search results matching tag: grains

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (102)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (6)     Comments (545)   

New Rule: Conspiracy Weary | Real Time with Bill Maher

bobknight33 says...

Ryan, Burr, McConnell, Rinos at best. Gowdy, sad to listen to him on this matter. Taken with a grain of salt.


Other than than that the Obama administration is shown to be spying on Trump and lying about it. Deep state is alive and well and Trump is draining it, One Obama appointee at at time.

newtboy said:

Gowdy, Ryan, Burr, McConnell all publicly supported it this week alone....pretty much just the dregs of the "freedom caucus" left crying fake, and even they are getting quiet. Republican leadership is seemingly, finally convinced of the obvious.

Better start figuring out why you love Pence and how impeachment was all a genius Republican plan to get Pence into power.

Raccoons Really like Cookie Crisps

Sagemind says...

Except that's not food, so actually no one ate food

Cereal Grains (Whole Grain Wheat (35.0%), Maize Semolina (28.6%), Wheat Flour), Sugar,
Glucose Syrup, Wheat Starch, Brown Sugar, Sunflower Oil, Vitamins and Minerals (Calcium, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Iron, Vitamin D, Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin), Fat-Reduced Cocoa Powder (1.2%), Salt, Icing Sugar, Cocoa Powder (0.5%), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agent: Sodium Bicarbonate, Acidity Regulator: Tripotassium Phosphate, Maize Starch.
https://www.nestle-cereals.com/uk/en/products-promotions/brands/cookie-crisp-brand/cookie-crisp

That's How A Real Driver Backs Up His Trailer!

MilkmanDan says...

I drove a semi sometimes for a couple years for my family farm. Didn't drive a whole lot, and pretty much all on back dirt roads and in lots/fields, to get some experience before possibly getting a CDL. Never ended up getting the CDL because I moved and changed jobs. I was around and learned from skilled drivers (my dad for one), so I know a little bit, but I'm certainly no expert. That being said:

Backing up a vehicle with a trailer is quite difficult because compared to a normal vehicle with no trailer, all your intuition is wrong and little mistakes get amplified quickly.

Backing up a car and want your tail end to go right? Turn the wheel right. Want the same thing to happen in a semi with a trailer? First turn the wheel left while you back up, which will push the tail end of your tractor left, causing a reaction like pressing on a lever that pushes the tail end of the trailer right. But don't overdo it, because that same lever-type action causes more movement the further you get away from the fulcrum point, so a tiny move there can result in a BIG swing.

Complicating that, you have no central rear view mirror. Side mirrors work, but distance can be obscured by the huge trailer very quickly.

Basically, backing up is one of the most daunting things about learning to drive a truck, particularly for people new to it. The "pull ups" he mentioned are the best way to overcome that. Pulling forward a short/medium distance gets the tractor and trailer back into alignment, so that straight back should result in the trailer going straight back. From that point, you can try to make small corrections. If it starts to swing a lot, pull up again and straighten out, lather rinse repeat.


The guy in the video does a good job (way better than I could do), but he seems to think he's the shit. I don't think you earn real trucking community bragging rights until you can reverse double trailers, or even triples if you want to be worshiped as a god.

Here's a video with doubles:


One of the full-timers on my family farm was quite good with doubles. Not "obstacle course" good, but I saw him reverse a slow circle around a grain bin. And he liked to tell stories about a some semi-mythical whiz guy that could reverse triples around a corner, etc.

The math problem that stumped thousands of mansplainers

ChaosEngine says...

The reason this confounds people is that they look at it from the wrong end.

Let's say I told you that on this beach, 1 particular grain of sand is actually worth a trillion dollars (and I know which one it is).

I get you to pick a grain of sand. Your odds are trillions to one, right?

Now, after you pick, let's say I remove one more grain and ask you to pick again. Should you switch? eh... your odds are still trillions to one.

But now let's say I removed all other grains of sand EXCEPT one. Which is more likely? That you picked the trillion to one grain, or that I've shown you the correct answer?

newtboy (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.


As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

newtboy said:

Let me try a different, but related tact.
Assume that your right to vote in the next election is removed from you by force based on the color of your skin (like BLM activists only let non whites into polls, and the government allows it). Would you not be due a civil judgement for the violation of your civil rights?
Now assume it happens for the next 150+ years before it's rectified. Are your great grandchildren only due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Now assume blm says giving you the right to vote is a gift they provided, and your decedents should be eternally grateful it was given at all, not upset that it was once denied by their fathers, and the government (that they put in office without your input) agrees no compensation is due.

In that scenario, your family is owed nothing, neither from the perpetrators, their descendants, or the nation/government that allowed it? And this seems right to you? Hmmmm.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.



