(dramatic music) – I don’t understand why
they’re going up there. Literally to the top of the
rockiest part of the cliff. – [Narrator] Once at the
top of the 80-meter cliffs, they rest until it’s
time to return to the sea in search of food. – That last little section is really steep and they just, it’s
really steep, that bit. (dramatic music) – One’s gonna go, this
one right on the edge. (gentle music) There’s probably two or 300 dead walrus on like a half-mile stretch of beach here. They’re exhausted ’cause they have to swim a hundred miles now to get
to food, and then coming back here ’cause it’s
the only place to sleep. They used to sleep on the
ice, dive down and eat food, sleep on the ice, easy. And now they’re swimming a hundred miles, coming to this place, climbing cliffs, and they’re just exhausted
and falling down, and either being killed falling or just crushing each other
’cause there’s several thousand crammed onto little tiny bits of beaches. – This is a sad reality of climate change. They’d be on the ice right
now if they could be, but there’s no option but to come to land. And they’re just a danger to themselves. Really hard to watch and
witness this, it’s just– (gentle music) It’s just so heart breaking. (gentle music)
I wonder where Aleks is. Oh, that’s me! I’m Aleks, I’m Aleks! That’s me… Aleksander! I’m Aleks! What the fuuck! That’s kind of fucked up, dude. He’s your boss. Give him a better impersonation. I hurt my balls doing that. Go ahead and intro. Welcome back to The Problematic Zone™! Topical… Political humor. Is there political? //exhales You go first. No, I want you to go first. Let’s talk home defense. You’ve seen these assault rifle bans, right? what the f- Is that a harpoon gun? Don’t point that at me! Don’t worry I think the safety’s on… No, it’s not. That can kill a man! You’re making our camera people a little nervous! Basically, you use this… I’m – I’m thinking… I want you to be able to defend yourself in the case of a home intruder, and also participate… In sports! ’cause you are fat. Alright man, that was rude. That was a rude way to intro that bit. I got some targets… Let’s go shooting! I don’t remember Aleks being this fucking awkward. //SLAM Okay… So you’re at home… …roleplay. You’re in bed. You’re in bed, you’re relaxing. You hear a… -I love fortnite
..big knock at the door! //CRASH I love Fortnite so much. oh just… Getting those kills in Fortnite. It didn’t wake you up? lo…i just lo… That knock didn’t wake you up? …my dog’s got diabetes. A little creepy man… comes in your home. …a steppy… …a steppy… …a steppy. …he leans over… …you sleeping… …and he points his gun… What are you gonna do, dude? I love Fortnite. Is someone opening some alcohol? …you’re underage. that coca-cola’s really spicy… IS SOMEONE TRYING TO STEAL MY… …what does he have? YOU-TUBE GOLD PLAY BUTTON? stand back! This is a good gift, I like this gift alot! You can also use it for fishing! You got some fish? //rustles //crunches go fishing. Oh! I need to catch some goldfish for my… for – to survive out in the wilderness of this… …bleak warehouse! Jesus fucking Christ he’s swinging that I found one! //claps You got it, dude!
-Did i get it?! You nailed it! Now I can survive the winter You ever play on a playground as a little kid? No, my dad left me. Or he died? Well come over here, I’ll give you uh… I’ll give you the experience you never had. This… …is an industrial teeter totter. No, you sit on it. It doesn’t feel very industrial. Come let’s – let’s sit. You ever do this as a kid? Now it’s a certified-… You call me the fat one! You still weigh more than *burp* me If I weighed more than you then you wouldn’t have… fucking… AH! FUCK! my balls dude -Fucking bitch this is the second time already, in this one fucking video, my fucking balls dude. -Sit back down! Where’s the spicy water? //bottle pop //sniff //throat noises -Yeah, thats spicy water How do you actually use this?
