mbohu

Well, not quite. Depends on where these votes were cast--you know, electoral college and such.

True. At least for now. My guess is that the game is to increase the percentage of the population who believes that Biden was illegitimately elected, giving cover for the Republican Senate's sure to follow obstructionism. And the long game is to have the American population trust the legitimacy of elections less and less, making it easier to move towards a more autocratic rule. These tactics were used in Europe a hundred years ago, in Russia since Putin came to power and I'm sure various times in South America in the last century. I'm not (yet, necessarily) saying that exactly the same is happening here now, but they may be trying to see how far they can take this.

Yes. I think their hail marry is that somehow one of these cases goes all the way through to the Supreme Court. But even without this, a single ruling in their favor, even if later thrown out will be enough for them to be able to claim that there is real truth to the cases (all of them) and that it's the deep state and the activist judges, who are ruling against them. BTW: Does anyone remember how Bush vs. Gore was able to make its way all the way to the Supreme court in what must have been a matter of days?

Are you sure? All they need is one Trumpist judge who gets lucky and gets one of these cases. And they filled the courts with them, so it's not that unlikely.

I don't think this is "hurting" Trump. It looks much more like a very calculated plan. First, he gets his voters to mostly vote in person, knowing Democrats will mostly vote by mail. At the same time he starts casting doubts on the voting system and especially mentions that only votes counted on election day (which are mostly the in-person votes) should count. Secondly he gets the state legislature (Republican controlled) to disallow early counting of mail-in ballots (which is done in most other states) to make sure that the mail-in ballots are counted late. Then, expecting that he will be up in the counts early, because mostly in-person votes have been counted, he can do 2 things: Claim victory early and when the numbers start changing talk about "found votes" and make it seem that something fishy is going on, and at the same time activate his legal teams to try to stop counting entirely, while he is still ahead. So: It's not hurting him. It works for him. He always assumed that he may loose if every vote was counted, so they found a way to split the vote into early republican counts and late Democratic counts, and then try to discredit and disallow the latter. Machiavelli would be proud!

Yeah, it's like the Arctic here, (65 deg) and so few people live here that it only takes 1 hour at rush hour to go a couple miles. At least we get to be our own completely independent area--not part of any nation. I know some libertarians who'd have an orgasm over this!

Again, I am writing this from the perspective of seeing it in coaching students and AFF students. Although I've certainly had some landings where I had to roll it out. (what most people would call a PLF--but really it wasn't.) Of course, when I talk to students I teach the PLF and I suggest to PLF, whenever in doubt--but if they inquire a bit more deeply I do tell them how I actually execute it in most scenarios, and that looks a little different than the "keep your feet together and roll over the side to the back" method that is so perfect for zero forward speed. Also: I mostly jump in Colorado and often at a DZ where cross-wind landings into pretty good winds at 5,000+ feet elevation are more the standard than the exception. So you get to see a lot of "PLF"s here--and it makes you think about how to make them better, especially when you see people getting hurt.

I thought I updated my jump numbers, but maybe not--I'll check. I have about 480 jumps and a coach license. I had the privilege of spending some longer time with Jen Sharp recently, seeing her thoughts on teaching and USPA methods (disclaimer: none of what I'm saying here comes from her, so don't blame her for it!...but it made me think more about some topics around teaching) AGAIN: Let me clarify here: I am absolutely not for teaching "sliding it in". This comment was meant to illustrate the problems with not teaching the PLF in a way that applies for our types of landings. It comes from this encounter: I talked to an instructor examiner and said something similar, that I feel like the PLF as taught doesn't really work completely in real world landings and if he wouldn't think that maybe it could be taught differently, and the instructor examiner answered: "yeah, well, we just slide it in, right?" (not sarcastically!) So I thought that is a bit of an issue: When people feel that a method doesn't quite apply as it is taught, they either modify it themselves (more or less successfully) or they abandon it completely (the "slide it in" crowd). Wouldn't it be better to teach a version of a landing fall that applies more closely, so can be used without too many modifications, so we don't rely on the student's ability to modify it appropriately? That's where I'm coming from.

Yes, I absolutely agree with teaching it more and longer. But again, I would then also teach it more the way it actually is executed. If you look at the picture above, the only time I've seen it executed in a similar fashion is when a student flares much too high, runs out of forward speed and then drops straight down.

Yes, thank you. That's what I meant.

Wendy + others: Are you sure though that what you do is a PLF as it is taught? The way I have seen it taught and the way it is depicted everywhere really works best with zero forward speed or even some backing up: feet completely together and then start the roll over the side and then the back: In my experience: keeping your feet rigidly together on a downwind landing (or even a fast cross-wind or no-wind) is not always the best strategy--particularly, if you say you start running out and then go into a PLF, I bet you are doing something similar to what I do, which resembles a judo-roll more. The roll is also executed more over the side in the forward direction and while turning towards your back is helpful, it doesn't look exactly like depicted. Lastly, I definitely engage my arms differently to help to direct the force of the roll (obviously not to break the fall, which would create the danger of broken arms, but pulling the arm on the side I roll over in, towards the body, helping to make it a more rolling movement and protecting parts of the body at the same time.) So I'm not saying: don't teach the right way to fall, but: teach it more realistically. And yes, that is harder, because you can't easily simulate the forward speed on the ground. I agree that saying "slide it in" is not a good option, because "sliding it in" really requires you to continue to fly the parachute, to make it safe and successful, and a PLF is for when you've somewhat given up on that part...or at least you don't want students to depend on that skill, which they probably aren't good at yet. Maybe it's not that important and people do fine learning the regular PLF and then just use it in a modified way--but I have definitely noticed that what I see being practiced does not match with the original version of a PLF.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and have talked about it a bit with some people deeply involved with developing current training methods in the US, but thought I'd feel out here, if people think I'm off with this: Clearly, learning to fall properly, when a landing does not go quite right, is an essential safety skill, and it has been my saving grace many times, especially on my first 100 jumps or so, but I feel like the current teachings around this topic may not quite be up to date with the reality of our sport. Like everyone else, I learned the good old PLF. And--I think also like everyone else--I tried to apply it in the real world, but if I am honest, in reality have practiced something that really wasn't quite what we learned. Don't get me wrong: There are some crucial aspects of the PLF (such as rolling over the side and distributing the impact over as wide of an area of the body as possible, at the same time protecting the most vulnerable parts of the body) that absolutely apply now just as much as in the past, but: If you look at any depiction of the exact technique of the PLF, it becomes clear that the technique was designed for absorbing high vertical speed with almost negligible horizontal speed, and minimizing the impact on crucial body systems in such a scenario. This is of course exactly what one would have experienced during a landing with a round parachute at the time when this method was developed (and still now, as a paratrooper jumping similar systems) However: This is generally NOT the situation during a (potentially) hard landing, using modern sports parachutes. In these situations, you are generally encountering fast horizontal speeds and varying vertical speeds, with a tremendous variety of exact scenarios. While again, something LIKE a PLF, or some principles of the PLF, still apply, I have noticed that many jumpers intuitively (or through experience) know that this does not work completely, and then design their own system (consciously or not) to deal with the reality of the situation. This can vary from from something like a rolling judo fall to "just slide it in"--and there is really no consistent system that gets trained that is fully applicable, since instructors and coaches simply have to train the "PLF", even though they would have to admit that they do not quite use it in the way it is described--if they were honest. (And clearly some solutions are better here than others.) On the other hand, there are so many techniques from martial arts and especially parkour that may actually apply more here and could be trained if someone dared to update our current methods. What do people with more experience think? Am I off about this? Can this "sacred cow" actually be updated? Does your own method of avoiding injury during (semi-) hard landings actually resemble the original PLF? Do you think it's good enough to continue teaching the PLF as a general system and trust that everyone will modify it to the actual situation they are in? If you think a PLF does not apply exactly as taught, what changes would you suggest? Should this go under the safety forum? (I feel the forums, other than "Speakers Corner" are so underused these days that I am hoping to post this somewhere, where it's at least got a semi-decent chance of attracting some eyeballs and responses--but feel free to move it, moderators, if you think that's more appropriate)

I started at 50. I read Brian Germain's "The parachutist and it's pilot" four or five times. The first time I read it, was before I ever jumped. I'm sure it helped me, but it also kept me from getting depressed while I couldn't jump (not because of injury, but because of weather, work, life, etc.) Others already wrote pretty much most of the things I'd write. I know that "knowing how to fall", something I learned way back as a kid, when I learned Judo and never really forgot, helped me a lot. If you haven't learned that (Judo, gymnastics and parkour, seem to be some good ways to learn it), this would be my main suggestion. Somehow, for me the first 100 jumps were really different in terms of my chance of getting hurt. Even though I continually got better at landings--looking back it feels like every one of those jumps had the potential of some landing injury. I never got seriously injured, but had minor hurts to my ankles and coccyx. I'd say: have some respect for landings and really learn to fly your parachute in those last 300 ft. Know how it reacts to every input and never stop flying it, even (and especially) when your feet (or whatever other body parts) are already on the ground.--I know you didn't ask about this, but I gathered that not getting hurt was one of the intentions for your questions. Have an awesome time. Don't think anything is out of reach (as kallend obviously proves--respect, brother!)

That simply makes no sense whatsoever, as an argument. If you are against the tyranny of the 51%, you'd be against the tyranny of the 49% (or 45%), no? The EC does not solve anything in this regard. (The constitution may, by saying that there are certain things that are non-negotiable, no matter if a majority wants them or not--but that's a different matter.) The only rational argument for the EC would be that states (or localities) are actually important,--rather than just people--and that rural areas, for example, may not get enough power, compared to population centers, because fewer people live there, and that may make it so that the concerns of these areas (which may be different than those of large cities) won't get enough play. (That may be what you meant, but it has nothing to do with the 51%) However, that really should already be taken care of by the proper division of powers between local, regional, state and federal governments. When you are electing one person (and their team) for the entire country, I don't think that should play a role at all.--but at least that could be a logical argument. There is also the fact that it's somewhat outdated, as so many people move around, and why should the power of their vote have anything to do with where they happen to be living at a given time? The "tyranny of the 51%", while a true concern, is not addressed by the EC whatsoever (as someone else pointed out, you could divide the population into many other arbitrary groupings, rather than location--and say that the majority should not freely govern the minority--are we going to assign electors based on race or sexual orientation, now? Or based on people who prefer Netflix versus Amazon Prime? However you divide up population, there will always be majorities and minorities. Location is not unique in this regard.) ...and in fact "the tyranny of the 51%" is beautifully addressed in parliamentary systems that have a relatively low bar for entry into parliament (5% or less), and in almost all cases the need to build coalitions between multiple parties in order to govern. Also, another way this problem should usually be addressed, is that, whoever is governing, should govern "for all Americans" and not just the ones that voted for him. Biden at least said that's what he wanted to do, in his speech at Gettysburg. That Trump isn't even pretending to have that intention, is one of the things that makes him so hard to accept for those that are not voting for him.

But they are doing that right now. They are relying on third party fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, AP Fact Check etc) They are following their listed Terms of Service and Community Guidelines and seem to get it right most of the time. They are under no obligation to do so, of course. Reviving an old post: I knew there was more to this: So, it's not a question of what FB and others are ABLE (or willing) to do in terms of fact checking or censorship (depending on what you believe, we probably call it fact-checking when it's about stuff we dislike and censorship when it's stuff we like) it's what can they be FORCED to do via lawsuits and threats: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/09/11/trump-biden-section-230-big-tech-zw-orig.cnn-business/video/playlists/business-tech/ While this is the one issue that Trump and Biden agree on (not really, though) it's probably something we should be against. And as they correctly mention at the end, it actually will make all these newer alternatives to FB disappear, as they do not have the budget to survive lawsuits or even to have someone check every single post a user may put onto their platform. I actually think that the compromise that is currently starting to be employed (leaving the content on the platform but posting links to fact checkers or pointing out inaccuracies) is not a completely bad solution.

Yes, that's the "they are evil" explanation. The problem is: Given that about 50% of the population falls into that category, the options to deal with that are not great. (winning a civil war against them seems to be the "best" option) I'm sure greed can be a powerful motivator, but if it was the most powerful one, people would always vote in their economic interest, and it's been proven that they don't. In fact: Isn't this one of the things that drives us "liberals" crazy? That large portions of conservative voters seem to consistently vote against their own economic interests? No, I think, while self-interest is certainly part of the equation, it's not the most determining factor: People's internalized frames of reference, belief systems and "identities" seem to be more powerful--and the good thing about this is, that this gives an opening for dialogue and/or influence--if one bothers to understand them.

Absolutely. Great point. People also tend to be holding different beliefs in different areas of their lives, so they may believe in nurturance in the family (progressive) and in strict authority in politics and economics (conservative) ...and of course the terms progressive and conservative (or left and right) are way too limiting. I prefer to look at a multitude of scales to define political positions and most have a side that is often associated with progressive and the other conservative, but it doesn't always match. For example (let's say left is mostly progressive & right mostly conservative): Collectivist--Individualist Nurturing Parent--Strict Father Exterior Causation--Interior Causation (as the primary factor for where to look for problems/solutions) Stepping on the gas--stepping on the brakes (in terms of evolution/change/progress) Liberalism--Authoritarianism Of course on that last one people may disagree strongly. I think the way I sorted it was how I used to perceive it (that the right is generally authoritarian). I am sure libertarians would disagree, but also parts of the left may now disagree (if not admittedly so, but through their actions and beliefs); so that one can certainly go either way. There are more, I'm sure. Again though, I think understanding where the other side is really coming from (not just thinking they are stupid, misinformed or evil--because we KNOW they don't see themselves as such) is critical if we want to have any chance of having any power for change. ---not because it is a nice thing, but because it gives us power, and of course it is also just soooo much more interesting. I know, not a popular attitude here...or pretty much anywhere else on "the Internets"

I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.) This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues) If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point: George Lakoff on the strict father model

Jumping in for a quick post, so I can attract some serious ass-whooping from both sides: This is idiotic! If one group can't simply say that the behavior shown in airdvr's video is simply unacceptable, violent and in no way tolerable (no matter that there is collective trauma that has affected groups of people in this country for centuries and is now bursting out) and has to instead redirect towards making it someone else's fault (sure: Trump's at fault for many things, but not the individual behavior of these specific people--that is just an entirely different topic) ...and the other group of people cannot simply state that it is absolutely unacceptable behavior to kneel on an unarmed man's neck until that man dies from suffocation (irrespective of what that man may have done before) and has to redirect to some drugs he supposedly has taken before (if that is even true, it has NO bearing on that behavior WHATSOEVER--just like it has no bearing on the behavior of the group of people in the video what Trump may have done.) I mean: it really seems like we are living in some alternate reality. (I would have expected better from "my" side of the divide at the very least)

Yes, but at this point FB, Twitter, etc. are really becoming more like a utility or a channel for public discourse. They may be privately held but they are the main channels to get your message heard in the social media space. There really are no comparable alternatives. I don't think that's something we can ignore.

This may be controversial, but I really don't think that this is such a simple issue. You are probably right that Zuckerberg's motive is purely profit. But: Giving a private company the power to decide what is accurate and what is not and to censor posts based on that, is hugely problematic. Yes. I know: FB is not a public forum, legally, and in essence the company already has that power--but there is an argument to be made about keeping algorithms more or less content-neutral (same with Google search algorithms) and not considering anything about truthfulness or even morality (up to a point--of course there will always be some line to be drawn.) Asking FB to censor posts will likely backfire tremendously. It also puts them into an impossible position. Based on what exactly should they censor posts? If everything that is not completely truthful gets censored, not much will be left--and how do they even research what is truthful and what isn't? Will there be any oversight of that? Right now, you can post all kinds of anti-FB and anti-Zuckerberg stuff right on their platform and it will not be censored. At least this is consistent. Not saying there aren't real problems with the effects of FB and other social media on our society--but I don't think the solution is asking private companies to become arbiters of what is true and what isn't. I don't have a magical solution, but I wonder if a growing up of our general consciousness (really learning to be discerning and getting wise to manipulation and falsehood) isn't the only way out (and is that ever realistic?...I don't know.)

I think you're right. Or in more general terms, the problem is that delivery of news isn't a one-way street anymore. Instead of the content just flowing out in one direction, it is now a 2-way street, where feedback is immediately received by the ones who put out the news. One would think that's a good think but in reality it creates all kinds of feedback problems, where the news gets changed based on the response from the audience (usually to achieve a certain purpose: profit and persuasion seem to be the main ones) The same problem is happening with voting and political messages: The constant polling feedback tempts politicians to constantly adjust their messages (and their politics) to the feedback they are receiving. Again: Ideally, this could be a good thing--but in reality there is no honest, direct uncorrupted message put out anymore. The question is: Is there a point where information flow should actively be limited to avoid such effects? If it SHOULD, is there any real chance that we will be able to implement such limits?

Clearly I'm a very occasional poster, and given the length of this thread, and the fact I only occasionally read some of it, this may have come up before, but: WWG1WGA Doesn't that strike you as a very strange kind of slogan for people who call everyone else "sheep" and tell them they need to "wake up" and not blindly accept what they are being told? I mean, it's one thing to somehow not notice how you are just believing everything some anonymous person(s) is telling you, and not really be aware of it, and it's a completely separate thing to put that right in your slogan and STILL not notice it? no? Edit: I mean, if sheep had a slogan, that would surely be the one.

Best 4-way competition exit ever. I definitely want to try to duplicate it: http://www.omniskore.com/comp/2019/2019uspanspc/media/3_221_4222_1.mp4

Yup. That sounds like AFF for many people. As long as the fun/excitement outweighs the rest, just stay with it. The plane ride and door fear definitely does go away eventually, but for some people it takes 10-20 jumps, for some up to 100 to completely disappear. If you stick with it, it WILL go away, at least in my experience.