinity, we can see it. A tornado is an extreme example of this where the pressure in the centre is so low that it affects much more air and creates violent winds. I think, anyway. I'm no expert. But even with tornados, it's a delicate balance. If that column of air is sufficiently disrupted, it can cause the system to collapse. Like, in that dust devil clip, you might even be able to simply stand in it to kill it. Obviously a tornado is many orders of magnitude harder to break, but you should in theory still be able to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #29346
    Just watched all that clip, someone does stand in it and doesn't kill it. But I reckon a tree would finish it off.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #29347
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't mean to be a pedant but a tornado is just part of a larger cloud system.
    You very much mean to be a pedant if you say that lol. And you're probably wrong too. If you said "weather system" or "atmosphere" you'd be more accurate, but still sufficiently vague as to be practically meaningless.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like, in that dust devil clip, you might even be able to simply stand in it to kill it. Obviously a tornado is many orders of magnitude harder to break, but you should in theory still be able to do it.
    They don't die as soon as they come in contact with you, they just blast dirt into your eyes.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  23. #29348
    You very much mean to be a pedant if you say that lol. And you're probably wrong too. If you said "weather system" or "atmosphere" you'd be more accurate, but still sufficiently vague as to be practically meaningless.
    Trying to outpedant me are you? A tornado is always part of a cloud, usually a cumulonimbus cloud. Nothing wrong with what I said. Tornados happen because of what's happening in the cloud. It's part of the cloud. Clouds are pretty complicated things.

    They don't die as soon as they come in contact with you, they just blast dirt into your eyes.
    Air doesn't go through you though, it goes round you, which takes energy out of the system. If there's enough convective currents (I assume this is the source of energy for the dirt devil) then the energy taken out will quickly be replaced and the rotation will continue. But if there's sufficient disruption of the surrounding air, then it will collapse and won't reform.

    I'm just speculating here, but dirt devils don't have violent winds, so presumably don't require nearly the amount of energy to destroy them. I suspect in some cases it's human-scale energy levels.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #29349
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Trying to outpedant me are you? A tornado is always part of a cloud, usually a cumulonimbus cloud.
    Says who?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Air doesn't go through you though, it goes round you, which takes energy out of the system. If there's enough convective currents (I assume this is the source of energy for the dirt devil) then the energy taken out will quickly be replaced and the rotation will continue. But if there's sufficient disruption of the surrounding air, then it will collapse and won't reform.

    I'm just speculating here, but dirt devils don't have violent winds, so presumably don't require nearly the amount of energy to destroy them. I suspect in some cases it's human-scale energy levels.
    They tend to just die out on their own. But I have definitely been caught in one and that didn't stop it. Can't speak for the science of dirt devils as a whole. I'd reckon their winds are about 70 mph*

    * According to google it is 60 mph.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  25. #29350
    How tornados form.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  26. #29351
    So basically tornados a part of certain clouds? Cool.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #29352
    No, the tornado forms out of the updrafts created on the ground. The clouds create the conditions for the updrafts and their rotation, and the tornado feeds off the cloud.

    A dust devil is a small form of a tornado that doesn't require there to be a cloud in the sky.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  28. #29353
    So the cloud creates the lightning, but the lightning isn't part of the cloud? Same thing basically.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #29354
    Lightning is basically just a giant spark between two opposite-charged bodies. It's not a "part of" anything.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  30. #29355
    Hail isn't part of the cloud, it's just ice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #29356
    I guess it all depends on what you want to define as a "cloud." To me, a cloud is made up of the water vapor that gives it its colour.

    Stuff can form inside a cloud without being "the cloud" itself. Like, when rain falls, do you say "the cloud is coming down?" No, you say "it's raining." The rain came from the cloud. Vapor was in the cloud, the vapor in the cloud turned into water (or ice, in the case of hail or snow) but once it turns into water or ice and starts to fall down, it's no longer cloud, it's precipitation.