-We reach equilibrium. Like, am I supposed to put pressure? Uh! No, you’re supposed to get me down. //burp Ah fuck! //grunts uh oh. this fucking sucks dude This is fucking garbage… uh oh! ooh nice! do Do a push-up off it! Do a handstand off it! i’m trying Oh fuck my-! Whew! It’s getting pretty wild down in the warehouse! I didn’t want to take a harpoon bolt to the chest, so I came up here to the safety of the rooftop, to talk about today’s sponsor, Upsie.com. What’s the worst part about buying a new piece of electronics? Maybe you’re about to buy that new TV, a new smartphone, you get to the register, you’re ready to check out, the salesman starts pressuring you. “Hey, you want that two year warranty?” “Hey, you want that three year warranty?” “Come on, you know you wanna backup this new product.” “Don’t you care? you’re gonna accidentally drop it on the ground as soon as you leave the store, and then where will you be?” What if there was a simpler way? Without those heavy markups, of like, 900% margins, on in-store warranties. How about a simple app on your phone? that keeps track of all the receipts, so, y’know, 6 months 2 years from now you’re not looking for that Best Buy receipt, trying to figure out what happened. Well that’s where Upsie.com comes in. Upsie is the best electronics warranty on the market. Saving you up to 70% versus retailers. Better prices, transparency, and service, than any other warranty plans. Like Samsung, Apple, Geeksquad, and Squaretrade. Upsie makes the claims process easier. They keep all warranty information stored in one place, so no more looking for receipts when you need to make a claim. They provide exceptional customer service, and 24/7/365 claims. You can protect your TV’s, laptops, digital cameras, gaming consoles, smart watches, appliances, and more! Upsie features the same quality coverage that’s sold by other providers, but at a 50-90% discount over traditional prices, depending on the product. A simple, intuitive interface for browsing, comparing, and buying warranty plans for hundreds of products. Tracking reminder features on the app catalog all your warranty purchases, receipts, and claim instructions while sending prompt notifications of expiring coverage. And terms and conditions in plain English, that clearly explain your coverage limitations claim processes, and exclusions, so there are no surprises. LISTEN Rather than making those impulse buys at the register, go to Upsie, take up to 45 days, on your purchases, or smartphones, or other devices, and you can and you can be like HM Do I want a little extra coverage on this television? Well I work here at Cow Chop, and the TV’s going to fall on the floor within… 5 minutes of me, y’know setting it where it’s going to go. Maybe that is a good idea. …ok? It’s the comfort and freedom of making those decisions, getting better prices, all at Upsie.com. And, you can save 10% off of your first purchase on Upsie.com, by using the link in our description, use our code: And save 10% off on that first piece of coverage, for whatever device you want to take care of. Upsie. Making it simpler, and sponsoring Amazon Prime Time, There’s a bee on the roof, so I’m going to go back down, and wade into danger! Here we go! //Sigh ‘Natural Vaccaria Ear Seeds …on self adhesive patches.’ It was supposed to be acupuncture, cause of your bad back. I wanted to help you. but it didn’t come with any needles… Acupuncture? Yeah.. How does that help with a bad back? The ch- The Chinese are very smart. //sniff //sigh Why do I fuck up everything? Such a fuck up… …I never do anything… …right. These things on patches are supposed to go like in your ear, I guess? Okay, I put it in my ear, what happens now? Did it say to put it in your ear? They’re called ear seeds, I just assumed. Well, you see, they included this… …ancient… …chart. This ancient scripture. Which says which portion of the ear, will channel the most energy to your soul. My soul… So let’s see, what do you… What do you want, external genitals? or internal genitals? I guess external. okay. Let me just apply some anaesthetic. And then we’ll just go in raw. cool… Also, put some anaesthetic in my mouth. cool Now let me see your cock. It’s gone! That my friend, is a twelve-foot beach ball. And you didn’t blow it up? No, I figured we’d save that. do you know how long this is going to take? we have an air compressor! From a previous episode. of Amazon! Here, I’ll… …Let’s do it. I’m chaotic Go do a funny bit while I do this. Matt, do you know what to do with this? Geez //sigh You done? Hang on! Shut the fuck up. Don’t worry, this is going to be really worth it! Okay. There she goes. I have an idea, what’s up? How about we pop my item, while this is happening? pop your item? Let’s open it up. Okay! You know what this show’s missing? Quality? A theme song! This little piano here… …can not only play, but record and play back! Your keys, and notes. Are you fucking shitting me? Whoa, is that like a dance pad- Dude, you do that with your feet! that’s awesome! Oh, my god. Dude, let’s play chopsticks- like in that movie, like yeah, Let’s make a theme song. I’ll do the lower notes, you do the upper notes, ok? I think we should go with a… …A trumpet. ♫Amazon♫ ♫Amazon show♫ ♫It’s so funny♫ ♫It’s the best♫ ♫ ♫a ♫ama ♫amazon ♫amazon show♫ ♫everybody ♫everybody laughs at it♫ ♫ ♫i ♫i am not ♫i am not sad♫ ♫ ♫im ♫im really ♫im really ha♫ ♫im really happy♫ -Key change! ♫ ♫i ♫i sleep ♫i sleep every ♫i sleep every night♫ ♫with no ♫with no nightmares♫ ♫ ♫not ♫not even ♫not even one♫ ♫I love Amazon♫ ♫Amazon show and the website♫ I like that actually, that was pretty good.
-Nailed it Aleks: I love you, dude. James: I wish I could say the same, you fucking little bitch. Hey, I think that’s about done! Beachball, dude! ow. It’s twelve feet. Do you think you could, jump on top of this? like, get on the table and jump on top of it? I mean, not from there, clearly, silly. why dont you get on top of it Because this is your gift! why dont you get on top of it Okay, you hold it. Then it’s going to roll away, and every – everybody will be really sad. Are you letting the air out? ow, my back! fucking stupid… …fucking little piece of shit! You better get away from this right now, Jakob! Thanks for watching this episode of Amazon, it was a very special one. Because it was not like a normal one. If you enjoyed this video, or didn’t enjoy this video, check out this one, it’s probably better. As well as check the description for Patreon, -Oh fuck my knees Patreon, Reddit, Twitter, uh- and the merchandise store where you can support us by purchasing clothing. Thank you for watching.
