COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[mkm5]

Mark, I see that you decided not to interject anything about this post, despite his reasoning being in direct conflict to your own. Do differences in strength, size, etc not matter when it comes to analyzing safety data in car accidents? This fucking idiot doesn't think so. He apparently is even unware that within the specific equation he cited that the acceleration of a smaller body (i.e. a female) would be greater when subjected to the same amount of force. Perhaps math is simply not very woke these days. Does his post simply go unchallenged by you simply because he was attacking me? You don't need to answer that. The fact that you decided not to post my previous post reflecting on why different models of crash test dummies were needed shows the type of coward you are. Here is the link again in case you forgot.



But as I said in that prior post, this really isn't about creating crash test dummies that better model the population (as was the actual point of the original video you posted). Your point was to rail against what you perceive as some level of out of control wokeness and how fools are now concerned about the gender identity of mannequins.

1/2 mv squared doesn't care if you have boobs or twigs and berries; the faster you go, the more f'd up you'll be in a crash, especially if it's the proverbial immovable object that depletes your velocity.

For vehicle to vehicle accidents, heavier is better.

[Subby]

Grobleaugg, how do you know what gender the crash test dummies identify as? Or are their genders assigned by the technicians at the time of setting up the accident?

[Grobleaugg]

Would you just go a couple pages back and see what mkm5 said and stop fueling your flaming homosexual kink of confronting Rip?

Please reread my post this time paying attention to the article that was both quoted and cited. Keep in mind that there was a subsequent post of mine that directly refenced his post (that Mark did not publish) when I first linked and quoted the article.

1/2 mv squared doesn't care if you have boobs or twigs and berries; the faster you go, the more f'd up you'll be in a crash, especially if it's the proverbial immovable object that depletes your velocity.

For vehicle to vehicle accidents, heavier is better.

So in your analysis we should just be able to toss a sack of beef in the seat and the research would be unchanged? Very insightful.

Grobleaugg, how do you know what gender the crash test dummies identify as? Or are their genders assigned by the technicians at the time of setting up the accident?

And here it is, the point I was actually addressing! If you think the wokeness of the genders of the crash test dummies is what was being discussed in the video Mark posted (and this is certainly what Mark believed she was talking about) you are a fucking moron and that was my point.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Okay, assfuck, I just checked the past 6 pages and the only posts I deleted were by mkm5, who sometimes does not understand. Not you. But it won't happen again, because your obnoxious ass is now gone.

[CommanderFun]

I think you are wrong here, the propaganda war against milk began thirty years ago, probably even earlier. They had anti milk sites in the time of dial up internet. These idiots are just rehashing, which shows how uncreative they are. It would be more prudent to expand the war, with cheese and other dairy products.

It'll backfire if they go after cream in the starbucks coffee. Their target audience will turn on them. They have to stick with the "weird" thing that only "weird" people do.

[Jovan Dragisic]

It has begun in earnest when the propaganda devolves into obviously baseless slander, name-calling and desperate-sounding childish arguments, like the implicit argument used in the article of "The Nazis drank milk. You aren't a Nazi, are you?"
Very entertaining.

I remember people susceptible to propaganda telling me they feel weird when they see an adult drinking milk at least ten years ago. The author has a preference for bukkake porn, but that’s the only new thing in the article. People watch too much porn. Not just people, but women too!

[3rdcoast_slope]

I think it is because many more non whites don't tolerate lactose very well. Did these other guys cook with milk?

They never stated that they didn’t buy it… some had it in their refrigerator on the occasion I saw inside. I didn’t do any cooking with them but I assumed if they didn’t drink it they were cooking with it? None of them said “ we don’t buy milk, that is a white people thing.” I don’t know, what do you think this milk privilege comes from. Also, lactose free is everywhere isn’t it?

[Jovan Dragisic]

They never stated that they didn’t buy it… some had it in their refrigerator on the occasion I saw inside. I didn’t do any cooking with them but I assumed if they didn’t drink it they were cooking with it? None of them said “ we don’t buy milk, that is a white people thing.” I don’t know, what do you think this milk privilege comes from. Also, lactose free is everywhere isn’t it?