    And lightning strikes don't usually start in a cloud. The spark starts on the ground and travels upwards into the cloud, or sometimes from one cloud to another. Ergo, it's not an inherent part of a cloud, like it's just sitting there waiting to come out. The cloud has a quality of charge. Saying lightning is part of a cloud is like saying electricity is part of a windmill.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  32. #29357
    I guess it all depends on what you want to define as a "cloud." To me, a cloud is made up of the water vapor that gives it its colour.
    There's an element of me baiting you for the lulz but I do get where you're coming from. But for me the cloud isn't just the water vapour, it's the entire structure, including the air currents and static build up. A supercell isn't just water vapour, otherwise what comes out my kettle is a supercell.

    when rain falls, do you say "the cloud is coming down?"
    You don't say it but it's a literal example of what's happening. The water vapour that makes the cloud is condensing and falling as liquid water. So the cloud is quite literally falling down. It's just we don't say it because it sounds silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #29358
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's an element of me baiting you for the lulz




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But for me the cloud isn't just the water vapour, it's the entire structure, including the air currents and static build up.
    I'll go along with this...



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    A supercell isn't just water vapour, otherwise what comes out my kettle is a supercell.
    If you boiled enough water you could create a supercell in your kitchen though. It'd just be a small one.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The water vapour that makes the cloud is condensing and falling as liquid water. So the cloud is quite literally falling down. It's just we don't say it because it sounds silly.
    Once it starts falling it's no longer cloud. It's like saying a tiny meteor from planet zyx-245 entering the Earth's atmosphere is a planet hitting the Earth. No it isn't, it's a meteor.

    There's a reason we have different names for planet and meteor, just like we have different words for clouds and rain.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  34. #29359
    If you boiled enough water you could create a supercell in your kitchen though. It'd just be a small one.
    I seriously doubt it, but the point of course is that the supercell isn't just the water vapour.

    Once it starts falling it's no longer cloud
    If you like. Or it's part of the cloud that has separated from the bulk and fallen to the ground. However you look at it though, you don't have rain without cloud.

    just like we have different words for clouds and rain.
    Sure, because they're different things. Rain is part of a cloud, the part that has condensed and is falling to the ground, it isn't the cloud itself. The cloud is the whole system.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #29360
    I'd bet if a newscaster came on and said "Hey everyone, a planet is about to land on Earth," toilet paper sales would make last spring look like nothing.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  36. #29361
    Not so sure. I think people would prioritise alcohol in that event.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #29362
    So, rain is the part of the cloud that is no longer part of a cloud? Oh ok.

    Wait...
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  38. #29363
    I got a new alternator put on my car last week. They took the old one out and threw it away. Now my car is both in my driveway and in a pile of broken car parts at the garage. Or maybe it's in my driveway and at the landfill. Dunno, better check so I know where my car is.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  39. #29364
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So, rain is the part of the cloud that is no longer part of a cloud? Oh ok.

    Wait...
    Ok so when the twin towers fell, the bit that fell off was no longer twin towers, it was mere masonry.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #29365
    Struggling with whole/part distinctions itt.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  41. #29366
    We're arguing about clouds. This is pretty thin even by our standards. It's difficult to get mileage out of this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #29367
    I was waiting for Mojo to jump in with something physics-y. He must be busy today.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  43. #29368
    We're arguing semantics, so basically mojo will pop by and tell us that clouds can mean whatever we want them to mean and we should respect each others' different interpretations.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #29369
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I mean... I'm sucked into a modpack on Factorio and trying to untangle messes made along the way, now that the finish line is in sight.

    But I mean... If you're arguing about what a cloud is and isn't when it comes to the formation of raindrops and hail, etc. then just pick a definition and roll with it. Seems like a fuzzy line to me. If you can see the cloud, then the water vapor is forming into macroscopic droplets, not just independent molecules suspended in the air, but collections of molecules. There probably is a specific scientific definition for the size of a drop before you change its name from a cloud drop to a rain drop, but since none of us know it, and its not totally important, then who cares?

    As hail forms, it gets thrown upward through the wet cloud to the freezing top, where it falls back through the wet cloud many times. Maybe hundreds for very large hail stones. Until it leaves the cloud is it part of the cloud? IDK. Fuzzy line.

    As for "you can make a supercell in your kitchen" I highly doubt that, but I now intensely want to see a scale model experiment where a supercell is created.


    As for the original video... very cool. I, too, am surprised that the massive disturbance to the ambient airflow created by the plane didn't disrupt the funnel cloud (it is a cloud type, connected to a greater cloud, the exact boundary where, within the greater cloud, it divides into the funnel cloud is probably a fluid dynamics nightmare to figure out. Fuzzy boundaries.)

    I guess it's similar to walking into a dust devil. The effect you see near the ground is a tiny portion of the vortex where it has come up against a boundary with loose particles (the ground). We see the dust rise up from the ground, and it feels like the vortex comes from the ground, but it does not. The energy driving the vortex comes from above, and adding friction to the end where there's already friction isn't a big impact on that greater rotating system.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  45. #29370
    I think, based on the comments in the conversation accompanying the tweet, that the pilot is flying a glider, not a plane. That means it won't have an engine, he's basically soaring on the updraft like a condor. That's very likely why he's not disturbing the funnel cloud.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #29371
    I just watched it again, the pilot is sat in a seat. That thing must have an engine.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #29372
    Bear on the loose in Japan, breaks into a military base (looking for secrets obv.).

    NB: Youtube labels this as "sensitive". At one point it looks like a guy gets knocked over by the bear, but I don't see what's so sensitive about that.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  48. #29373
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    It's age restricted for me. YT wants me to put in a credit card number (don't have one) or send them a picture of my passport (lol no thx) to watch restricted videos. Since it's legally fine to purchase anything age restricted on the internet by simply putting in your date of birth, I don't think it's a legal requirement. I think it's an effort on YT's part to encourage content creators to make baby friendly content so they can put ads on it.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  49. #29374
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    YT has had the "sensitive" tag for a while. I've heard content creators complain about it because if you talk about suicide, depression... or anything south of cake baking tutorials, you get tagged, and therefore you can't play ads. So now not only can you not monetize the video, it won't even get views.
    Last edited by oskar; 06-18-2021 at 01:27 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  50. #29375
    Age restricted for me too but I don't have to prove my age. I simply have to click a bar that says "I understand and wish to proceed".

    Are you logged in or do you watch youtube as a "guest"? Assuming you're logging in, my best guess is it's national legislation, or perhaps even EU legislation, though I'm pretty sure this wasn't a problem for me before we left the EU so I doubt it's that. Could be though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #29376
    I didn't even know there were bears in Japan. Learn something new every day.

    This bear injured four people, one seriously and was shot dead. That's probably why it's tagged as sensitive. Ok there's nothing shocking in the footage but given the context it's not that much of a surprise.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #29377
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    YT has had the "sensitive" tag for a while. I've heard content creators complain about it because if you talk about suicide, depression... or anything south of cake baking tutorials, you get tagged, and therefore you can't play ads. So now not only can you not monetize the video, it won't even get views.
    Also, something about using certain swear words in the first two minutes of the video will stop them from monetizing, or some weird arcane rule like that. I'm pretty sure though if you say "fuck" at the start of your youtube video it gets de-monetized.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  53. #29378
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    or perhaps even EU legislation, though I'm pretty sure this wasn't a problem for me before we left the EU so I doubt it's that. Could be though.
    Finally, a benefit of Brexit! Free access to "disturbing" youtube videos!

    (but no, don't think it's that. It hasn't changed for me since we left the EU either. Unless it started since Jan., 2021, but I assume they got other things to do right now)
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  54. #29379
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This bear injured four people, one seriously and was shot dead. That's probably why it's tagged as sensitive. Ok there's nothing shocking in the footage but given the context it's not that much of a surprise.
    Yeah but the only guy we actually see in the video being "injured" is someone who gets knocked on his ass when he tries to play tug-of-war with the bear at the gate. That's more funny than disturbing imo. I mean, it's a fucking bear, you're not going to win a test of strength with it.

    Once a bear appears on the scene, unless you're willing to die to protect someone else, it's everyone-get-the-fuck-out-of-the-way time.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 06-18-2021 at 02:20 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  55. #29380
    Speaking of having a tug-of-war with a bear, I guess that's not an original idea.

    lol, what a dumb show. what's up next week, "Can you catch a piano?"


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  56. #29381
    Dumb? That was great.

    And dumb.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #29382
    Yeah, I meant dumb in the best possible way.

    There's more tests of strength where guys have to push a giant log and the bear is pushing it's own log and blah blah. I mean, I don't know how many seasons this show ran before they ran out of ideas, but I'm guessing it was probably < 5.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  58. #29383
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Finally, a benefit of Brexit! Free access to "disturbing" youtube videos!

    (but no, don't think it's that. It hasn't changed for me since we left the EU either. Unless it started since Jan., 2021, but I assume they got other things to do right now)
    It's a new thing.