Over the past few months we’ve seen political
shakeups and changes in the High Commands of pretty much all of the warring nations. Hirings, firings, and devious machinations. And another big one came this week, when the
French tried to take control of the British Army. I’m Indy Neidell; welcome to the Great War. Last week the British attacked Ottoman positions
on the Tigris River, forcing the Ottomans to withdraw from both Kut and Sanniyat. The Toplice Rebellion, by Serbs in Bulgarian
controlled territory in the Balkans, began. British troops advanced on the western front
to surprisingly little German resistance, and a telegram emerged that showed Germany
was trying to manipulate Mexico into war with the US, though it was not made public. It was made public this week, though, and
a lot of people denounced it as a forgery since they couldn’t believe it to be true. But German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann
– who had sent the telegram – soon announced that it was genuine and Germany was indeed
offering loads of cash and Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona if Mexico would go to war with
the US. There was a big outcry in the states, as you
may imagine, and the US and Germany were one step closer to war. The Japanese government denied receiving a
similar proposal. But things had gone from bad to worse between
the US and Germany all month, since the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, and the
U-boats were in action this week. On the 24th, the Athos was torpedoed in the
Mediterranean; 543 Chinese laborers heading for the Western Front drowned. On the 25th, the Cunard liner Laconia went
down. 4 Americans were among the drowned. The next day, President Woodrow Wilson asked
Congress to establish armed neutrality and arm merchant shipping. This was passed at the end of the week, though
it was filibustered for the time being in the Senate. It wasn’t just the states that had an issue
with German conduct of the war, though. Austro-Hungarian Emperor Karl I, who had been
on the throne since November, was dismayed that his empire was so bound up in German
conduct of the war and he felt that a day might come when his army would be the last
stabilizing factor on the home front, so he wanted a stronger role in army leadership
and to re-design the high command to make it more of a personal instrument for him. He had by now the Prime Minister he wanted,
and the Foreign Minister he wanted, what he did not have was a malleable Chief of Staff. He had Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, who had
no liking for Karl whom Conrad thought was useless militarily. Conrad’s supporters also just happened to
be either retiring or dying this winter. At the end of February, Karl asked Conrad
to take over command on the Tyrol front and, after being convinced of the glory that a
new punishment offensive against the Italians with German aid would bring, Conrad accepted
and the man who had been Austrian Chief of Staff since the beginning of the war, during
which time ally Germany had gone through Moltke, Falkenhayn, and Hindenburg, relinquished his
post. The new Imperial Chief of Staff would be General
Arthur Arz von Straussenburg. The Allies were also having problems with
their High Commands. On February 26th was an Anglo-French conference
at Calais and some major stuff came to a head there. Now, since General Robert Nivelle had become
French commander in chief in December, he had been making plans for a big spring offensive. He had shared his ideas with British Prime
Minister David Lloyd George and had won him over. (Generals on western front), “Here was a
general he (Lloyd George) could work with, here was a general who understood the problem,
here was a general who promised victory and had already demonstrated that he could deliver
on that promise. So far as the British Prime Minister was concerned,
whatever Nivelle wanted he could have, and when Lloyd George grasped that what Nivelle
really wanted was complete control over Field Marshal Haig and the British armies in France,
that seemed a solution to both their problems.” So this week’s conference, which was supposed
to resolve problems with railways allocations, turned into an ambush for Haig and William
Robertson, the Chief of the British General Staff. Lloyd George asked Nivelle to write down his
ideas for a “system of command”. Those ideas blew a few minds. From March 1st, Nivelle would have authority
over the British armies in France for everything having to do with operations, plans and their
execution, allocation of supplies and reinforcements, and the strength and boundaries of the armies. The five British armies would come under Nivelle’s
direct control, though the British would retain control of personnel and disciplinary matters. This would leave Haig with no armies to command
and Robertson with literally nothing to do. Haig and Robertson were stunned and Robertson
said he would resign rather than agree to this. Lloyd George said perhaps Nivelle had gone
too far. But you know, all national loyalty aside,
some kind of unified command was pretty clearly needed on the Western Front, as we’ve seen
from lack of coordination and co-operation many times since 1914, but this wasn’t a
unified command like in WW2 under Eisenhower. Nivelle was proposing to put the British armies
directly under French control, increasing his armies by 1.5 million men. Nobody bothered to ask what the British soldiers
would feel about this, let alone what the Canadian, Newfoundland, Australian, South
African, Indian, or New Zealand governments would think about their men being under French
command. Well, this was scaled down to where Haig was
only bound to obey Nivelle for the coming offensive. The British War Cabinet and the King were
against all of this, which they had no prior knowledge of, and Haig wrote in his diary,
“It is too sad at this critical time to have to fight with one’s allies and the
Home Government in addition to the enemy in the field.” The real long-term result of this conference
was to destroy any trust between Haig and Lloyd George, and if you think it’s a problem