Maybe they used it in their coffee? Or cereal? I don't know of too many recipes in which milk is used for cooking. I think milk privilege is genetic. If you fart a lot when you drink milk, you are unlikely to drink a whole lot of it, but you might use it in small quantities for things like coffee or cereal. That's what I do. I will drink a glass if I eat crepes and take the farting, because crepes without milk are useless.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Here is an important piece from Reason: After 53 Earth Days, Society Still Hasn't Collapsed

In the second chapter on the limits to exponential growth, the researchers asked, "What will be needed to sustain world economic and population growth until, and perhaps, even beyond, the year 2000?" The "physical necessities" included food, raw materials, and fossil and nuclear fuels. The researchers aimed to "assess the world's stock of these physical resources, since they are the ultimate determinants of the limits to growth on this earth."

On October 16, 1989, Forbes published my article "Dr. Doom." Using data from the report's Table 4 on global 1972 nonrenewable resource reserves and expected future rates of consumption, I calculated how much longer the global reserves estimated by the MIT team would last. "Limits to Growth predicted that at 1972 rates of growth the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, copper, lead and natural gas by 1993," I wrote.

The depletion dates I cited simply came from reading those data right off of their exponential index years listed in column 5 in Table 4. As they explained in a footnote to Table 4, their column 5 calculations represent "the number of years known global reserves will last with consumption growing exponentially at the average annual rate of growth." As an example, the authors calculated that at the current rate of consumption global supplies of copper would last 36 years but applying the annual average rate of growth in copper consumption of 4.6 percent yielded the result that known global copper reserves would be used up in only 21 years.

So at the exponentially increasing rates of consumption that the researchers fully expected to ensue, known reserves in 1972 of gold would be depleted in nine years; mercury in 13 years; tin in 15 years; zinc in 18 years; petroleum in 20 years; and copper, lead, and natural gas in 22 years.

Climate change is exactly the same thing, except that now they have figured out a way to replace "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, and your place in Heaven is only through Him" with "CO2 is the greenhouse gas that is destroying the Climate, and we must stop this in any way possible." And they now have the internet, so book sales are not nearly as important.

Bumping this so it doesn't get lost:

Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth. Every August, everybody runs around like it's not supposed to be hot. Every time there's a drought, everybody acts like it's the very first time it's been dry too long. "Hurricane season" started in June, and how many hurricanes have devastated the coastlines already inundated by the molten ice caps? How many times over the past 20 years of this shit have the hurricane predictions been correct?

Really, the children are in charge now, seeking validation for "caring about the planet," running around yelling about "carbon" -- the 4th most abundant element in the physical universe --being a deadly poison. Their managers are common criminals whose entire agenda is money and control, and we are letting it happen. It is the result of the shitty science education we received in the government schools, and it probably cannot be stopped.

And here's an example of where religious thinking about the Climate takes you: EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates Way More Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Testing

See? The Case For Making Earth Day a Religious Holiday | Time

Earth Day is upon us—that forlorn little non-holiday that some years sandwiches itself between Easter and Passover, or other years trails in the wake of those “real” holidays. If the Super Bowl is America’s unofficial national day of celebration, Earth Day is the collective yawn that brings a shrug. No recipes offer Earth Day chips and dips to serve when friends and beloveds gather in celebration of the miracle of a living planet. Because they don’t. Not even ours.

For the two of us environmentalists—one of us nominally Jewish, the other a recovering Catholic—we find the ill-defined nature of the only day honoring the place that makes life itself possible more than a little sacrilegious. So, on this 53rd Earth Day we thought it useful to pose what a real Earth Day should represent and how it could form a central time for a new approach to worship.

[francesco.decaro]

Here is an important piece from Reason: After 53 Earth Days, Society Still Hasn't Collapsed



Climate change is exactly the same thing, except that now they have figured out a way to replace "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, and your place in Heaven is only through Him" with "CO2 is the greenhouse gas that is destroying the Climate, and we must stop this in any way possible." And they now have the internet, so book sales are not nearly as important.

I heard about this bet from JBP, guess who won it?
The infamous overpopulation bet: Simon vs. Ehrlich - Soraya Field Fiorio - YouTube