8 ms·

I don't watch Youtube, so it's hard to assess the point being made, but zero gravity implies no normal force and therefore friction. Bicycles need friction for

I don't watch Youtube, so it's hard to assess the point being made, but zero gravity implies no normal force and therefore friction. Bicycles need friction for both drive and steering, as I and many others have painfully experienced!

aidos 9y ago
Which is why you'll miss the point that "the bicycle is, for balance purposes, effectively in zero gravity". It's actually a really fascinating clip — though I suspect you're not going to watch it. For anyone else, you can start here to see it in action. https://youtu.be/rNQdSfgJDNM?t=1m https://youtu.be/rNQdSfgJDNM?t=1m The original video is only 3 minutes long.
roryhughes 9y ago
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rNQdSfgJDNM https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rNQdSfgJDNM (youtube mirror site)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 9y ago
Maybe skip commenting on YouTube videos that you refuse to watch? I'm sure there must be a rule here about commenting without rtfa?
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  Actually the rule (guideline) is the inverse: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." " It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) Although, I am curious as to why kikoreis doesn't use YouTube?
  - shawabawa3 9y ago
    > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article Sure, but if they explicitly say they haven't read it, then make a wrong assumption about it, surely you can call them out
    - freeloop10 9y ago
      I don't see any rule supporting that conclusion.
      - monsieurbanana 9y ago
        That's not how it works, there's no rule stating you can't do it.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - recursive 9y ago
        I don't see any rule allowing you to comment on whether any rules support a conclusion.
  - dahart 9y ago
    > It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) That lack of a written guideline does not make it okay or a good idea to comment on the article based only on the headline like the GP did. Fine if you're responding to other people on other topics, but positing a straw man argument against your imagination of the article's contents without reading it, the comment will be rightly downvoted. The guideline you posted is not the inverse, the guideline you posted is suggesting it's best to not make assumptions. Posting about the article content without viewing it is making assumptions.
  - irishsultan 9y ago
    It's not insinuating if it was already stated by the person you're responding to. Notice also how in the example there is a question "Did you read the article?", in the comment you reply to there is also a question, but neither of them insinuates something (well, the second maybe insinuates that the user is doing something against the rules, but I can't really see any rule explicitly ruling that out)

aidos 9y ago

Which is why you'll miss the point that "the bicycle is, for balance purposes, effectively in zero gravity". It's actually a really fascinating clip — though I suspect you're not going to watch it. For anyone else, you can start here to see it in action. https://youtu.be/rNQdSfgJDNM?t=1m https://youtu.be/rNQdSfgJDNM?t=1m The original video is only 3 minutes long.

roryhughes 9y ago

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rNQdSfgJDNM https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rNQdSfgJDNM (youtube mirror site)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 9y ago

Maybe skip commenting on YouTube videos that you refuse to watch? I'm sure there must be a rule here about commenting without rtfa?

Jaruzel 9y ago
Actually the rule (guideline) is the inverse: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." " It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) Although, I am curious as to why kikoreis doesn't use YouTube?
- shawabawa3 9y ago
  > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article Sure, but if they explicitly say they haven't read it, then make a wrong assumption about it, surely you can call them out
  - freeloop10 9y ago
    I don't see any rule supporting that conclusion.
    - monsieurbanana 9y ago
      That's not how it works, there's no rule stating you can't do it.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - recursive 9y ago
      I don't see any rule allowing you to comment on whether any rules support a conclusion.
- dahart 9y ago
  > It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) That lack of a written guideline does not make it okay or a good idea to comment on the article based only on the headline like the GP did. Fine if you're responding to other people on other topics, but positing a straw man argument against your imagination of the article's contents without reading it, the comment will be rightly downvoted. The guideline you posted is not the inverse, the guideline you posted is suggesting it's best to not make assumptions. Posting about the article content without viewing it is making assumptions.
- irishsultan 9y ago
  It's not insinuating if it was already stated by the person you're responding to. Notice also how in the example there is a question "Did you read the article?", in the comment you reply to there is also a question, but neither of them insinuates something (well, the second maybe insinuates that the user is doing something against the rules, but I can't really see any rule explicitly ruling that out)