As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

newtboy said:

Let me try a different, but related tact.
Assume that your right to vote in the next election is removed from you by force based on the color of your skin (like BLM activists only let non whites into polls, and the government allows it). Would you not be due a civil judgement for the violation of your civil rights?
Now assume it happens for the next 150+ years before it's rectified. Are your great grandchildren only due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Now assume blm says giving you the right to vote is a gift they provided, and your decedents should be eternally grateful it was given at all, not upset that it was once denied by their fathers, and the government (that they put in office without your input) agrees no compensation is due.

In that scenario, your family is owed nothing, neither from the perpetrators, their descendants, or the nation/government that allowed it? And this seems right to you? Hmmmm.

Low-Fat Foods Are Making You Fatter - Adam Ruins Everything

transmorpher says...

Good point, I was too lazy to post the link, my bad. List of quotes from people who Gary has misrepresented: http://www.bodyforwife.com/an-open-letter-to-gary-taubes/

(for newtboy, notice how this is not a vegan website, nor are the people complaining about Gary Taubes vegan researchers)


Sugar consumption going down since the late 90s https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/02/25/surprise-american-sugar-consumption-is-on-the-decline

Indeed this video is about sugar, but it's a common strategy to use sugar to demonise carbs(the only research you will ever find where "carbs" are bad for you, always use sugar of some type). Every single popular diet today uses this kind of shitty research to back up their diets. They're all variations of low-carb: atkins, paleo, keto, isogenics etc because this is what sells the most animal products, which is a far more lucrative industry than grains and beans. But possibly more importantly it doesn't work in the long run! So you have repeat customers. They lose weight quickly for 6 months, then in 12-18 months time they are heavier than how they started.



BTW this is vegan http://www.blogto.com/restaurants/doomies-toronto/

You don't have to eat healthy all the time once you are at a stable weight and your other biosigns are good, pig out every now and then .

Life won't be so short this way ;-) (on average 13 years longer)

ChaosEngine said:

They're talking about sugar, not carbs.

"Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science."
How so? If you're going to make such a claim, back it up.

"Despite sugar consumption going down"
Really? I have yet to see any evidence that that's the case.

"Stuff your face with this food "
Eh, life is way too short to eat vegan food.

Just burn the abandoned building

MilkmanDan says...

Wonder what the unique conditions are inside that building that allowed that to happen?

Quick search says they eat decomposing organic matter. Maybe grain or other food stuff was stored in there, and then it got closed up with enough humidity to make an explosion of decomposing scrap for them?

Why Is Salt So Bad for You, Anyway?

transmorpher says...

Here's the study he's talking about in the video: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311889?query=featured_home&#Results=&t=articleBackground

It looks like a legitimate study, but being correlational it should be taken with a grain of salt *snare drum, splash cymbal* As corrolation cannot show causation.

They seem to control for various factors like age, cholesterol level and previous hypertension too, so they don't appear to be fudging any results.

Perhaps I could argue they aren't measuring salt intake, but rather sodium excretion, and estimating intake based on urine samples. So there is potentially a huge difference in diet - a lot of the participants were from Asia, where they don't tend to use table salt (they use soy sauce instead) And even though it's still high in sodium, soy sauce could be going through a different process inside the body. (Similar to how sugar doesn't cause an insulin spike when it's in fruit form, but does when it's refined form). It's possible that the salt from soy could be passing through the body rather than settling in the blood stream. I'm just speculating. Or perhaps they are also eating other foods which are protective against moderate salt intake, allowing more of it to be excreted than absorbed.

Either way it's very interesting to me :-)

What I would like to see is a study on foods, rather than ingredients to get a better picture. Because humans don't usually eat individual minerals, and combinations of minerals seem to act differently in the body.


I guess what it's all saying though is if you are healthy, then 3-6g of salt is fine, but once you are at risk of CVD you need to back off in order to reverse the damage. But CVD is of course not the only disease people need to be careful about (although it is the #1 we should be worrying about), but salt also feeds various cancers etc.

jimnms said:

Healcare Triage disagrees:
1) Dietary Salt Recommendations Don't Line Up with Recent Evidence.
2) HCT News #1: Eat More Salt

Ten Tiny Mistakes That Caused Disasters

ulysses1904 says...

I take these kinds of videos with a grain of salt. Maybe after some fact-checking all 10 of these events would indeed turn out to be that cartoony and easily explained, as if Michael Moore was the producer. But I have my doubts.

And Son of Sam didn't chop anybody up.

Kurzgesagt: Are GMOs Good or Bad?

MilkmanDan says...

