Philosophical Vegan Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvCtosGgFsw
This is only this guys' second upload and it's like 50 times worse than the first. How can anyone be this moronic? Fuck this guy, I hope he gets hit by a bus.

Dumbass.

Finally finished watching (I've had it open in another tab for... I guess a month...) EREOI for viability of an energy source vs. viability while maintaining our standard of living may be pretty different. Some research suggests much higher numbers to really make an energy source a viable replacement: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1513006447

And we probably won't run out of fissile materials ever if we refine extraction. Not sure if there's a need to switch aside from public perception being better.

Overall pretty good! Video editing has gotten better, and speaking.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:48 am Finally finished watching (I've had it open in another tab for... I guess a month...)

I am quite curious as to your internet browsing habits.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:48 amEREOI for viability of an energy source vs. viability while maintaining our standard of living may be pretty different. Some research suggests much higher numbers to really make an energy source a viable replacement:

I probably should have brought that up more; Even though an energy source as a good EROEI via the 3:1 standard that doesn't necessarily mean it can keep up with our energy demands (I pulled the ratio off Wikipedia, so while it's not totally inaccurate, I probably could have reckoned from a more reliable source).

I think Solar has a 4:1 ratio, but we know it's not viable to sustain a country such as the US or European countries (Africa would likely manage very well with just Solar as of right now), while nuclear has about a 70:1 ratio I think? Around that proportion.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:48 amAnd we probably won't run out of fissile materials ever if we refine extraction. Not sure if there's a need to switch aside from public perception being better.

I was actually wondering that while I was making the video. After putting on-screen how we have enough fissile material for a few million years, I asked myself "Dude what is even the point of this?" There are benefits to fusion over fission (less waste, more effective) but they're honestly kind of negligible, especially considering how Fission is consistently improving.

I don't know if you read the description, but I went into a bit more detail about how Fusion is more of a pipe-dream that shouldn't be invested in too heavily; I even compared it to our Apollo Missions and Rovers to Mars, how they cost an insane amount for not much return.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:48 amOverall pretty good! Video editing has gotten better, and speaking.

I got a few comments saying how I was talking a bit fast, so I'll try to slow it down a tiny bit more for my next video.
Also, do you think I should add a bit more humour? Most of it is in the slides that appear for like a second or two.

I'm hoping to have my climate change video out soon but I have no idea when that'll be. I'm thinking around January the latest, or possibly Thanksgiving the earliest.

While I do think quality beats quantity in the long run on YouTube, I should try to put out more videos. I have many ideas from my first video alone (it's important to note that not only do the videos need to be interesting, they also have to be important).

No need for more humor, keep it as minimal as you can so it's easy to sit through. 2-3 jokes in a video that length, even bad jokes, won't ruin it, so minimal humor is low risk. Most people are bad ad humor and if you force it that will be worse if you miss the mark.

I can't really help with humor.

More might be better, but I wouldn't drop the quality. You're putting out videos as fast as I can watch them anyway!