was told to post here 2
Tags: PART 3 is UP htt
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
115 comments displayed.
#8
-
Viceroy (01/10/2016) [-] That guy beside the car flipped completely upside down in less than a second.
It was like videogame latency.
It was like videogame latency.
#28 to #21
-
lollypopalopicus ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
Actually, if you look close, he dives into the open trunk.
#30 to #21
-
jaydudereborn ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-] Remember that one being posted before. Someone followed it up and both survived.
#127 to #16
-
bigswingingrichard (01/11/2016) [-] What was it? A flood or something? What spun his ass like that?
#133 to #127
-
ruckallthefules (01/11/2016) [-] Took me a while but I figured it out now. It's filmed with a zoomed in lens and makes everything seem slow, but in fact the car is probably doing around 100Mph/160Kph if not more. I'll draw the optical illusion. The red is what you might think is happening, the green is highly likely the scenario occuring in the clip.
#134 to #127
-
ronyx (01/11/2016) [-] He was driving in the direction you see traffic, then it appears he did a drift or something and turned his steering wheel to the right causing the car to drift across the freeway towards the people. It looks like he was going VERY fast and when the wheels of the car encountered resistance "the dirt road" it sent the car to the air and then started to roll.
***** must've been going really really fast.
***** must've been going really really fast.
#128 to #127
-
beastybaconman (01/11/2016) [-] some arab guys do wicked high speed drifting on roads like that, I'm guessing that's what he was doing and lost control
#143 to #141
-
congorepublic ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-] If you actually think I'm from the congo, then you're retarded.
#87 to #18
-
beastybaconman (01/10/2016) [-] Pretty sure it's an arm, in the first couple rolls you can see a guy with his arm out the window
#45 to #18
-
insanefreak (01/10/2016) [-]
I'm not sure. On one point it looks like an arm, on the other hand it seems to be lacking blood... I'd figure if your arm got ripped off there'd be blood all over the place..
#63 to #45
-
blargchikahonkhonk (01/10/2016) [-] look at the guy flying out of the car he is missing an arm. I doubt there are many things that are brown and white and look incredibly like an arm in the car either. most likely an arm but cant be sure.
#65 to #63
-
insanefreak (01/10/2016) [-]
Maybe a prosthetic? I'm honestly really curious about the lack of blood. I know humans don't bleed as much as we seem to do in horror movies and all that, but I mean, if your entire arm gets ripped off, you'd expect a lot of blood to be pouring out of their..
It really has me stumped, and I'm trying to google it now. But googling Arab car accident gives me a lot of results.
And a lot of car bombs too.
It really has me stumped, and I'm trying to google it now. But googling Arab car accident gives me a lot of results.
And a lot of car bombs too.
#77 to #65
-
semifreddo (01/10/2016) [-] I've heard before actually that our brain quickly rewires the bloodflow to the severed arm so we don't bleed out. Therefore; There isn't as much bloodspill as you might think.
#129 to #77
-
anon (01/11/2016) [-]
You're actually partially correct. The body reacts to violent amputation by doing something called shunting. Basically, the muscles surrounding the severed area spasm and construct very tightly and will control bleeding for a short time. This however does not last long and severe bleeding will start again. It's like a matter of several seconds to half a minute depending on the amputation and muscle tissue.
#74 to #65
-
blargchikahonkhonk (01/10/2016) [-] Could be a prosthetic. It was spun around quite a lot there is a chance that the large majority of the blood came out before the arm was flung away. not sure though
#113 to #45
-
dorg (01/10/2016) [-] You have seen a bit too many movies. In reality it sure is bloody, but considering that the body only holds a couple of liters it is not a splashing effect. In that short amount of time only the blood closest to the cut would have time to spill out. Meaning, you would definitely not be able to see it with this low a resolution. The red thing is flesh, which you can clearly see.
#90 to #89
-
commencingfailure (01/10/2016) [-] We're speaking average person here. It's relative to the object "person", 'persons' would be everyone. Your definition still states you're after the mean of the related object.
Thus, mean of "people"= average person = person with the IQ of 100. Someone with an IQ of 100 is due to the concept of IQ exactly the middlemode(the only thing you could use to repute is saying that the average person still has equals which are not "more stupid" - but we're talking average person here, the absolute most inbetween case we can find - so that would still be a weak argument)
Thus, mean of "people"= average person = person with the IQ of 100. Someone with an IQ of 100 is due to the concept of IQ exactly the middlemode(the only thing you could use to repute is saying that the average person still has equals which are not "more stupid" - but we're talking average person here, the absolute most inbetween case we can find - so that would still be a weak argument)
#94 to #90
-
Fgner (01/10/2016) [-] No, the median is the middle point in a set; the mean (average) is a completely unrelated term. 99.99999999999999999% of the subjects can be above or below the mean value if the differential is large enough. Though there are cases where the average does fall in the center, I just gave you an example that 100% proves averages do not always split the set.
And like you said, IQ tests, by design, have a mean, median, and mode at 100 points with a standard deviation of 15. It's normalized data, not raw score. There is no point in bringing IQ up, since it changes absolutely nothing from the definition of an average.