when the commander in chief can’t deal with his political boss, then you’re right. Earlier in the war British Field Marshals
French and Haig had in fact deferred to French General Joseph Joffre when directed to do
so, since the British were fighting on French soil and the French army was so much larger
than the British. But now Joffre was gone, the British army
was much larger, better equipped, and more experienced than ever and the French performance
over the past two years had not impressed the British, to say the least. Handing over control of five armies to the
French was unthinkable. And Nivelle’s and Haig’s offensive plans
were going to have to change anyhow. The past couple of weeks the British have
been pressing the Germans on the Western Front with surprising success and this week they
found out why. Early in the month the order had gone out
for the German army to secretly pull back to what they called the Siegfriedstellung
and the Allies would call the Hindenburg Line. This was the brilliant defensive brainchild
of Quartermaster General Erich Ludendorff. It shortened the front line by 40 kilometers
and released 13 German divisions to fight elsewhere. It had also been built to create an enormous
killing zone in which to trap the Allies. The Germans had given up a lot of hard won
territory, yes, but this they devastated, leaving nothing for the allies but a blasted
ruined landscape. The German hope for the deep new defenses
was that the allies would suffer such terrible casualties that no attack could succeed, and
no attack could even take place anyhow until they had built roads, water supplies, communications
points, and the support lines necessary over the ruined land. This week the withdrawal was in full swing
from the River Ancre as the British advanced. The British were also advancing in Mesopotamia. On the 24th on the Tigris River, the British
took Kut-al-Amara, and 1,730 Ottoman prisoners. Ottoman losses in Mesopotamia since mid December
are 20,000 men. Load of supplies and arms were also captured
or destroyed, but should British General Sir Stanley Maude carry on to Baghdad? Could his four divisions handle the Turks? He didn’t want a repeat of last year when
the British had outpaced their supplies and reinforcements and were forced to surrender,
but he had faith, and the pursuit to Baghdad began. And we reach the end of the week, the British
advancing on the Western Front and in Mesopotamia. The Serbian Toplica Rebellion taking Kurshumlija,
Lebane, and Prokuplje in the Balkans. Nivelle trying to take the British army, some
major U-Boat action, and the US and Germany sliding closer to war. And Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf lost his
job. Which with just a short break he had held
since 1906. That’s a long time, as we’ve seen, for
a Chief of Staff. To our regular viewers and fans, Conrad is-
maybe together with August von Mackensen- the most popular wartime character on this
channel, and we’ve played up his failings quite a bit. He was, in many ways, a ridiculous character,
but never forget that it was Conrad who, in the months leading up to the war, petitioned
the Emperor two dozen times to make war on Serbia, Conrad who dreamed of an empire that
stretched across the whole Balkans and possibly the Middle East, and Conrad who was undoubtedly
one of the major architects of this war with its casualties in the tens of millions. The construction and following retreat to
the Hindenburg Line was a bolt and unprecedented move by the German Army. You can learn all about the elaborate defense
system right here. Our Patreon supporter of the week is Omer
Grigg – help us out on Patreon to get even cooler animations than that of the Hindenburg
Line. See you next time.
[YMS] Alright, guys. It’s well
past that time of the year again. Sorry it came so late, but here’s
my top ten films of 2013. For those of you new
to my channel, here’s a quick run-down
of how these things usually go. So far, every year has had more than ten
films that I want to put on my list, so instead of having a redundant
“honorable mentions” category, I just make my list to be longer than ten. If somehow there were only two movies
in the entire year that were worth mentioning, then my list
would be two movies long. Now, even though this video took me
months longer than I thought it would, these lists usually come pretty late
compared to other reviewers. Reason being is: the earlier you make
your list, the more films you’re excluding from
being on your list. Sometimes a great movie doesn’t even have
a Blu-ray release until fourteen months after the year is over. So it makes sense to wait a bit
if you don’t want to exclude films for simply being foreign
or independent. As for me, I watch way
too many movies. The vast majority of them
are complete shit, but if I can introduce you
to at least one movie you love, then it’s worth it,
and I’ve done my job. If you see something that
looks interesting to you, please check it out and let me know
if you liked it in the comments section. Now, before getting
to the actual list, I thought I’d give some quick mentions
to my guilty pleasures of the year. These are films that I enjoyed
very much on a personal level. But at the same time,
I can understand that they’re not necessarily
great films. So, in no particular order, let’s start off
the guilty pleasures with Grand Piano. The film stars Elijah Wood,
and is written by the writer/director of Whiplash, Damien Chazelle.
This movie is kind of dumb and flawed, but it’s a lot of fun,
and I love watching it. Despite its cheese, the camera work was
actually pretty well done at times. As someone that plays piano,
I could tell that Elijah Wood’s performance was cheated, but it was
still cheated pretty well. Still, some aspects of the plot
and presentation were a little questionable. It’s incredibly cheesy, and just
to move things along, I’ll let this clip from the
trailer speak for itself. [Clip] ♪ (orchestra playing) ♪ Get back on stage. ♪ (orchestra playing) ♪ Now you know the meaning
of stage fright. ♪ (orchestra playing) ♪ Call for help, and I will hear it.