    It really is a benefit though because EU internet legislation is positively dogshit. The must-confirm-cookie law is a constant reminder that you don't have to have any clue what you're doing to pass laws that affect an entire continent.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are you logged in or do you watch youtube as a "guest"? Assuming you're logging in, my best guess is it's national legislation, or perhaps even EU legislation, though I'm pretty sure this wasn't a problem for me before we left the EU so I doubt it's that. Could be though.
    I'm logged in, but I also tried through incognito and vpn, and I can't get past it.

    Apparently it's because of this: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/avmsd
    The fact that it's a EU thing makes it even more baffling that they require an ID or credit card.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  59. #29384
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Speaking of having a tug-of-war with a bear, I guess that's not an original idea.

    lol, what a dumb show. what's up next week, "Can you catch a piano?"
    That's straight out of Interdimensional Cable, except it's in [current dimension].

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  60. #29385
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Apparently it's because of this: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/avmsd
    The fact that it's a EU thing makes it even more baffling that they require an ID or credit card.
    Brexit ftw. Suck it Eurolibtards with all your "rules" and "trade."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  61. #29386
    Holy fuck it actually is an EU problem. I'm surprised that I'm surprised.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #29387
    Wait, even with a VPN you can't get past it? Try an IP from the UK. If that isn't working, they must be tracking your location through your google account. You'll need a new youtube account that's only used on your VPN.

    Yeah, Brexit ftw.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #29388
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, Brexit ftw.

    Yeah. Exports to EU down £2bn but at least we can watch whatever we want on youtube! #MEGA
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  64. #29389
    You still in England?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #29390
    You start picking fruit yet? They're still looking...
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  66. #29391
    Haha, the best part is when they start and the bear is running behind them. I would finish that course quick too.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  67. #29392
    lol, there's not even a point to this one except to watch these guys shit their pants.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  68. #29393
    "What she cares about is one thing... pursuit and destroy"

    Dude that's two things.

    I'd love to see the disclaimers these guys have to sign. Not nearly as much as I'd love to see the bear catch up with one of them though. I bet there's at least two guys with tranq guns, targets on bear at all times.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #29394
    I'm guessing it's just camera tricks and the bear is never anywhere near them. Otherwise, yeah, I do find myself hoping the bear would catch one too.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  70. #29395
    They say 50 yards. That's around five seconds, assuming the bear is as fast as Usain Bolt.

    It was the female. It's probably tame as fuck and will just lick your face like a dog if it catches you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #29396
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    They say 50 yards. That's around five seconds, assuming the bear is as fast as Usain Bolt.

    It was the female. It's probably tame as fuck and will just lick your face like a dog if it catches you.
    Well, they're all trained bears, "tame" in some sense. I'm sure they're getting treated well and probably aren't any threat to their trainers. I'll bet they're still more likely to take some random person's head off than lick their face though lol.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  72. #29397
    If you think that show is dumb, wait until you see this.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  73. #29398
    "It bit through my hand."

    I'd call that a win for the bear.

    Fucking idiot. People like that deserve what they get. He's lucky he still has a face.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #29399
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  75. #29400
    Interesting article.

    Who doesn't think they can beat a rat? Fuck me. It counts as a win if the filthy bastard runs off. Easy win.

    House cat - yeah I could beat a house cat up. It might claw my face, but it will come off worse if it does.

    Cobra chicken (aka goose) - fearless bastards will take on a lion. I don't want to fight it. I could win, but it'll be a fight to the death.

    Medium sized dog - depends on the breed obviously. I'm not afraid of dogs, so that gives me the upper hand for sure.

    Eagle - um, only if I get a lucky punch in. I'd say the eagle is favourite.

    Large dog - only if it's afraid of me.

    Chimp - fuck that, I'm not fighting a chimp.

    King Cobra - I'm not going anywhere near it, so it wins.

    Kangaroo - maybe. They kinda fight like humans, only a kangaroo fighting a human will have quite a lot of fear. One good punch and the fucker will shit itself and run off.

    Wolf - um, who the fuck thinks they're beating a wolf? I'm not afraid of dogs but I'd definitely be afraid of a snarling wolf. It's not going to be afraid of me.

    Croc - not a fucking chance.

    Gorilla - no fucking way.

    Elephant - haha 8% said they could beat up an elephant. Holy shit. That's a definite no for me.

    Lion - also 8%, presumably the same 8%. Idiots.

    Grizzly - obviously not, but it's amusing that there's at least 2% of people who think they can beat up a gorilla, lion and elephant, but not a grizzly. Out of those animals, I'd rather take on the grizzly. More chance it'll shit itself if I show no fear.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •