ELO scores can be less accurate if you have less competing members. The differences in gender and chess-playing ability has been studied, but concrete conclusions have not been made. There have been 41 female Grandmasters, and at one point, the youngest Grandmaster at age 15 was a woman: Judit Polgar.
10:30 I ran into this exact problem with the police in the store when I worked in a convenience store. One of the officers made a HUGE scene and fussed at me and demanded to see this 40+ year old woman's ID. Thing is, from a distance she looked like she was nine. Pretty sure she had neoteny. Only up close could you see she had laugh lines and crow's feet. Officer bigmouth was SO embarrassed when he saw her birthdate was 197X
The real reason for the may contain nuts well this is obvious exception. For example, macaroons are made with almond flour. Anyone familiar with French cooking knows this. So omitting the warning about nuts from a box of macaroons could be argued as obvious. Then someone unfamiliar with this picks up a box of cookies. It's better just to have it universally without an obviously exception
Sorry, macaroons aren't nuts, so it doesn't apply to this. It's BEING nuts that makes the nut warning seem stupid. (Since peanut butter is paste made of peanuts, it qualifies). Sure, this story nitpicks that peanuts aren't technically nuts - my opinion of that is the whole "walks like a duck" view, seems just like nitpicking otherwise - but in my experience peanut allergies (and "nuts and peanuts" allergies) are WAY more common than "nuts but not peanuts" allergies anyway.
@@niceguy169 Macaroons are made from almond flour. They are a very common trigger for children who have nut allergies and think they are just normal cookies. And my kid is allergic to almonds and not peanuts. It's apparently common enough that the doctor was completely unsurprised
@@Benjamin1986980 Nothing you said invalidates what I said though. I didn't and would never say it doesn't deserve a warning. I'm saying that in no way is putting a warning going to seem stupid. It is NOT obvious and cannot be obvious that any kind of nuts are involved. To the average public they're just some mystery cookie/treat thingy. I don't know how they taste, just a vague idea how they look, but unless they taste particularly nutty, I suspect the only people who are aware that nuts are involved are people with nut allergies, or parents/caregivers of people with nut allergies. Which means nut warnings are absolutely essential and required on them. All it takes is an unaware babysitter to hand them a treat. Meaning the warning isn't stupid or seeming unnecessary. :)
Story about taking a day to do nothing: I specifically work 5 days a week, just so that I have a day for reenergizing, and a day for errands that aren't work related. I find myself working harder towards the end of my work week, in anticipation of a Do Nothing Day. This is also a chance to be introspective and find avenues of peace.
Not a rule but something something ridiculous some Rockbands did put in their touring contracts, like the band must have a bowl of green M&M's in their room or the band would not perform. Turns out that some of the equipment used, needed special requirements. So they put in the contract as wel that the venue where they would perform needed to meet X, Y and Z standards. Apparently there were enough venue operators who did not met those requirments and who did not read the bloody contract. Imagine what could happen when a 10 ton elevator has to be installed on a unsupported wooden stage floor or that the curtains were not fire proof while they use pyrotechnics in their concert. So if there was not a bowl of green M&M;s in their room the band knew that the venue did not read the bloody contract and that it was probable that it also not met the other requirements. It gave the band an easy legal way out to not perform on a venue that was not up to their standards. The added publicity over this ridiculous demands was an added bonus. Think that Lee Roth from Van Halen mentioned that.
Story 2: Working at a movie theater, we had similar rules for our hot dogs. But towards the employees. As the last shows began, we'd sell of the remaining dogs to customers at half price. One employee once asked why they wouldn't just let us workers buy the last dogs with our employee discounts. Manager explained that this might encourage the cooks to intentionally start cooking too many dogs at the end of the shift so we could have them to take home.
Story 1: those aren't the real reasons, those are made up someone told them while not Knowing the real reason. Why you still hammered with a DUI if you are in your car, engine off, keys in pocket is because you had to get there somehow, and the police can't know if you drove there sober or not, or if you have no intent to drive drunk. That's all. Ppl state as an argument that impaired drivers aren't aware if they slept long enough to drive away safely, but that's completely beside the point, impaired driving regardless of other factors is still impaired driving, the reasoning of the driver is irrelevant.
You make a couple fair points, however: "the police can't know if you drove there sober or not, or if you have no intent to drive drunk" is irrelevant because neither of these is a reasonable justification for actually charging you with a DUI. I could maybe see an argument for detaining a person until they're sober but this is an area that police are given far too much leeway in and way too many people end up charged with a crime they *didn't actually commit.*
@@nanoglitch6693agreed. The only “evidence” they have is you are intoxicated and in an automobile. As for the judgment argument, I could have napped at my friend’s place then hopped in my car. I would be no more or less intoxicated than had I taken the same length of nap in my car.
100% compulsory voting. Election day should be a national holiday, it should be Rank Choice, and None should always be one of the choices, and remote, early, or mail in voting shouldbe allowed. That's literally the only way to make the system fair for everyone. However the people currently in power wouldn't be in power if the system was completely fair. So we can't have nice things because of corruption.
If are compelled to do something, then you are not in a free country. Those who are forced to vote, who do not desire to vote, will be the ones to mess things up out of spite.
I went to a pizza place late and the guys making it made something COMPLETELY different, not even remotely close.... Twice. The manager overheard me binging back the second pizza. He gave me both the pizza's glaring at his young employees and made it himself. They were obviously making them so they could eat it after work. The manager killed that and he was really pissed.
Turning off your engine while refueling your car, staying with your car while refueling, and no one under driving age allowed to refuel a vehicle. The first is because gas fumes can escape from the tank while refueling and are a hazard. The second puts the responsible person with the vehicle while refueling, in case of spills and over filling. The last is kids are close to face level with where you insert the nozzle and with back splashing from over filling being a thing, getting gasoline in your eyes is awful and I've seen it happen in person. I don't care if it's too hot/too cold out. I don't care if you can't restart your car if you turn it off. I don't care if you are just running into the store real quick. And if you want your kid to learn how to pump gas you get out of the truck and show them. I will stop your pump if you push it.
That third reason is really more of a height issue than an age/maturity issue. What if you have a really short adult, they too could get gasoline in their face, but you could also have a tall teenager who is taller than most adults and could certainly pump gas without having this problem.
First off, you should listen to the cops to a point. Like hands in pockets and stuff, so they wont have an excuse of self defense or fear for their life. But dont believe in the complain later part, most higher ups dont give a fuck about you or your complaints. So many cops are still working with a mountain of complaints, what you should do is record or have someone record your interaction with police. This is what ive been raised on by my lawyer parent. Police aren't your friend, even when they are here to help your they aren't your friend. Treat them with respect but thats it.
That’s recommend by cops too. Comply with orders as the cop has the monopoly on violence but they don’t have the monopoly on information recording of police is constitutionally protected.
Guy at 4:40 didn't understand the assignment... the expired ID law IS a stupid law... my age doesn't change... now the bar enforcing isn't to blame and I understand why they do.... but the law is still stupid
The reasons given for mass surveillance are utter nonsense. Just review 1930s Germany's history sometime for a historical example of where this mindset leads.
Yeah what chess boy didn't like to mention is the only way for women's ELO to raise is to go against higher elos guess what happens when there's no higher ELO to go against because you can only go against women who've never had higher ELOs. They are capped and men aren't. The guy thought that he was saying something amazing but no what he was saying is women don't have a chance because they can't compete against men because they aren't allowed to. Because there is a separation because there's a difference in number they can't fix the number the only way to do that is to play against men
People who moan and cry about not being allowed to darken their windows on the car are worthless losers. They just want to text and drive without getting caught
The first one is STILL wrong, sorry. Sleeping isn't dangerous. Period. It should in no way be illegal. If people drive after not enough sleep or bad sleep such that they're still affected, that's driving impaired, YES that's still illegal, it'd already in place. That's no call for making the safe part illegal/against the rules. Either way the BAD decision to drive - before or after sleeping - is punished and illegal. Just like it's up to the drunk person to make the responsible decision to not drive, it's the sleeping drunk person's responsibility to not drive after not enough rest. Another thing, I don't know about all places, but around here the regular public transit buses don't run at the time the bars close. But if you sleep a few hours in your car, by the time you wake up the buses are now running and you can get home without dropping a bunch of money on a taxi, meaning "sleeping one off" helped, and helped SAFELY. Shouldn't be illegal, period. It doesn't just sound stupid, it is. I have a huge pet peeve for laws/rules that can be boiled down to "Here's a law/rule for in case you break THAT law/rule". Why plan for failure? It's wrong to plan for failure. Second story is stupid too! This guy worked at a pizza place and doesn't know how pizza getting old works???? Fresh pizza is NICER and TASTIER, but old pizza still tastes and is good! Whenever I order pizza I order too much and eat it for up to the next two days. At the 48 hour mark it needs some nuking (I water down the crust first to make it chewable again), but it's still pretty good. If they donate the pizza at closing time IT ISN'T EVEN OLD YET! Some places might be able to get it to the homeless/starving that night! If not, then generally the next day. How old does he think pizza gets in 8-10 hours???? How long does he think they hold onto food before getting it to the needy? Homeless are hungry every day, they're constantly ready to eat, don't worry. It's still perfectly edible and actually pretty good the next morning. Like they said, stop being so wasteful. (I HAVE to concur with his first point, no discounts for cheapskates) Story 3, wow, another! Problem with the expired ID thing: No, it's NOT the same as a fake ID. A fake ID lets an underage person drink, it lets that kid break the law. That creates the problem of a too-young person being under the influence, taking damage, starting bad habits, etc. There's no potential problem from letting in a legitimately-old-enough person in! "OMG, they got drunk on an expired ID!". So? Old enough to drink is still old enough to drink! There's no potential lawsuit, there's no potential bad influence. There's no risk TO the business! This guy didn't think out his words here. Story 4 - I'm getting a pattern here - if the ropes are empty, they can come to the front and enter the ropes FROM THE FRONT. I've seen so many line ropes where THAT makes the most sense, if the line is literally or figuratively empty, it IS more efficient, sorry. No need to clog up the sidewalk by coming in the other way.
"nobody wants old, garbage pizza" Me - eating another slice of the pizza that's been sitting on my counter for two days and loving every bite of it....
The pizza comment seems a bit ridiculous. At the end of a business a pizza is not "too bad or unsafe" to give away. If someone got sick from a pizza, it was probably disgusting ingredients
Am I the only one that feels like the one about the don't reach in your pockets unless you want to get shot by the cops rule is kind of stupid because here's the thing there are plenty of people that have gotten killed by the cops that didn't even reach their pockets all because some cop was on the power trip trigger hungry or they just didn't like that person who was either of another race I no that's a hard reality to face but it's true there's no such thing is because the phone in your pocket looks like it's done bullshit because how else are you supposed to grab me it's when do you maybe you can ask the cops to grab it for you but think about it the person has a gun in your face is more likely to fuck up get themselves killed by the cops because they're that paranoid about the idea even though I think you would be smarter than one officer to be behind you if they really think you're going to pull out a gun
The one about shouting down the store is nuts. The cops would run sting ops on stores who sold alcohol to under age kids but never has a customer who was known to the store been forced to be carded. It seems like a wate of money to the tax payers. But i understand the concept.
The first one is beyond stupid. If a person is asleep in there car and its not on how are they driving? They might sleep long enough and drunk drive after they wake up? How do you know they wont sleep long enough? Drunk people sleep for a very long time. Also how do you know they will drive after they wake up instead of doing something else? You are literally accusing them of somthing they not only haven't even done yet but accusing them of doing somthing they had zero intent of doing in the first place. If they wanted to drunk drive why were they asleep in there car in the first place rather than drunk driving home first to there way morw comfortable bed with a toilet food and water? Also if a person gets in trouble for drunk sleeping in there car, why would they risk it when they could just drive home? Yes they are putting everyone at risk but a three hour power nap (which is stupidly short to a drunk person) would give the police three whole hours to get them plus sleeping in your car would be a dead give away, where as a 20 minute car ride gives the police way less time to caught you plus as long as the drunk driver drives straight enough when they pass a hidden police car they would be way harder to get. Yes they swerve but unless the cop is actually driving around then rather a few seconds glance form there hidding spot then good luck. Its so stupid cause if you get punished either way the you're just gonna take the option that has less chance of getting caught even though ot puts everyone at risk all because you cany take the safe option of just getting some shut eye in your own damn car. Let the person be safe without punishment amd you will see a noticeable decrease in drunk drivers. And even if they drive after not sleeping long enough they atleast be better than they were before. I meam after that person was gonna drive either way so why not let them be in the best condition possible when they do it? Drunk driving happens whether you like or not and if you cant completely get rid of it then make it as safe as possible by being realistic rather than just pretending like you're making it safer by making a dumb law that actively encourages they very thing you want to stop just so you can pat yourself on the back with some stupid logic.
Story 2: Ah, yes that makes sense, why would people so hungry they'll eat out of dumpsters, want slightly old pizza. What were we thinking even asking.
Because of choice. If someone gets sick from eating food because it was given to them then the person who gave it would be responsible whereas if a person gets it from the trash themselves then they can't pass the blame. It doesn't matter how fresh or old the item is
Story 10 sounds like BS! Yeah, no there no reason why a woman would be worst than a man at chess. It sound like one of those rules from the 1800s - 1900s that was never updated and people uses confirmation biaed data to justify it now.
I'm gonna go opposite of the title and name a rule that sounds smart but is absolutely stupid. Gun control. You put in a bunch of regulations so people can't get some more dangerous types of guns like handguns or assault rifles in order to lower gun crime and make things safer. Sounds good, right? Except 99% of people committing these gun crimes are career criminals, therefore people who don't follow the law to begin with. Why would someone who disobeys all other laws obey gun laws? If they get arrested for their crimes they get arrested whether they have a gun or not. So the only people who don't have guns and therefore don't have means to protect themselves against dangerous criminals are law abiding citizens. Gun control actually puts you in more danger than you and your neighbours being allowed to carry guns. Just compare the crime rates in high gun control states like California and New York to 2nd Amendment supporting states like Tennessee.
You're forgetting a huge part of gun deaths and one of the main purposes for gun control. Those being suicide and crimes of passion. Both of these, in the vast majority of cases, are done with little thinking or during particular bad times in a person's life and some common sense gun control like permits and a couple day delay in the delivery of a gun after buying would save thousands of lives annually. Do remember that, at least in the US, the leading cause of death in children and young adults is firearms. Not disease, accidents, or injury, but firearms. And in the vast majority of the cases these are not done by mass shooters or criminals but by people who are depressed, stupid, or careless.
There is no rational reason for owning automatic weapons. They are meant to be used against people. As are handguns. You are not part of a well-regulated militia and the second amendment does not apply to you.
@@thedungeoneer101personally, I'm ok with a few days of wait time or having some sort of regulation for safely storing firearms arround children. Most gun laws don't actually help with any of these real issues. SBR tax stamps, suppressor regulations, short barrel shotgun laws, bump stock and frt trigger bans, etc. Most gun laws only cause the average citizen to be harmed while criminals just ignore them, and often go unpunished for ignoring them. I have a rifle and suppressor which I had to pay a total of 400$ worth of tax stamps to own, and I'm not allowed to change the length of the barrel or the caliber of the weapon without asking for permission, nor am I allowed to take it out of the state without asking for permission. The laws I am following and the taxes I have paid are not followed or paid by criminals. TLDR, almost all gun laws are stupid.
@@iamsethhasting8911 I agree with that 100%. Most gun control laws are dumb or ineffective, and I say that as someone who is in full support of gun control. IMO, the purpose of gun control in a country with more guns than people shouldn't be just small annoyances and taxes. Gun control laws in the states need to be wide reaching and easily enforceable but easily understood so things like what you mentioned are more like what we should look to do. More examples include Red flag laws, delays in gun delivery, and permits to buy guns.
Also I just looked up of there's any female champion chess players in the world and there is still today so that guy in that part of the video talking about that there are no female chess players is a load of shit and a complete liar
Rufus is just relaying the stories from the thread. Also, go read up on the statistical analysis on gender ELO in chess which isn't SEXIST because it is based on numbers and fact. Stay smart as you look in your profile photo ☝️🤓
ELO scores can be less accurate if you have less competing members. The differences in gender and chess-playing ability has been studied, but concrete conclusions have not been made. There have been 41 female Grandmasters, and at one point, the youngest Grandmaster at age 15 was a woman: Judit Polgar.
10:30 I ran into this exact problem with the police in the store when I worked in a convenience store. One of the officers made a HUGE scene and fussed at me and demanded to see this 40+ year old woman's ID. Thing is, from a distance she looked like she was nine. Pretty sure she had neoteny. Only up close could you see she had laugh lines and crow's feet.
Officer bigmouth was SO embarrassed when he saw her birthdate was 197X
The real reason for the may contain nuts well this is obvious exception. For example, macaroons are made with almond flour. Anyone familiar with French cooking knows this. So omitting the warning about nuts from a box of macaroons could be argued as obvious. Then someone unfamiliar with this picks up a box of cookies.