And like you said, IQ tests, by design, have a mean, median, and mode at 100 points with a standard deviation of 15. It's normalized data, not raw score. There is no point in bringing IQ up, since it changes absolutely nothing from the definition of an average.
#96 to #94
-
commencingfailure (01/10/2016) [-] Misread, forgive me on the previous comment.
It's not all that difficult. I only took IQ in consideration for it's a good analogy to explain "average" as in intellect. Average would be an IQ of 100, I'm just making it more concrete.
I don't really see what you fail to understand. The group is "persons", as in, referring to "All people", all people's intellect(that's where IQ comes in play) divided by the initial group "all people" would be average. This number implies there's 50% below this mark and 50% above(obviously not exact if it's a non odd number, but it's really damn close). What is your point?
It's not all that difficult. I only took IQ in consideration for it's a good analogy to explain "average" as in intellect. Average would be an IQ of 100, I'm just making it more concrete.
I don't really see what you fail to understand. The group is "persons", as in, referring to "All people", all people's intellect(that's where IQ comes in play) divided by the initial group "all people" would be average. This number implies there's 50% below this mark and 50% above(obviously not exact if it's a non odd number, but it's really damn close). What is your point?
#98 to #94
-
commencingfailure (01/10/2016) [-] You realize that IQ, the most common way to measure intellect, is DESIGNED to have a good 50/50 split? Trying to understand why you're taking median into play here(assuming you're expecting outliers or something(????))
#99 to #98
-
Fgner (01/10/2016) [-] Because the average, almost always, refers to the mean of the group, not the median. The mean does not necessarily fall on the median and varies wildly based on distribution. You can't just say there is 50% to both the left and right of the average, that's not how statistics work.
And yes, I do realize that's how IQs are designed. That's why I said that's how they're designed. Which is why they can't really be used to say 50% of people are dumber than the average. Empirically this may still be entirely untrue, you're referencing normalized data. And the reason I want to drop IQ is because I'm not arguing the exact topic of normalized human intelligence; I'm just defending that he was right in saying that's not how averages work.
And yes, I do realize that's how IQs are designed. That's why I said that's how they're designed. Which is why they can't really be used to say 50% of people are dumber than the average. Empirically this may still be entirely untrue, you're referencing normalized data. And the reason I want to drop IQ is because I'm not arguing the exact topic of normalized human intelligence; I'm just defending that he was right in saying that's not how averages work.
#101 to #99
-
commencingfailure (01/10/2016) [-] In that case it's more of a semantic discussion. If you're referring to "average person" in context with "intellect", you have me assuming you're referring to IQ. Saying "average IQ" == the IQ of 100 like you apparently also said(I must admit I more often scan than read comments).
If you mean average person as in, a person with the Iq of exactly 100, the statement still applies.
If you mean average person as in, a person with the Iq of exactly 100, the statement still applies.
#107 to #101
-
Fgner (01/10/2016) [-] No, no. Drop IQ. Stop thinking about intelligence. Especially not IQ. It's not even really relevant to the argument since, again, it's designed to be that way. I can make almost any data in the world fit into a bell curve if I normalize the data, it doesn't mean anything about the distribution of raw numbers.
Let me try to break this down:
> Original post says that 50% of some set is below the set's average.
> Someone (correctly) said that's not how averages work. No specific reference to human intelligence.
> You ask how.
> Average = mean. Mean != Median. Medians define middle points, means quantify something completely different. The average of a set is only indirectly related to the median. An average can have tens of trillions of members to one side and a single member on the other with a large enough delta between them.
The picture is, by definition of averages, wrong. As I proved with my basic classroom example. The average student scored 72%. However the mode shows the vast majority of students scored 90%. 80% of the sample scored 18% higher than the average score while only 20% scored lower.
Let me try to break this down:
> Original post says that 50% of some set is below the set's average.
> Someone (correctly) said that's not how averages work. No specific reference to human intelligence.
> You ask how.
> Average = mean. Mean != Median. Medians define middle points, means quantify something completely different. The average of a set is only indirectly related to the median. An average can have tens of trillions of members to one side and a single member on the other with a large enough delta between them.
The picture is, by definition of averages, wrong. As I proved with my basic classroom example. The average student scored 72%. However the mode shows the vast majority of students scored 90%. 80% of the sample scored 18% higher than the average score while only 20% scored lower.
#109 to #107
-
commencingfailure (01/10/2016) [-] I obviously understand the concept of what you're presenting me with lol. But if someone tells me "an averagely intelligent person" I'd be assuming they refer to someone with an IQ of 100. Then yet again, I didn't immediately jump to a statistically correct definition, so I could see where you 2 are coming from.
#110 to #109
-
Fgner (01/10/2016) [-] Oh no, I see what you're saying as well. Which is why I was trying to specify that we're not talking IQs or intelligence or anything but the raw definition of average.
If we're talking purely IQ, then yes 50% of the population is less than 100 points. But, again, normalized data. And the test takes no consideration into emotional, social, or creative intelligence; nor does it incorporate testing bias. So I call BS on it's validity as a measure of intelligence to begin with.