Get a guard involved, I will know it. If you do any of these things,
your wife will die. Play a wrong note
and you will die. [YMS] Another guilty pleasure of mine
from 2013 was Escape From Tomorrow, a weird and creepy film noir filmed in
Disneyland without their permission. Apparently Disney is well aware
of the Streisand effect and has decided not to make
a big fuss about it. The movie has kind of a twisted sense of humor
that I found myself enjoying quite a bit. I’m also quite fond of the contrast
in having the color sucked out of the happiest place on earth. Now, this is far from a masterful film,
and parts of it are pretty stupid, but the movie doesn’t take itself
too seriously in the first place. I mean, quite honestly, it’s more
of a comedy than anything. And I kind of love that it exists.
If, for whatever reason, you’re not interesed in
checking out this film, then please do yourself a favor
and, at least, check out the soundtrack, ’cause it is shockingly great,
especially for this kind of film. It’s definitely not for everybody,
but if this looks like fun for you, then check it out. [Clip] ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ [maniacal laughter] ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ This is so cute! ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ – Look at flying Pooh!
– Hey baby. ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ – No, honey. What are you doing? No! Honey!
– What? What are you worried about? – The kids! Not now!
– Come on! ♪ (cheerful music) ♪
[quiet arguing, maniacal laughter] – Nobody’s around! Come on!
– What are you…? Take your… ♪ (cheerful music) ♪
[quiet arguing] Honey! Not here.
No. Not in front of the kids! No. Stop.
[laughs] [Party horns] Jim! Jim!
[Party horns] ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ [YMS] Another 2013 guilty pleasure
for me is Spring Breakers. Now, this movie is pretty
fucking polarizing. Many people walked into this movie
thinking it was the very dumb garbage that it was actually satirizing. Others that knew more about
the director of this film wound up praising it
as a genius piece of art. As for me, I’m somewhere
down the middle. I can see everything that it was going for,
but I still don’t think it was exactly genius. Still, I’m recommending it because, to me,
this is a very fun movie to watch while you’re drunk. James Franco is not only great
at playing his character, but he is hilariously entertaining. And hearing him whisper the words
“spring break” over top of the film as it goes on is one of
the funniest things to me. I watch this movie as a comedy, and I
think it’s a pretty funny one at that. So if you think you can handle it,
then check it out. [Clip] You girls are different
from the rest. I knew y’all was special
from the moment I saw you. It’s in your eyes.
It’s written on your faces. I wanna make you happy.
I want us all to fall in love. Let’s cause some trouble now.
Live life to the fullest. Spring break…
Spring break for ever. [laughs] [YMS] Another guilty pleasure
from 2013 is The Dirties. It’s my understanding that some of you
will probably think that this belongs on my actual list, and not
my guilty pleasures list, but because of the budget, this movie
does have some presentation issues. There were a few moments in the
film where all I could think was, “Oh, this is because of the
ridiculously small budget.” Still, with a budget of just
thirty-thousand dollars, this film is kind of a fucking
miracle in that sense. This film serves as not only a great comedy,
but also a love letter to cinema, with the entire thing being absolutely
filled with references to classic movies. And if you’re a film-lover like me,
that brings an extra level of enjoyment. Their DVD/Blu-ray covers are also
parodies of popular film covers. If you’re a collector like me, I would
get one of these as soon as possible, because they are selling out. I would’ve loved to have had the
Memento cover, but alas, I was too late. Still, these ones are pretty fucking cool.
If this looks like your cup of tea, then check it out. [Clip] I started thinking about
writing songs, even any little- Owen, what about this? For the shooting? [laughs] [Mimics gun shot] I guess it’s not safe because this – what?
We’re promoting a choking hazard. What did they say as a kid?
“You’ll die”? Bags used to say that. “Put this over child’s head
and the child will die.” – They say it’ll suffocate.
– Will suffocate? Well, what the hell is this? I’m fine! What about this shirt?
Is this shirt too much? Is this one perfect? Can you…? Crazy… killers. Always…
obsessed with Catcher in the Rye. I like how you’re wearing that
hunting hat. The way you, like… No! Wrong! That’s better. – The point is, isn’t this wicked?
– Yes. School shooting. This is the Catcher
in the Rye-themed school shooting. It’s like we’re planning a prom. [YMS] And the last movie on my
list of 2013 guilty pleasures is Everything is Terrible!
Does the Hip-Hop. Everything is Terrible! is a website
that takes old, bad VHS footage and turns it into
consumable entertainment. Many people watch them for their
short videos, but I personally love their movies the most. 2 Everything 2 Terrible Tokyo
Drift is my favorite. Now, with Everything is Terrible!
Does the Hip-Hop, this one’s approach is a little different than
the other ones I’ve seen. Basically, they took a bunch of hip hop
segments and threw them together, but they put in the effort to have it synch up,
so that it plays as one continuous song. And boy, is it ever fun.
Now, for the sake of disclosure, I will mention that I’m Facebook friends
with a few of these guys, and two of them did crash
at my house one time. But also keep in mind that I’ve
mentioned them on this channel before any of that, so this
recommendation is genuine. It’s super fun, it’s nostalgic,
and it’s great to have fun with a bunch of drunk people,
so go check it out. [Clip, singing] Heads up! Get busy! ♪ (hip-hop music) ♪ [Rapping] Don’t play with drugs or alcohol
‘Cause if you do, you’re sure to fall. Don’t make your life a total mess,
Hitch up with us, and be the best. Look out! ♪ (hip-hop music) ♪ What ya’ll doing to your bodies?
Popcorn. Potato chips. Candy. Soda pop. This ain’t good, you got
to keep your bodies in shape. I’m going to have to get you
in shape my way. Come on, let’s go. It don’t take a dingus
to be able to see That we have got to push ourselves
and be all we can be. [YMS] Alright, now that that’s out of the way,
let’s get to my actual list. Try your best to keep in mind
that just because a movie might be listed as 2012 on IMDB,
doesn’t necessarily make it a 2012 movie. There’s a lot of different variables
that come into play, like film festivals, and different
geographic release dates. So just trust that these are
at least 2013 movies for me, even if you might think that one of
them should be in a different year. Starting off this list at number
nineteen is The Congress. Anyone who was a fan of the film
Waltz with Bashir from my 2008 list might want to check this out,
because it is the same director. Now, I think Waltz
with Bashir is a lot better, and these are very different movies,
but The Congress is great in its own way. The film is set in a not-too-distant dystopian
future, where Robin Wright plays herself. I don’t want to give away
too much about the plot, but let’s just say it’s one of the most
unique and creative films that I’ve seen in
a very long time. I also quite enjoyed the movie’s
commentary on the film industry, with one of the prominent characters
being a studio executive for Miramount, an intentional play on words that mixes
the name Miramax with Paramount. Now, this film does have a few presentation
issues – hence being so low on this list. There were a couple of scenes that were
more difficult to take seriously than others, one person’s age-makeup was a little off, and
some it just didn’t make all that much sense. But trust me when I say that this
movie more than makes up for it. Love it or hate it, but this film has
‘cult classic’ written all over it. Now, this is one of those movies where the less
you know about it beforehand, the better, so don’t look up trailers, don’t look up posters,
don’t look up anything; just watch it. [Clip] Robin… Your career’s almost over.
You fell of the top a long time ago. In the economy of scanned actors…
you’re not worth… two bucks. We’re at war, Robin. Any actor who hasn’t
signed in the next six months is dead. Gone. Characters erased
from the screen forever. You’ll be back, on all fours,
begging me to sample you. And, and… what is it, that I
have to do, to make this happen? Nothing. Just sign.
Half a day of scanning. – That’s it?
– That’s it. That, and you must agree never
to act again. Anywhere. For all eternity. [YMS] At number eighteen is Blackfish,
a documentary about killer whales and Sea World’s unethical
business practices. This is quite the captivating documentary,
and just like The Cove, it functions as a great
documentary on its own without resorting to being one
of those sappy PETA films. Putting all emotion and politics aside,
this is still a very well-made documentary. It’s well paced and well edited,
and I was kind of blown away by how much accompanying
footage they had. To have so much footage of these
events as they happen, rather than just people’s
eye-witness accounts, not only brings legitimacy to what
they’re saying, but also makes the film a lot more disturbing. This film has generated so much
controversy that Sea World’s stock has plummeted since its release. Anyway, I thought this documentary was
pretty well made overall, so go check it out. [Clip] Because the whales in their pools die young,
they like to say that all orcas die at 25 or 30 years. – 25 to 35 years.
– 25 to 35 years. They’re documented in
the wild living 35 – mid-30s. They tend to live a lot longer in this environment
’cause they have all the veterinary care. And of course that’s false. We knew by
1980, after a half a dozen years of the research, that they live equivalent to human life spans.
