Happy B-day, you old tiger!

Rawr!

There are now less than 4000 wild tigers in the world

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Eye of the Tiger, Printer, Dot matrix, Old school, MIDI' to 'Eye of the Tiger, Printer, Dot matrix, Old school, MIDI, Rocky' - edited by Grimm

Your video, Never Growl At A Tiger...., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

From Wikipedia: "Aside from instances of larger lionfish individuals engaging in cannibalism on smaller individuals, adult lionfish have few identified natural predators, likely due to the effectiveness of their venomous spines. Moray eels (family Muraenidae), bluespotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii), and large groupers, like the tiger grouper (Mycteroperca tigris) and Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), have been observed preying on lionfish. It remains unknown, however, how commonly these predators prey on lionfish. Sharks are also believed to be capable of preying on lionfish with no ill effects from their spines. Park officials of the Roatan Marine Park in Honduras have attempted to train sharks to feed on lionfish as of 2011 in an attempt to control the invasive populations in the Caribbean. Predators of larvae and juvenile lionfish remain unknown, but may prove to be the primary limiting factor of lionfish populations in their native range."

I don't watch football, thought I am a (Chiefs) fan. My girl wanted me to watch the superbowl halftime with her, I thought it would be fun. BTW I was very baked. I thought the giant lion or tiger was cool, but next thing I see are cute dancing sharks and I laughed so hard, I was crying. I want to make one so bad.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

Amazing, beautiful (and surprisingly long) tiger. But Y U NO turn phone landscape?

That's a zoo cat too. Nowhere near as powerful as a wild tiger. Hugely impressive animals.

Your video, Slow Motion Tiger Leap, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Those draconian bastards, the damn government, keeping me from my business of selling endangered tiger gall bladders. Regulations are all evil, they must be, Little Kim and Hitler used regulations, so...evil. We must be free to do whatever we want because we all know that any regulations are the same thing as draconian totalitarian dictatorship.

That's a made up scenario. No-one is ever going to have an electorate of 100 voters, I only used that figure to make the math easier.

But let's multiply everything by 100, so we have an electorate of 10000 with 3334 votes needed to get elected (much more realistic).

In your scenario, white tiger has 666 surplus votes.

The 1600 people with "no second choice" are ignored, and the votes are split 3 ways (222 votes each) to Orange Tiger, Silverback and Monkey (who's not even running in the electorate ).

edit: fixed the math

What happens if white tiger gets 34 votes with 6 to orange tiger, 6 to silverback, 6 to monkey, and 16 to "no second choice"?

There's no assumption going on, the electorate decide who their second choice is.

To make things easy, let's imagine an electorate of 100 voters, with 3 representatives and a 33% threshold.
So let's say 60 people give White Tiger their no.1 and among those people, their second vote is spilt 40 to Orange Tiger and 20 to Silverback.

So White Tiger has 27 surplus votes. Those surplus votes are divided by proportion to Orange Tiger and Silverback.

So in this case Orange Tiger gets 66% of the surplus vote and Silverback 33% giving them 18 and 9 votes respectively.

Except it doesn't work, the flaw occurs when applying unused votes to other candidates, this video assumes everyone who picked white tiger for their first choice will pick orange tiger as their second.