It's better just to have it universally without an obviously exception
Sorry, macaroons aren't nuts, so it doesn't apply to this. It's BEING nuts that makes the nut warning seem stupid. (Since peanut butter is paste made of peanuts, it qualifies). Sure, this story nitpicks that peanuts aren't technically nuts - my opinion of that is the whole "walks like a duck" view, seems just like nitpicking otherwise - but in my experience peanut allergies (and "nuts and peanuts" allergies) are WAY more common than "nuts but not peanuts" allergies anyway.
@@niceguy169 Macaroons are made from almond flour. They are a very common trigger for children who have nut allergies and think they are just normal cookies.
And my kid is allergic to almonds and not peanuts. It's apparently common enough that the doctor was completely unsurprised
@@Benjamin1986980 Nothing you said invalidates what I said though. I didn't and would never say it doesn't deserve a warning. I'm saying that in no way is putting a warning going to seem stupid. It is NOT obvious and cannot be obvious that any kind of nuts are involved. To the average public they're just some mystery cookie/treat thingy. I don't know how they taste, just a vague idea how they look, but unless they taste particularly nutty, I suspect the only people who are aware that nuts are involved are people with nut allergies, or parents/caregivers of people with nut allergies. Which means nut warnings are absolutely essential and required on them. All it takes is an unaware babysitter to hand them a treat. Meaning the warning isn't stupid or seeming unnecessary. :)
Story about taking a day to do nothing: I specifically work 5 days a week, just so that I have a day for reenergizing, and a day for errands that aren't work related. I find myself working harder towards the end of my work week, in anticipation of a Do Nothing Day. This is also a chance to be introspective and find avenues of peace.
5 days a week... Like most people.
It's illegal to sell flashlights over a certain amount of lumens to minors in my state. It's to prevent kids from blinding themselves or others.
Thank you so much for your video.
Not a rule but something something ridiculous some Rockbands did put in their touring contracts, like the band must have a bowl of green M&M's in their room or the band would not perform. Turns out that some of the equipment used, needed special requirements. So they put in the contract as wel that the venue where they would perform needed to meet X, Y and Z standards. Apparently there were enough venue operators who did not met those requirments and who did not read the bloody contract.
Imagine what could happen when a 10 ton elevator has to be installed on a unsupported wooden stage floor or that the curtains were not fire proof while they use pyrotechnics in their concert.
So if there was not a bowl of green M&M;s in their room the band knew that the venue did not read the bloody contract and that it was probable that it also not met the other requirements. It gave the band an easy legal way out to not perform on a venue that was not up to their standards. The added publicity over this ridiculous demands was an added bonus.
Think that Lee Roth from Van Halen mentioned that.
the chess one was fucked up, i wonder why the gap stays the same though
The separation is a factor of it maintaining the same.
Flying is less dangerous than traveling by car,bus or train
As someone who works retail and sales alcohol, the expiration date is true
Story 2: Working at a movie theater, we had similar rules for our hot dogs. But towards the employees. As the last shows began, we'd sell of the remaining dogs to customers at half price. One employee once asked why they wouldn't just let us workers buy the last dogs with our employee discounts. Manager explained that this might encourage the cooks to intentionally start cooking too many dogs at the end of the shift so we could have them to take home.
Story 1: those aren't the real reasons, those are made up someone told them while not Knowing the real reason. Why you still hammered with a DUI if you are in your car, engine off, keys in pocket is because you had to get there somehow, and the police can't know if you drove there sober or not, or if you have no intent to drive drunk. That's all. Ppl state as an argument that impaired drivers aren't aware if they slept long enough to drive away safely, but that's completely beside the point, impaired driving regardless of other factors is still impaired driving, the reasoning of the driver is irrelevant.
You make a couple fair points, however: "the police can't know if you drove there sober or not, or if you have no intent to drive drunk" is irrelevant because neither of these is a reasonable justification for actually charging you with a DUI. I could maybe see an argument for detaining a person until they're sober but this is an area that police are given far too much leeway in and way too many people end up charged with a crime they *didn't actually commit.*
@@nanoglitch6693agreed. The only “evidence” they have is you are intoxicated and in an automobile.
As for the judgment argument, I could have napped at my friend’s place then hopped in my car. I would be no more or less intoxicated than had I taken the same length of nap in my car.
100% compulsory voting. Election day should be a national holiday, it should be Rank Choice, and None should always be one of the choices, and remote, early, or mail in voting shouldbe allowed. That's literally the only way to make the system fair for everyone.