And every other potentially embarassing fact is twisted and turned and
denied one way or another. – So, in the wild they live…
– Less. Less. And then when… Like, the floppy dorsel fins… 25% of whales have a fin that
turns over like that, as they get older. Dorsal collapse happens in less than 1%
of wild killer whales. We know this. All the captive males… 100%
have collapsed dorsal fins. [YMS] At number seventeen on this list
is a French film called Young & Beautiful. The story’s about a seventeen-year-old girl
who decides to start working as a call girl after losing her virginity. Based on that plot, you should expect
that the film is somewhat sexual. And even though this film
is somewhat adult, it never really feels
gratuitous and pornographic. I mean, it’s probably not the kind of
movie you’re going to want to watch with your parents,
but keep in mind that this movie is much more about
the story and characters than it is about the sex. Not only is it well shot
and very well acted, but the score for the film
is also pretty fucking great. If this seems interesting
to you, then check it out. [YMS] At number sixteen is
Before Midnight by Richard Linklater. Now, this film is actually the third in
a trilogy, the first being Before Sunrise in 1995 and the second being
Before Sunset in 2004. Now, personally, I consider it to be very
important to watch the other films first. You could still watch, enjoy, and
understand this movie on its own, but watching the other films first
adds a lot more to the experience. And it is quite something to see these
characters we love grow over time. It should come as no surprise that
this is the same director as Boyhood. In my opinion, these films
are a lot better than Boyhood. The Before Trilogy is mostly dialogue,
but it never really feels boring or stale, and a lot of that is in part due
to these characters’ chemistry. Both the actors and characters are able
to work off of each other very naturally. It’s almost hard to believe that
watching two people talk could be so entertaining
until you actually see the movies. Now, they’re all great,
but out of all three of them, this is probably the worst. This one in particular starts off
a little slower than the other ones, but it does build up
as it goes along. Like I said, though,
all three of them are great, and I hope we see
another one in 2022. So check out the first movie,
and if you fall in love with these characters, like I did,
then you might even want to watch the director’s film called Waking Life,
in between the first and second movie, which includes a four-minute scene
featuring these exact same characters. Waking Life is also a great movie
that I would recommend, but it’s not an absolute necessity
when watching this trilogy because, honestly, most of the movie
has nothing to do with them. Anyway, if this looks good
to you, then check it out. [Clip] Last night, I had this dream
where I was reading a book, okay? It was a lost classic.
“The Rovers”. – The Rovers?
– Yeah, like roving around. You know, wandering.
It was all these young people. – Okay. Is that a real book?
– No, no, no. But it was really great. It was fresh, funny, experimental,
it had all this energy… I love that you read books
in your dreams. I know, I know!
They’re always really good. I have, like, major action hero dreams,
like I’m flying around like a superhero, breaking through walls… And at the end…
I have an orgasm. [laughs] I’m going to try to make
your dreams come true, baby. Eek! ♪ (soft romantic music) ♪ [YMS] At number fifteen
on my list is Frances Ha. I shit you not, the last two people
I mentioned this movie to said, “Is that a movie about
a Chinese guy?” Frances Ha is a film from
acclaimed director Noah Baumbach. He directed The Squid and the Whale,
and he also co-wrote Fantastic Mr Fox with Wes Anderson. Frances Ha makes for a
really entertaining character study, but it’s also heartfelt
and it’s really funny. Unlike a lot of other films that
have decided to present themselves in black and white,
this film actually feels very retro. Which is saying a lot when
so many other modern black and white films feel way
too modern in their approach. Anyway, don’t just just take my word for it:
Quentin Tarantino included this film in his top 10 of 2013 as well.
Just check it out. – You want to move in with me? Yeah?
– Yeah! Yes! I mean, I do have this other thing.
– What other thing? Well, I don’t know. I promised Sophie
I’d stay through the lease, and she’ll probably want to renew it. Is that bad? I’m sorry, I feel bad. Can’t she find someone else? – Yeah, but it’s my friend.
– Uh-huh. – I want to move in with you.
– Okay. – I feel bad.
– Don’t feel bad, forget it. – No, what?
– Nothing! – You’re mad.
– I’m not mad, I’m disappointed. – I feel bad.
– Stop feeling bad. Frances… I asked you to move
in with me, you said no. – But I can’t!
– You can, you don’t want to. [Phone rings] – Who is it?
– It’s okay, I don’t have to get it. – Who is it?
– It’s Sophie. I’ll just call her back later. – Just pick up the phone. Answer it.
– Are you sure? Yo, girl, what’s up?
[laughs] [YMS] At number 14 on this list is
Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street. Now, I’ve come to understand that
some people don’t like this movie because it’s a little
too similar to Goodfellas. And while they do kind of
hit the same beats, I would say they’re pretty
dramatically different in tone, because The Wolf of Wall Street
makes for one hilarious comedy. Leo DiCaprio was great as always.
Jonah Hill was surprisingly great. Everything in this film is just
so fun, fast-paced and action-packed, that you barely even notice
the three-hour runtime. I’ve also heard some complaints
about the morality of this movie, so keep in mind that the film
does not endorse any of the actions by any of the characters. Whether you walk out of the movie
thinking that the main character was an awesome guy or a piece of shit,
that’s completely up for you to interpret. Either way, this movie was
incredibly entertaining for me, so I’d suggest you check it out. [Clip] Get the fuck…
Fucking smoke crack with me, bro. – I’m not fucking doing it.
– C’mon, smoke crack. Smoke some fucking
crack with me, bro. – One hit. One hit. That’s it.
– Okay. – Fucking nut job.
– Smoke… smoke some… ♪ (cheerful music) ♪ [moans and sighs] Wow! [laughs] Wow. [laughs] Let’s go run, huh? We gotta
get out of here, buddy. We gotta get out of here.
