I'd almost guess he's ruptured an underground gas line. The volume of gas coming out of there is too much for even a reasonably well sized tank I would have thought, particularly with just how much pressure those jets had.

Google tells me that our population is 10 times your continent's population. So I suspect we are much worse actors on the climate just by sheer volume.

I thought you guys were having record droughts down there? I don't follow things that closely -- I get sad and overwhelmed.

The activists who have hope and keep fighting are my heroes....

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

Are all the void spaces in the cardboard corrugations filled with epoxy? That definitely wouldn't surprise me, but it is a bit disappointing if they call it a "cardboard guitar" when by weight OR volume it is mostly epoxy... Still pretty cool though.

I'd imagine that it doesn't have much in the way of sustain, even if it is solid epoxy around the cardboard.

If you turn down the volume on this a bit and listen to U2's Achtung Baby in a separate tab, it's even better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMp0pqS_1Y

Thank you sir, that let me see it. Some weird audio volume spikes and dips in there, but 100% watch (and listen) able.

Now here's a question...
Since water expands when it freezes, shouldn't these bubbles grow slightly?
But since water freezes, that cools down the air inside, which decreases its volume, shouldn't these bubbles shrink a little?

In the opening question she blew it. What if the rock is lava rock, which is LIGHTER than water? That means you can't figure out the answer without knowing the density of the rock.
Archimedes equation is only useful in figuring out weight for things that are buoyant. Anything more dense than water (or whatever medium you're in) will only displace it's own volume in water, not it's mass.
That's why I think the wood block should weigh more in a vacuum. It displaced more air, so was more buoyant, and so had more buoyancy to lose. It seems to me she set it up poorly again, because if they weigh the same in air, but are different densities, they would seem to need to have different masses to achieve balance, but she said they have the same mass, but I think she should have said 'they weigh the same'....just as @Barbar and @Stormsinger indicated above.

Problem 1: The scale will tilt towards the lead block. It's the same principle as Archimedes, except using air instead of water. When there is air, there is a buoyant force exerted on any object immersed in it. Remove the air, and the weight of the object goes up, by the weight of the same volume of air.

Problem 2: 20*pi meters. I'm not sure how extreme physics is involved in this one at all. It's trivially derived from the definition of circumference.

That definitely sounds reasonable. Either way, it sounds good, if a little quiet to me. But that would have been just a matter of raising the volume on her channel to suit my preferences!

*promote the humanity.

(I suspect many Latina women would have trouble naming 20 with Billy screaming at them. The volume just blows your brain clean!)

Very low audio volume too!

I prefer her original material, to be honest.

I got to see one of her performances last year. I was incredibly hyped over it, and ended up being -so- disappointed. It was a very small venue, and yet the volume was cranked up so high that it was physically painful. Second loudest concert I've ever seen, and utterly distracting. I could barely recognize the songs, and could understand none of the words. Might as well have gone to the airport and stood beside jets winding up for takeoff.

To be fair, I don't see "check all hollow volumes for the presence of small stowaway mammals" in the pre-flight checklist:
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/presolo/skills/howtopreflight.html

A cat (or whatever) that doesn't want to be found probably isn't going to interfere with control surfaces working correctly, etc. This is exactly the kind of very infrequent, random event that human beings are likely to overlook when doing something like a routine check that comes back nominal 99.9% of the time.

So, I'd wager that the pilot probably did all of the checks correctly and they just failed to reveal the one-in-a-million chance of "cat in wing". And to swing the other direction a bit and praise him instead of admonishing, he was admirably cool as a cucumber while coming back in for a semi-emergency landing. So I guess I'd argue for "pilot win" instead of "pilot fail".