kl0

Yea. Somebody should have informed you of this. I’ve been a big fan of your channel for quite awhile and have even left you a few comments on various videos since I’m a private pilot myself (though I don’t think I ever got a response, but no biggie - I know it’s hard to keep up with YouTube comments).

Anyway, I’ve run for Congress three times and during my first run in 2014, I did three AMAs in my local area. All were pretty well received. BUT, it’s because I made a point to literally respond to 100% of the questions asked of me. Even the trolls got a response.

I had detailed responses to probably 90% of the questions being asked on my campaign website, but the whole point was that people wanted to interact directly with me as a candidate, to see how I’d answer a question on the spot, to follow up, perhaps get a more specific take on some things, and most importantly, to know that I was actually listening to them - which I absolutely was.

It took me about 18 hours to respond to everyone - including the follow ups (about 13 hours the first day and about 5 more hours the following day). But I think it was well received and scored very high specifically because I answered everyone as best I could.

Anyway, food for thought should you do it again! But yes, you should answer the question as best you can and then point to your video to complement that answer, not use it in place of the answer. Obviously up to you, but I think you can see what the community kind of expects in these now.

> it does very weird things to the mind

This is extremely accurate and a real thing. I have several hundred dives under my belt, a handful of caves and caverns, lots of deep diving, lots of extreme cold water dives. In all of those cases, hitting the "extremes" (which can be slightly different for each person) can significantly alter your capacity to function and proceed correctly and safely.

I have dived through cavern slots before where you can essentially see light maybe 30-40 meters in front of you, but you might still be in a narrow crevasse while looking at that light up ahead. Those thoughts can very easily and seemingly randomly enter your head. What if I get stuck.? What if my air were to run out right now? What if my gear failed right now? What if I can't get to the end? What if the person in front of me gets stuck knowing I cannot turn around in here? It all happens and you think of it all despite trying not to and knowing that statistically you needn't.

Those thoughts can easily disorient you for just a moment or two, but in those moments you might not be as attentive as you typically would be. You might briefly catch your regulator stage (the little knob on the top of the tank and typically the back of your head) on the top of the cave or something like that - which instantly recycles the thought and makes it even worse. Problems can spiral out of control very quickly.

Given that this cave includes all of the most extreme obstacles w/r/t temperature, depth, length, narrowness of openings, and visibility, I really can't even imagine the experienced divers going back and forth, much less with a non-experienced, tired, malnourished child in tow. ...much less a dozen of them.

I know you're asking OP a question about that, but I think there's a more generic answer to WHY those stories have emerged over years of investigative journalism paired with satellite surveillance and most importantly, refugees who have escaped. All of them of which lend to the credibility of western media (even if slightly exaggerated like most media).

There are countless people who have either been let out after some time period or escaped and then who managed to jump a border (generally to Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan) and eventually gain some kind of legal refugee/sanctuary status in any number of European countries. You can find these interviews scattered throughout YouTube. In fact if you've never seen any, I'd encourage you to watch them in the victims own words. They're pretty shocking.

When these people have been independently interviewed, the details of their stories are extremely similar if not identical in many cases. And they tell pretty harrowing details of prisoner experiences.

So to that extent, it's not much different than a typical investigation where you interview independent witnesses and even suspects. Sure, plenty of what you here will include innocently mistaken details, anecdotal stories, and personal experiences that don't mesh with what other people have said. But you take the parts that overlap and slowly build a picture from that.

So either all of those people had knowledge of the others and essentially corroborated to share a similar picture of what goes on in the camps, or ONE of them told a story that made traction and the others saw that and just replicated it, or they did truly have those experiences - even if exaggerated a bit or like I said, innocently mistake certain details. And as I understand it, investigators have concluded that it's not possible for them to have made up many of the details provided over the years.

So I think that's how a lot of the understanding is gathered. From there, you can use any number of techniques to further corroborate whatever information they provided. For example, if they said: "I was housed in this long building with 100 other people. We'd be taken out the door into a large courtyard and then brought into this small shed across the way. It had a back to it that was fenced in." Details like that. And then investigators find it matches their description on the satellite photos, it just makes that much stronger a case and then helps investigators to know where to focus their efforts going forward.

he did an AMA a few weeks ago and is in charge of the LP platform

As a former member of the Libertarian National Committee and a candidate in Texas, I would only modify what you wrote by saying that the Libertarian Body is in charge of the LP platform, not the National Chair. That said, Mr. Sarwark (the National Chair) has done an amazing job representing that party, steering it in a wonderful direction, and enforcing the will of its members while adhering to the existing bylaws and platform.

Namaste! Kasto cha? Mero nama Kevin ho (I only know a bit more beyond that) :)

I spend a fair bit of time in both Nepal and Bhutan. I've traveled all across Bhutan, but have mostly focused on the Solukhumbu Region of Nepal (and of course the greater KTM area). I am going to assume you're familiar with the very strict and rigid rules for tourism in Bhutan (the daily fees, the required guides, and etc)? While I support Bhutan doing anything it feels is in its interest, my personal opinion is that it is not a good system. It restricts tourism to especially wealthy travelers (often who are much older) and almost has the feeling as if one is being babysat by their guide while in the country. It's beautiful, but it's ridiculously restrictive IMO. Because of this, I generally much prefer to spend my time in Nepal instead of Bhutan; I wish I felt as if I could travel both equally.

On the other hand, Nepal has been taking a lot of criticism for their tourism industry as of late. Granted most of this is focused on Everest trekkers, but it seems to be widening into other arenas. The criticisms have focused on unsafe practices, deaths, trash and debris, and other unpleasantries. I have no interest in hiking Mt. Everest, but I do love hiking in the Solukhumbu Region and it's unfortunate to me that its getting this reputation (I was actually just back in Nepal in October and November).

Do you have any thoughts comparing and contrasting the approaches from both countries? Do you like what Bhutan is doing with their strict tourism rules? Do you think this is something Nepal should strive for? Do you think the rules they have imposed are (a) fair to tourists and (b) fair to locals who might otherwise benefit from engaging in tourism themselves, but essentially cannot? What direction, at all, do you think Nepal should go in to address some of the wider criticisms? Is there perhaps a happy middle ground between the Nepali tourist industry and the Bhutanese tourist industry that perhaps both countries should shoot for?

Thanks in advance for any answers!