OK, sorry to spam here, but I found another relevant link:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/gmo-patent-controversy-terminator-genes-seed-piracy-forcing-farmers-buy-seeds/

That confirms that "terminator seeds" are a technology that does exist -- in practice as well as theory -- but isn't commercially sold or otherwise available.

More importantly, it mentions that there is a legal sort of "license agreement" that farmers sign when they buy the GM seed stating that they won't replant harvested stuff in the future, and that they can inspect your storage areas etc. if they suspect you are doing so. That would explain why my family worked hard to clean out storage areas that had grain resulting from GM seed. I erroneously thought that was because that grain was sterile.

Those agreements are for a single crop / harvest, so it is definitely possible to use a GM seed one year and then go back to non-GM seed in other years, as my family does. I guess that we just have to keep good records to show that we're not holding any back for future planting / sale.

Sorry for the several LONG posts, and thanks to @Hastur for asking the question that got me to figure out the misconception I had!

Kurzgesagt: Are GMOs Good or Bad?

MilkmanDan says...

Some additional notes based on growing up in a wheat / corn farming family:

My family uses GMO herbicide/pesticide-resistant corn seed (Roundup Ready). It's a tradeoff, because:

1) Roundup Ready seed is somewhat expensive, especially compared to just holding on to a small amount of your own harvested crop as next year's seed.

2) Like the video mentioned, the GM seeds we used have been modified to be sterile, so the grain they produce can't be replanted. Part of the justification for that is not wanting the GM version to intermingle with unmodified strains. But, most is pure profit motivation -- they want you to be forced to buy that GM seed. I don't really see that as nefarious, just business -- but opinions differ.

3) My family discovered that for corn, we could us the GM Roundup Ready seed roughly once every 5 years while still benefiting from drastically reduced insect / plant pests. If corn is within pollination range of another less known crop plant called milo, the plants can hybridize and produce a plant called shattercane. Shattercane is essentially worthless as a food crop, but is very hardy, and can spread and in many cases outcompete the corn or milo that you really want.

Getting rid of it was a very difficult and intensive process -- until the GM seed came along. Now if we see shattercane starting to make incursions, we can plant the GM seeds the next year and then hit the field with a herbicide that kills the shattercane. It works so well that the field remains clear of the pest plants / insects for several years after that without having to use much if any herbicides / pesticides.

4) In our situation, we found that we used way less herbicide / pesticide per year on average once we started rotating in the GM seeds once every several years. That would be close to a wash, but still likely a net savings even if we used the GM seeds every year (seed companies will try to sell it to you every year). Factor in increased crop yields because of the reduced/eliminated pests, and it is a clear win.

5) I'm sort of worried about the potential for a "superbug" effect, similar to overusing / misusing antibiotics. If farmers buy into the GM seed thing 100% and use it every year, I think it will increase the chances / rate of the pests becoming resistant to the pesticides / herbicides used. That's a long-term concern, and in my opinion doesn't even come close to outweighing the "pro" side of the GM argument (at least from the perspective of my family's farm), but it is something to think about.

Ralph Nader on Trump’s Speech to Congress

poolcleaner says...

Nobody wants to hear these inconvenient truths. Corporations that do business with Walmart give their lowest quality grains and products. It's practically returning to feudalism. Here is your lower class food, peon. Let my massive wealth create another low paying job for you. Oh, college education? Here's a low paying shitty job for you, as well. Unless you like climbing corporate ladders by using other people as stepping stones. This world: brought to by the ruling sociopathic elite. Here's an anonymous reporting system for you to minimize and abuse people who violate your social order. You work faster than everyone else but you talked too much according to anonymous reports, tsk tsk, human resources reeducation after investigating that although you are a superior worker, you talk too much.

Tesla Predicts a 2 Car Crash Ahead of Driver

harlequinn jokingly says...

Why research grants of course. Everyone knows that's where the big money is these days. Why just last week I saw a climate scientist driving around in a new Maserati.

(There is a grain of truth to it though. It's not unheard of to bullshit one's way to their next research grant).

newtboy said:

1/4-1/2 of us here believe scientists 'made up' climate change for money (somehow, I've never heard an explanation of where that money comes from)

Beheaded, Gutted Fish Still Puts up a Fight

worthwords says...

there looks to be grains of salt on the chopping board. High concentration of Sodium on the muscle fibres can cause the cells to depolarise chaotically like a muscle cramp. Depolarisation releases calcium ions from the sarcoplasmic reticulum causing the muscle fibres to contract and there is enough energy in the cell(ATP) to release the contraction and allow further contractions as with the video.Eventually it will stop working as the ATP is exhausted .



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon