hahah she so fat! and the wheelchairs lol! looks like gilbert grapes mom escaped! their misfortune is lol bcz its not me or someone i know! omg lololol roflcopter!


Yeah, not so much. *downvote

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Dumb.


I agree

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hinge, Bracket, Die Fleidermaus, Three little maids, Gilbert, Sullivan, drag' to 'Hinge, Bracket, Die Fledermaus, Three little maids, Gilbert, Sullivan, drag' - edited by therealblankman

This is what i was thinking.



>> ^messenger:

Dan Gilbert doesn't understand Daniel Bernoulli's theory. He has over simplified it and removed the value of expected utility. Poor people make much better usage out of a lottery winning than rich people do. This utility value has to be factored into any equation placing a value judgment on an investment, even a lottery ticket.
When Dan insults lottery players, from a strictly numbers point of view, he's right, of course, but playing the lottery is not a strictly numbers kind of game; it's about utility. He doesn't take into account the actual value of winning and losing to the people who play.
Here's a demonstration of the difference utility adds to the simplistic equation of expected value:
You bet on a coin toss against an outstandingly wealthy opponent. If you win, your opponent will instantly triple your net worth, including your cash, assets, and salary. If you lose, you lose everything, including your job and employability.
The odds of winning are .5, and the reward is 3. Multiply these together, and you get 1.5, which means that you are getting 2:1 on your money. Looks good on paper. But of course not even economists would play this game --not even if the reward were raised to x10 or x100-- because the consequence of losing everything, though less in monetary value than the reward, is unthinkable, even compared to the relative gains from having x100 your wealth. The expected utility to you of your first "net worth" far exceeds the utility that the second and third would give you, so it's a bad bet.
Back to the lottery: if you lose a dollar, you don't noticeably lose any economic power, even if you play every week and lose $52/year. In other words, you lose a negligible amount of utility. You may even get $52 worth of enjoyment out of waiting for the results to come up, talking about it and bonding with your pool of coworkers, or daydreaming about the good life and getting distraction from the reality of your trailer park McJob life. But if you win something big, it will instantly end all money troubles for you and your whole family, maybe for generations to come. In other words, massive utility. It's not a stupid decision at all to buy a lottery ticket if you factor in utility.
Edit: Oh, and now that I've actually watched to the end, I see that someone in the Q&A made one of my points, but they both still missed the boat on the strictly financial utility of losing $1 to winning millions when you're poor.

I agree with what she is saying totally, and the scientists and researchers in "Positive Psychology" would agree. We have been led to believe that having a positive attitude will bring about positive change and there is no data to support that. Its a lie started in American theology called the "prosperity doctrine" and then secularized and adapted by the new agers.

If you want to learn what will really make us happy, start with Dan Gilbert, then move on to Dr Barry Schwartz and Dan Pink, and Carol Ryff. Their seemingly strange conclusions about what makes us really happy are backed up by scientific research. The conclusion that they draw is that the whole "American Dream" is a piece of fiction that will ultimately lead to misery.

What we need is a "meaningful purpose", and we need to work with others on that purpose. Our endeavors do not even have to succeed, as long as our purpose is clearly defined, we are able to see progress, and there is some hope for success, it will lead us to eudaemonia as Aristotle called it or lasting "well-being" and contentment.

I thought some of Gilbert Gottfried's jokes were hilarious.

Dark and awkward, sure, but hilarious.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'barack obama, pirates of penzance' to 'barack obama, pirates of penzance, gilbert and sullivan' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

I blame Paul Gilbert

Your video, Gilbert & Sullivan do Star Trek, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

That was good, but am I in bizzaro world or is the last minute and a half or so repeated two times in succession in the vid? They went straight from gauging audience reaction to Bongo to writing and screening it again.

Ok thank god I thought I was going crazy.

*discard

Looked for dupe. Found it.

http://videosift.com/video/Rhod-Gilbert-Lost-Luggage

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video What's Eating Gilbert Grape - Arnie Gets Arrested. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

wow.

I know There are all types, and it takes all types. But to make a matter out of a narrators voice ? I can understand if its Gilbert Godfry or Fran Drescher.

It sounds like Gilbert is having trouble keeping it real a few times in that ad.

upvote for Gilbert Godfry schlepping stupid shit, one of his low point. things you will do to make 3 grand.