It’s a point of debate. The problem with going ass to grass is not the knees, as I understand it, but the back and core, which necessarily lose tension and invite slipped disc injuries below parallel. The risk of that on a Smith machine is probably much less, because Smith machines are kind of bullshit and also…

Truer words never spoken.

You would be shocked at how much weight you can stand up with on your back from a rack like that. When I was strong, I could full depth (femurs parallel to floor) squat maybe 245 for sets (never tried to 1RM because I thought it was kind of dumb at my level), but I probably could have “squatted” close to 400 the way…

No, you can see from his 1/10th squat video posted somewhere else in here that he just doesn’t use clips. Probably because his brofessor told him not to us them on bench and he’s generalized to never using them on anything.

That’s a crying shame right there, that’s what that is.

I don’t see why you would ever not clip any lift except for bench and bench variations. If you go offbalance, it’s not going to help that the center of gravity suddenly shifts (possbibly radically) from one side to the other, and with a rack there’s not really a possibility of getting trapped under the bar. If he’s…

Squatting on the Smith machine doesn’t involve weight. There’s no gravity in Smith machines. It’s all make-believe. He may as well be interpretive dancing with a plastic prop barbell.

You’ll still see people getting absolutely trucked and having their brains smashed into the insides of their skulls. Tackle football, like boxing, is probably not fixable.

There are two main problems with the driving in GTA IV. First it wants to be realistic enough to make a wheel and pedals make sense. Which would be great, if people actually had wheels and pedals and the controls were otherwise set up to make that work (e.g. assisted shooting while driving). The thumbsticks are just a…

Well you’ve convinced me, my opinion is wrong.

My first car was a Civic wagon. No no A/C, manual transmission, no power anything (including engine waka waka). Great little car.

Disagree. That’s the first Civic I’ve liked in years.

The showing required to get a checkpoint approved is already fairly substantial. There are definitely some traffic laws that are meant, or at least used and enforced, as sources of revenue. Drunk driving laws are not among them. I’m baffled that there seems to be so much resistance to a 0.05 limit. If I had my…

How, aside from checkpoints, would they ever enforce that? In fact, once self-driving cars become common, I would foresee checkpoints becoming illegal (or at least illegal w/r/t self-driving cars), since the legal rationale for them relies heavily on a danger to public health and welfare.

God, I hate the Lexus corporate grille so much. It’s just atrocious. I feel like I might have hated it less on the sporty cars if I hadn’t seen it stretched out on GX and LX like yoga pants on a fat woman stretched so thin they’re practically translucent, but once seen it cannot be unseen.

Agreed that it would be different if these guys were not white. Also asserted that it would be dumb and that it’s bad that that’s true.

No, I’d say that attempted hijacking is both (i) a violation of criminal law and (ii) an action that endangers human life. Certainly once they got in a car on the way to the airport with boxcutters on their persons, they were terrorists. Almost certainly once they got together and conspired to commit those acts, they…

You can do something so badly that you fail to do it. Maybe they really intended to “use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,” but they haven’t actually committed any violence except in the broadest most grasping sense of the term, their threats are laughable, they haven’t intimidated anyone and they haven’t…

I’d say you probably need to at least be near someone in order to “endanger human life.” Or maybe near like a dam or water supply or something. I’m just going off the words of the statute: this is not terrorism. This is also not terrorism in the colloquial sense, because they haven’t actually hurt anyone or done…

Okay, should that kind of speech really constitute “terrorism” and make one liable for felony prosecution? Is that really a rule you want to set and see applied to all actors that the government—controlled by whomever might be in power at any given point—sees fit?