@@jasonmayo well the circulatory system is all one closed loop, but the veins and arteries do all start and end. There's 2 arteries that branch out a bunch (both leave the heart, one goes to the body and one goes to the lungs) and 3 veins that are equally as branchy (all go to the heart, 2 from the body and one from the lungs)... So I guess it's like5 straws that all have 1 simple side and 1 super branched sides? Or... Maybe you don't separate them into veins and arteries and just consider them 1 straw, which would mean there's 1 regular straw (pulmonary artery starts it at the start and pulmonary vein ends at the heart) and then 1 straw that has 1 end on 1 side and 2 ends on the other (aorta starts at the heart as 1 thing and returns to the heart as 2 separate veins) I love how over-complicated these seemingly simple questions get lmao
It'd have to be some 3rd type of hole because mathematicians don't believe in words and people in social situations aren't stupid enough to come up with the line of reasoning I used to reach that outcome.
I did have to cut through a few corners to make this video work, so technically, if this video doesn't make sense, then you have a functioning brain thatat least has common sense. (i.e. if the video doesn't make sense, then you're on the right track)
Appreciate the sentiment :) There have been a lot of channels popping up in the past few years that are just a bunch of pictures lazily thrown on a white background so maybe :) Although, those channels usually have other things going for them (like a likeable personality) so we'll see, I guess
Thanks :) Also, for some reason, your comment reminded me to put a (joke) disclaimer in the title because there are a few parts in the logic of the video that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Thanks for stopping by, I guess? :) (I guess you don't really have a choice when you're going through YT recommendations but still nice that you stuck around instead of clicking off the vid)
Oh, you see... Umm I have a friend that's gay! And, umm, he's the one that asked me to make the video! Yup, that's definitely the truth, no lies here officer!
@@jasonmayo Plus, this video does make a lot of jumps logically. You've used a very non-concrete definition of a set, and cherrypicked a singular example from your "set". How does that work? Also, you haven't considered group action on your set, which could very well lead to some shift in the narrative if you use this against someone who *actually* knows math.
Plus, you tossed in some thinly veiled *_heterophobia_* . That's not respectful, and it's not nice. You are disingenuous, and your hubris will get you.
lmao why would YT recommend this cringe video, I really need to delete it or something On a side note, I have a slightly less cringe "Using Quantum Mechanics to Find Who Asked" if you liked this video for some reason (shameless self-plug)
In case it does induce more bullying, one can call themselves a hero for applying the concept of induced demand to divert bullying from those who can't handle it, due to the lack of the irrefutable and intelectually superior comebacks presented.
Hmmm, I'm not sure about your logic. If you are homosexual and a virgin, would that not mean that you are homo + zero (as per the second theorem introduced?). Sorry, I'm not a math man myself. Also, how can you move through a curved spacetime path if you are straight?
"Straight" lines are different depending on which geometric system you're using. For example, straight lines on a sphere would be considered longitude and latitude lines, which are not very straight compared to straight lines in euclidean space. But they are considered straight in a spherical space. And straight lines in curved spacetime will appear curved in euclidean space. But since we don't exist in euclidean space and exist in a universe with curved spacetime, our straight lines are a bit different than what you learn in highschool geometry. Also, the word "sexual" describes things related to sex. It's not a count of the amount of sex we've had so it doesn't make sense to add it.
*IMPORTANT NOTE* At the end of the video, I forgot to mention that shifting from personal transit (cars) to public transport (buses/trains) would also be a big help towards our environmental health. In fact, it would probably make a bigger impact than switching to all electric vehicles like I mentioned at the end of the video. While both are nice, taking steps to reduce car usage would have the bigger impact. Thanks to @roemischer to pointing that out.
Cool video. But I would recommend promoting public transport instead of electric cars. PT needs way less rare earths and such. The environmental impact of a single bus that runs on gasoline is lower than the impact of an electric car. In addition, rails are the best anyway. Trains dont need roads(which cost at minimum of 130kg of CO2/m built) and they are easily electrifiable.
Sorry, I should've been more clear about that. I thought it was implied that I was pro public transport (I mentioned switching from driving to buses and trains for the transportation part of emissions) but I forgot to re-mention it at the end. I meant electric vehicles as in maglev train/electric buses but obviously I got lazy at the ending and drew a battery car which is very misleading.
@@roemischer Oh, I think I misunderstood your first comment and see where I messed up. I suggested electrifying the entire transportation industry (public and personal) but failed to explicitly mention how just switching from personal transport to public transport (gas or electric) would be a big help for our environment. I already mentioned why I (wrongly) thought I implied electric vehicles meant not cars but that implication only makes sense in my jumbled mess of thoughts/biases and isn't clear to most other people's jumbled mess of thoughts. I guess I somehow forgot about the over-reliance on cars for personal transport when scripting the closing bit of the video.
@@roemischer Also, sorry for coming off as defensive. I'm not trying to defend the exclusion of the facts that you mentioned (they're very important). I just like to figure out why things happened the way they happened (e.g. Why I thought the way I did) and assume others would like to know too.
A huge point you neglected to mention is how it takes a long time for supply to catch up with demand. A huge portion of greenhouse emissions comes from good meat going to waste, the "miracle switch to veganism" would end up creating far more problems than it's worth in greenhouse emissions. That doesn't prevent the chain of supply from the Meat industry. What would Farmers even do with the animals they have? Just shutter the doors and let them run free? That last question is rhetorical and I don't expect you to answer it due to the complications about ecology, however I'm surprised you didn't mention this argument at all.
I did mention that these numbers won't make sense in the wrong context. I made non-conservative assumptions about the dietary switch to show that even if everything goes right and if we give the dietary switch every little edge, mass veganism wouldn't be enough to make a dent in our carbon emissions and would only make about a 20% dent. Was that conclusion trivial and easy to come to? Yes. But it's meant to paint the bigger picture while framing the question in a fairly ridiculous scenario. To answer your question though: I neglected to mention these arguments because half of this video is meant to be a light hearted joke. Also, as mentioned previously, I wanted to give the dietary shift as much leeway as possible (to help illustrate the point), so I didn't consider any detriments.
Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I like to make videos that are meant to be like half jokes/half somewhat serious but my tone of voice can be very misleading most of the time.
Better idea. Plants are the middle-man between us and pure energy. We should just photosynthesize and eat dirt for maximum efficiency. Though, all this dirt is making me feel sick as it is.
Sorry, I think RU-vid might've blocked my previous comment because I used a bad grown up no-no word but my response was like: Good point. But we could also cut out the photosynthetic process and just directly absorb photons into our electrons. That way you can avoid getting sick from all the dirt. Also, you'd probably avoid getting sick altogether because you'd unalive from malnourishment before getting the chance to be sick.