If we're talking purely IQ, then yes 50% of the population is less than 100 points. But, again, normalized data. And the test takes no consideration into emotional, social, or creative intelligence; nor does it incorporate testing bias. So I call BS on it's validity as a measure of intelligence to begin with.
#7
-
deadlyfoez (01/10/2016) [-] They teach you in drivers ed that if you get into an accident then move to the side of the road if you and your vehicle is capable of being moved. He had it coming.
#9 to #7
-
anon (01/10/2016) [-]
Keyword - 'if'.
Also, the gear driving right into them is an idiot. Surely he could ******* see people on the ******* road. Driver was sleeping.
Can't blame the driver of the black car. Had to suddenly dodge.
Don't know if they were in the process or not, but they really should have putted up a warning triangle on the road some ways back, and turn on the warning lights.
Also, the gear driving right into them is an idiot. Surely he could ******* see people on the ******* road. Driver was sleeping.
Can't blame the driver of the black car. Had to suddenly dodge.
Don't know if they were in the process or not, but they really should have putted up a warning triangle on the road some ways back, and turn on the warning lights.
#40 to #9
-
deathchain (01/10/2016) [-] How is "if" the keyword? If the car is stuck in the middle of the road and cannot be moved, you slap the emergency lights on and get your soft squishy body the **** off the road, regardless of whether the car was in an accident or not. What you NEVER EVER EVER do is stand behind it for any reason, because staying there is how sleeping drivers kill you and your legs.
#148 to #122
-
deathchain (01/11/2016) [-] There was no assumption there. More context is not needed. You put the hazards on as a courtesy for drivers who aren't asleep, and then you get your soft squishy body the **** off the road. You NEVER EVER EVER go behind the car, because like I said already, that is how sleeping drivers kill you and your legs.
#51 to #7
-
erotictentacle (01/10/2016) [-] also, reflecting vests.
In swizterland, you're not allowed to leave your car on the highway if you don't wear one.
In swizterland, you're not allowed to leave your car on the highway if you don't wear one.
#69 to #7
-
rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-] although, can't the ****** int he jeep clearly see that they are standing? i doubt they got into that position in less than a second. Had lots of time to see them and slow down
#145 to #137
-
rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-] im sure he does, and i'm sure that if they could move the car, they would have done it
#62 to #14
-
lolikikolik (01/10/2016) [-] one is dead fosho, it was something about movie stunts, it was a ,,big new,, for some time
#27
-
rockstarownage (01/10/2016) [-]
i still want to know if the table jumping guy is pepsi. as many times as i've seen it, yet no one can tell me whether he pepsi or not.
#52 to #32
-
erotictentacle (01/10/2016) [-] that seems a bit much tho.
I pulled similar **** a lot of times, and all i got is a fractured vertebra
I pulled similar **** a lot of times, and all i got is a fractured vertebra
#53 to #52
-
alphanet (01/10/2016) [-] beats me, its hard to get decent info about it. but you could always do a reverse image search and see what is up with it.
But i dont think its too farfetched to think that he got real hurt, even paralyzed, I mean it not hard to get yourself hurt, and if he fell just riight...buut i dont know.
If you get any info on it, be sure to tell m8.
But i dont think its too farfetched to think that he got real hurt, even paralyzed, I mean it not hard to get yourself hurt, and if he fell just riight...buut i dont know.
If you get any info on it, be sure to tell m8.
#54 to #53
-
erotictentacle (01/10/2016) [-] Well, thing is that it doesnt look to me like he fell that bad.
He was turned to the side a bit so i doubt it was a direct hit on the spine, it does look like it hurt like a bitch, even for another day or two. But not like anything permanent
He was turned to the side a bit so i doubt it was a direct hit on the spine, it does look like it hurt like a bitch, even for another day or two. But not like anything permanent
#58 to #54
-
alphanet (01/10/2016) [-]
youre right, he does fall on his side : www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o-_5dqr6jU (the video, on some **** channel
so it looks like he fell on fis right side, onto the lower part of his ribcage. I would assume that he broke a few ribs, and maybe light organ damage. Also He might have cracked his spine (on a few parts maybe) simply because he fell somwhere between the spine and right side of the ribcage. But what do I know, Im not a doctor (altough i study biology in school...but that is a different story)
so it looks like he fell on fis right side, onto the lower part of his ribcage. I would assume that he broke a few ribs, and maybe light organ damage. Also He might have cracked his spine (on a few parts maybe) simply because he fell somwhere between the spine and right side of the ribcage. But what do I know, Im not a doctor (altough i study biology in school...but that is a different story)
#60 to #58
-
erotictentacle (01/10/2016) [-] Well, i can't tell the exact damage either.
All i know is that it hurt and is probably not permanent damage
All i know is that it hurt and is probably not permanent damage
#38 to #27
-
fuzzyballs (01/10/2016) [-] he's fine
trust me, I'm a random internet comment
what does it matter anyways? you'll forget about it the second you close the page
trust me, I'm a random internet comment
what does it matter anyways? you'll forget about it the second you close the page
#42 to #38
-
rockstarownage (01/10/2016) [-]
it would be interesting to know, seeing the way he fell and slumped.