However the people currently in power wouldn't be in power if the system was completely fair. So we can't have nice things because of corruption.
If are compelled to do something, then you are not in a free country.
Those who are forced to vote, who do not desire to vote, will be the ones to mess things up out of spite.
I went to a pizza place late and the guys making it made something COMPLETELY different, not even remotely close.... Twice. The manager overheard me binging back the second pizza. He gave me both the pizza's glaring at his young employees and made it himself. They were obviously making them so they could eat it after work. The manager killed that and he was really pissed.
The expired ID is absolutely just dumb. And is in no way, smart.
Turning off your engine while refueling your car, staying with your car while refueling, and no one under driving age allowed to refuel a vehicle. The first is because gas fumes can escape from the tank while refueling and are a hazard. The second puts the responsible person with the vehicle while refueling, in case of spills and over filling. The last is kids are close to face level with where you insert the nozzle and with back splashing from over filling being a thing, getting gasoline in your eyes is awful and I've seen it happen in person. I don't care if it's too hot/too cold out. I don't care if you can't restart your car if you turn it off. I don't care if you are just running into the store real quick. And if you want your kid to learn how to pump gas you get out of the truck and show them. I will stop your pump if you push it.
That third reason is really more of a height issue than an age/maturity issue. What if you have a really short adult, they too could get gasoline in their face, but you could also have a tall teenager who is taller than most adults and could certainly pump gas without having this problem.
Click your heels 3 times to get home.
A positive attitude can make all the difference
First off, you should listen to the cops to a point. Like hands in pockets and stuff, so they wont have an excuse of self defense or fear for their life.
But dont believe in the complain later part, most higher ups dont give a fuck about you or your complaints. So many cops are still working with a mountain of complaints, what you should do is record or have someone record your interaction with police.
This is what ive been raised on by my lawyer parent. Police aren't your friend, even when they are here to help your they aren't your friend. Treat them with respect but thats it.
That’s recommend by cops too. Comply with orders as the cop has the monopoly on violence but they don’t have the monopoly on information recording of police is constitutionally protected.
Guy at 4:40 didn't understand the assignment... the expired ID law IS a stupid law... my age doesn't change... now the bar enforcing isn't to blame and I understand why they do.... but the law is still stupid
You can sleep in your car if you're drunk. Nothing they can do about it as there is no victim involved and unconstitutional acts are not law
The reasons given for mass surveillance are utter nonsense. Just review 1930s Germany's history sometime for a historical example of where this mindset leads.
13:36 In short: men are smarter than women, so much so that they had to give women their own separate tournament, just like in athletics.
Yeah what chess boy didn't like to mention is the only way for women's ELO to raise is to go against higher elos guess what happens when there's no higher ELO to go against because you can only go against women who've never had higher ELOs. They are capped and men aren't. The guy thought that he was saying something amazing but no what he was saying is women don't have a chance because they can't compete against men because they aren't allowed to. Because there is a separation because there's a difference in number they can't fix the number the only way to do that is to play against men
I believe there's a phrase for that called Catch 22
People who moan and cry about not being allowed to darken their windows on the car are worthless losers. They just want to text and drive without getting caught
The first one is STILL wrong, sorry. Sleeping isn't dangerous. Period. It should in no way be illegal. If people drive after not enough sleep or bad sleep such that they're still affected, that's driving impaired, YES that's still illegal, it'd already in place. That's no call for making the safe part illegal/against the rules. Either way the BAD decision to drive - before or after sleeping - is punished and illegal. Just like it's up to the drunk person to make the responsible decision to not drive, it's the sleeping drunk person's responsibility to not drive after not enough rest. Another thing, I don't know about all places, but around here the regular public transit buses don't run at the time the bars close. But if you sleep a few hours in your car, by the time you wake up the buses are now running and you can get home without dropping a bunch of money on a taxi, meaning "sleeping one off" helped, and helped SAFELY. Shouldn't be illegal, period. It doesn't just sound stupid, it is. I have a huge pet peeve for laws/rules that can be boiled down to "Here's a law/rule for in case you break THAT law/rule". Why plan for failure? It's wrong to plan for failure.
Second story is stupid too! This guy worked at a pizza place and doesn't know how pizza getting old works???? Fresh pizza is NICER and TASTIER, but old pizza still tastes and is good! Whenever I order pizza I order too much and eat it for up to the next two days. At the 48 hour mark it needs some nuking (I water down the crust first to make it chewable again), but it's still pretty good. If they donate the pizza at closing time IT ISN'T EVEN OLD YET! Some places might be able to get it to the homeless/starving that night! If not, then generally the next day. How old does he think pizza gets in 8-10 hours???? How long does he think they hold onto food before getting it to the needy? Homeless are hungry every day, they're constantly ready to eat, don't worry. It's still perfectly edible and actually pretty good the next morning. Like they said, stop being so wasteful. (I HAVE to concur with his first point, no discounts for cheapskates)
Story 3, wow, another! Problem with the expired ID thing: No, it's NOT the same as a fake ID. A fake ID lets an underage person drink, it lets that kid break the law. That creates the problem of a too-young person being under the influence, taking damage, starting bad habits, etc. There's no potential problem from letting in a legitimately-old-enough person in! "OMG, they got drunk on an expired ID!". So? Old enough to drink is still old enough to drink! There's no potential lawsuit, there's no potential bad influence. There's no risk TO the business! This guy didn't think out his words here.
Story 4 - I'm getting a pattern here - if the ropes are empty, they can come to the front and enter the ropes FROM THE FRONT. I've seen so many line ropes where THAT makes the most sense, if the line is literally or figuratively empty, it IS more efficient, sorry. No need to clog up the sidewalk by coming in the other way.
Rules are rules, despite how "stupid" :/
The pizza story is horsepuck. When i was homeless, yes i damn well would rather have old crusty pizza that may not be 100% safe, than nothing at all.
"nobody wants old, garbage pizza"
Me - eating another slice of the pizza that's been sitting on my counter for two days and loving every bite of it....
The pizza comment seems a bit ridiculous. At the end of a business a pizza is not "too bad or unsafe" to give away. If someone got sick from a pizza, it was probably disgusting ingredients
Am I the only one that feels like the one about the don't reach in your pockets unless you want to get shot by the cops rule is kind of stupid because here's the thing there are plenty of people that have gotten killed by the cops that didn't even reach their pockets all because some cop was on the power trip trigger hungry or they just didn't like that person who was either of another race I no that's a hard reality to face but it's true there's no such thing is because the phone in your pocket looks like it's done bullshit because how else are you supposed to grab me it's when do you maybe you can ask the cops to grab it for you but think about it the person has a gun in your face is more likely to fuck up get themselves killed by the cops because they're that paranoid about the idea even though I think you would be smarter than one officer to be behind you if they really think you're going to pull out a gun
No you aren't the only one otherwise it wouldn't be on the list
I agree but holy cow, you seriously need some punctuation in there.
The chess thing was bullshit!
The one about shouting down the store is nuts. The cops would run sting ops on stores who sold alcohol to under age kids but never has a customer who was known to the store been forced to be carded. It seems like a wate of money to the tax payers. But i understand the concept.
If you could use an expried id people would get a new id when one expires snd sell the old one as a veryvrealistiv fake id
The first one is beyond stupid. If a person is asleep in there car and its not on how are they driving? They might sleep long enough and drunk drive after they wake up? How do you know they wont sleep long enough? Drunk people sleep for a very long time. Also how do you know they will drive after they wake up instead of doing something else? You are literally accusing them of somthing they not only haven't even done yet but accusing them of doing somthing they had zero intent of doing in the first place. If they wanted to drunk drive why were they asleep in there car in the first place rather than drunk driving home first to there way morw comfortable bed with a toilet food and water? Also if a person gets in trouble for drunk sleeping in there car, why would they risk it when they could just drive home? Yes they are putting everyone at risk but a three hour power nap (which is stupidly short to a drunk person) would give the police three whole hours to get them plus sleeping in your car would be a dead give away, where as a 20 minute car ride gives the police way less time to caught you plus as long as the drunk driver drives straight enough when they pass a hidden police car they would be way harder to get. Yes they swerve but unless the cop is actually driving around then rather a few seconds glance form there hidding spot then good luck. Its so stupid cause if you get punished either way the you're just gonna take the option that has less chance of getting caught even though ot puts everyone at risk all because you cany take the safe option of just getting some shut eye in your own damn car. Let the person be safe without punishment amd you will see a noticeable decrease in drunk drivers. And even if they drive after not sleeping long enough they atleast be better than they were before. I meam after that person was gonna drive either way so why not let them be in the best condition possible when they do it? Drunk driving happens whether you like or not and if you cant completely get rid of it then make it as safe as possible by being realistic rather than just pretending like you're making it safer by making a dumb law that actively encourages they very thing you want to stop just so you can pat yourself on the back with some stupid logic.
