With respect, I don't think clickbait style titles work very well with long videos. For example, the title made me question 'what is the advice about?' but when i opened the video it needed a 20 minute commitment to find out. A better description would help me to know whether this is something i would be interested in watching.

They look so good i imagine Willy Wonka opening cases of them hoping to win a rice-paper ticket and a tour round the factory, but i'd have to be under some pretty serious duress to taste them once the boxes of kidney beans were introduced.

Who's blowing a gasket again?

If this is all it takes to trigger you, bob... Hell, maybe the sift does need trigger warnings for you snowflakes?

I think those bits where Theron gets hit and falls to the railing and the floor were the bits that normally get cut. In my opinion those were the bits that look least convincing and draw people out of the action. Jackie Chan is the bible on this one - Theron probably hasn't been in many fights.

But presumably this fits to the style of the film - out of context, very few movie combat scenes would shower themselves in glory. But when you're watching say, an Arnie movie, you don't care.

I'm hoping the horn has been trimmed to deter anyone killing the beautiful thing. Or one of those born with small horns due to cunt-assisted selective breeding.

I find myself disarmed and slightly enthralled by the way she speaks. I feel like I'd trust her with my bank details and not even blame her if some money went missing - it couldn't possibly be her, listen to her innocent voice!

She'd make an amazing criminal à la Primal Fear.

I hate to pluck holes in what might be something intended in jest, but I have found the opposite to a lot of what he is saying. Just one example - i would never have learned to play the guitar without the internet.

On day 0 of your current life you went from not existing to existing. How can we rule out the possibility of it happening again?

Great video, great explanation technique.

If we created a brain from a map (even a perfect one), put it in an android and set it going, how would we know that it would behave the same way as the person who was mapped? I'm not sure there is a way to really know. Is it alive when it's good enough to trick someone? Is it alive when it's smart enough to turn to you and say, "If you switch me off, will i die?" Is it fair to "kill" that one but not the ever-so-slightly less advanced one who didn't ask the same question?!

Let's say we create a simulation of someone's brain and run a particular scenario by it. Could we predict possible outcomes and their probabilities? That's kinda close to minority report. If our justice system is right 95% of the time but the brain simulation was right 98% of the time, less people would be wrongfully judged so we should act on thought-crime.

So his statement on business was to brag about having some Harley Davidsons showcased to him on his presidential lawn? Why were tweedles -dum and -dee nodding along and smiling during that story?

What's his economic policy?
"I just met with some very smart people who are senior executives and stockholders for a great American company Goldman Sachs. In fact, they proudly introduced me to 3rd place 2011 Miss Sweden and we had a very relaxing jacuzzi together. And she offered to give me a handy under the water and i said no thanks."

So what if you had Harleys on your lawn you smug tosser? Tell us the business strategy.

I have just laughed so hard that i was nearly sick at the "you look like you've got Whoopi Goldberg in a headlock."

Even though i've got no respect for twitter trolls, sometimes the insults are sublime.

We can discuss this without being abrasive! Yeah the information does need a source but bob tried to engage, gave some ground and offered some back and I definitely respect that.

Again, i don't think the president should be measured by any average standards, but that isn't actually written in law.

Was Trump's dad rich back then? That could explain the degree, standards were very different in 68 as was economics. But then again, he could have passed it on his own, we haven't proven anything.

Good questions. I don't know too well what would be required for a bachelors in economics in 1968, or the grade required to achieve the most basic of passes. As noted in the video, he does seem to be able to read numbers well enough and perhaps that coupled with rudimentary english, a good dictionary/thesaurus and/or help from friends was enough?

Hopefully someone can comment on military literacy requirements in 68 and better my (educated) guess that it probably wasn't a high level requirement given education levels at the time.

Also, I don't think average literacy statistics are useful here. Is the president to be held to average standards?

What, did he promise to increase youtube's revenue?

Promised to build a wall and have mexicans pay for it - failed.
Promised to travel ban muslims - failed.
Promised to prosecute Clinton - failed.
Promised to get rid of Obamacare - now he's not sure.
Promised to deport all illegal immigrants - failed.
Promised climate change was a hoax and legislation would be rolled back - failed.
Promised to repeal same sex marriage - failed.
Said leaks were good and he hoped russia would leak against Clinton to the media. Then said leaks were terrible and all media was fake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37982000

Hasn't he reneged on or at least backed away from almost every single cornerstone promise he made? Or if you want to say he didn't mean those things literally, well then he can never 'deliver what he said' by definition.

Republicans need to start asking themselves what it would take for them to even consider the possibility that they've been lied to and manipulated.

Edit: If you want to say it's not fair to judge Trump's promises because he has been opposed, then you admit that it is not fair to judge Obamacare because Obama was opposed.

Schweeb sounds like Rick Sanchez named it