Story 2: Ah, yes that makes sense, why would people so hungry they'll eat out of dumpsters, want slightly old pizza. What were we thinking even asking.
Because of choice. If someone gets sick from eating food because it was given to them then the person who gave it would be responsible whereas if a person gets it from the trash themselves then they can't pass the blame. It doesn't matter how fresh or old the item is
Nerds
Story 10 sounds like BS!
Yeah, no there no reason why a woman would be worst than a man at chess.
It sound like one of those rules from the 1800s - 1900s that was never updated and people uses confirmation biaed data to justify it now.
I'm gonna go opposite of the title and name a rule that sounds smart but is absolutely stupid. Gun control. You put in a bunch of regulations so people can't get some more dangerous types of guns like handguns or assault rifles in order to lower gun crime and make things safer. Sounds good, right? Except 99% of people committing these gun crimes are career criminals, therefore people who don't follow the law to begin with. Why would someone who disobeys all other laws obey gun laws? If they get arrested for their crimes they get arrested whether they have a gun or not. So the only people who don't have guns and therefore don't have means to protect themselves against dangerous criminals are law abiding citizens. Gun control actually puts you in more danger than you and your neighbours being allowed to carry guns. Just compare the crime rates in high gun control states like California and New York to 2nd Amendment supporting states like Tennessee.
You're forgetting a huge part of gun deaths and one of the main purposes for gun control. Those being suicide and crimes of passion. Both of these, in the vast majority of cases, are done with little thinking or during particular bad times in a person's life and some common sense gun control like permits and a couple day delay in the delivery of a gun after buying would save thousands of lives annually. Do remember that, at least in the US, the leading cause of death in children and young adults is firearms. Not disease, accidents, or injury, but firearms. And in the vast majority of the cases these are not done by mass shooters or criminals but by people who are depressed, stupid, or careless.
There is no rational reason for owning automatic weapons. They are meant to be used against people. As are handguns. You are not part of a well-regulated militia and the second amendment does not apply to you.
@@thedungeoneer101personally, I'm ok with a few days of wait time or having some sort of regulation for safely storing firearms arround children. Most gun laws don't actually help with any of these real issues. SBR tax stamps, suppressor regulations, short barrel shotgun laws, bump stock and frt trigger bans, etc. Most gun laws only cause the average citizen to be harmed while criminals just ignore them, and often go unpunished for ignoring them. I have a rifle and suppressor which I had to pay a total of 400$ worth of tax stamps to own, and I'm not allowed to change the length of the barrel or the caliber of the weapon without asking for permission, nor am I allowed to take it out of the state without asking for permission. The laws I am following and the taxes I have paid are not followed or paid by criminals.
TLDR, almost all gun laws are stupid.
@@iamsethhasting8911 I agree with that 100%. Most gun control laws are dumb or ineffective, and I say that as someone who is in full support of gun control.
IMO, the purpose of gun control in a country with more guns than people shouldn't be just small annoyances and taxes. Gun control laws in the states need to be wide reaching and easily enforceable but easily understood so things like what you mentioned are more like what we should look to do. More examples include Red flag laws, delays in gun delivery, and permits to buy guns.
The vast majority gun violence is committed by legally acquired fire arms.
Also I just looked up of there's any female champion chess players in the world and there is still today so that guy in that part of the video talking about that there are no female chess players is a load of shit and a complete liar
The person isn't saying there aren't any. Just that they're few in numbers if I'm not mistaken
No, I just looked it up. He was right.
Aren't. Not Isn't.
The chess one is absolutely SEXIST! I'll NEVER watch another RUFUS READ IT video!
Rufus is just relaying the stories from the thread. Also, go read up on the statistical analysis on gender ELO in chess which isn't SEXIST because it is based on numbers and fact. Stay smart as you look in your profile photo ☝️🤓
Bruh seriously? He's just reading stories and stuff 😂 why so triggered?
I mean, he's just reading someone else's post. They aren't necessarily his actual opinions.
The chess one pissed me off. Not because of the actual rule, but the "Hurrr durrr, fuck political correctness" vibes that person has.
#triggered