Let’s go fucking run! Let’s run like we’re fucking lions
and tigers and bears! Let’s run! Let’s fucking run!
Let’s fucking run! Go! Go, go, go, go! [YMS] Number thirteen on
this list is Tom at the Farm, from writer-director
Xavier Dolan. So far, his movies have only
gotten better and better, with his newest film Mommy
being my favorite. If there’s one word I would use
to describe this movie, it would be “weird”. The film is eerie and mysterious,
but also has a good sense of humor. If you’re not paying attention the whole
movie, you might get a little confused. It’s not as though the story
is all that complicated, but the way that information is revealed
in the movie is done in such a way that it isn’t exactly
spoon-fed to you. The film not only tells a unique
story, but its presentation has some cool
choices in it, too. One of them you should notice
by watching this clip. If you like what you see, then
I suggest checking it out. [YMS] At number twelve,
we have No, a movie set in 1988 Chile
focusing on an ad executive responsible for the “No” campaign
against Augusto Pinochet. The entire film was shot on the same
kind of cameras that were commonly used for television in 1980’s Chile. And it gives the film a very interesting
and fun to watch style. And, more importantly, you’ve still got
a great movie, even if you take that out of the equation. Gael García Bernal is fantastic as usual,
and the film makes a lot of great statements on advertising, public perception,
politics, and propaganda. There’s a lot of political movies out there,
but this one offers a fresh perspective. So, I’d recommend
checking this one out. [YMS] At number eleven is
The Dance of Reality, by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Now, I love this film, but it is
probably the least accessible out of everything on this list. If you find yourself intimidated by films
that don’t stick to a standard narrative, then this might not be
the one to start with. Even regardless, I would actually recommend
watching The Holy Mountain before this one. The Holy Mountain is currently
my favorite movie, and it would be a good place
to start to get used to his style. What I love about Jodorowsky is that everything
about his art seems so open and transparent. His films are very spiritual, and although
I’m not a very spiritual person, it’s clear to me that everything he puts into
his art has a personal sense of purpose for him. Now, although his films are far from literal,
it’s usually not too difficult to see the ideas he’s getting at
in each scene. Keep in mind that, although
it’s obviously personal, it’s not supposed to be
taken extremely seriously. A lot of what he winds up showing
is intentionally absurdist. And, to me, that adds
to the entertainment. There are only really a couple of issues
that I have with this movie. One of the performances in one of the scenes
wasn’t as good as it could’ve been, and there were a couple of moments
where the point he was trying to make was a little too obvious, but regardless,
I still think this that movie is great. It’s definitively no Holy Mountain,
but it is worth checking out. [YMS] At number ten is
The World’s End by Edgar Wright. This is technically the
third film in a trilogy, but since each of the films have completely
different stories and characters, they are stand-alone movies. Now, I’ve seen everything he’s made
since his TV series Spaced, and I’ve got to say everything I’ve
seen has been absolute gold. If I could make my 2010 list all over
again, Scott Pilgrim would be on it. As I’ve mentioned on this channel before,
I was pretty disappointed for him not to be directing Ant-Man,
because his skills as a director separate him from nearly everybody else
working in comedy right now. If you still need some convincing,
then I strongly encourage you to watch this video by Tony Zhou
from Every Frame a Painting. If you’ve not checked out this guy’s channel
yet, let me just say thay it’s better than mine! Anyway, The World’s End is probably
the worst out of the trilogy, but just like Before Midnight,
it is still worthy of this list. I do like how, for this film, they
decided to change up the dynamic between the characters of
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. The humor, both spoken and visual,
is on point, as usual, but I guess my only complaint for this film
when comparing it to the two others in the trilogy is that the main antagonist in this film
didn’t feel all that threatening. Every other element from Shaun
of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is still there, but having a threatening antagonist
that makes you feel a sense of urgency and consequence is something that
Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz both did better than this film. Like I said, though, still great,
still entertaining, and still hilarious. [Clip] – So, tell me more.
– About what? Crowning Glory. Is it nutty?
Is it foamy? Is it hoppy? Does it have a surprisingly fruity
note which lingers on the tongue? Hm… It’s beer. Hm… We’ll have five
of those, please. No. Sorry. Can we have four of
those, and a tap water, please? What?! I don’t believe this. A man of your legendary prowess
drinking fucking rain. It’s like seeing a… a lion
eating some hummus. – Doesn’t make any sense.
– I know it doesn’t make any sense. You seriously have a problem with me
not drinking, after what happened? – I don’t. But King Arthur does.
– Oh, this’ll be good. What’s King Arthur
got to do with it? Do you honestly think that King Arthur
came back from the Battle of Hastings, – fucking rocked up at Arthur’s Castle…
– Camelot. …walked up to the bar and went,
“Hello. Could I have a tap water?” No, because they didn’t have
running water in Arthurian times. Exactly! He would have had a mead.
The King Arthur of beers. [YMS] At number nine on
this list is Prisoners, by French-Canadian director
Denis Villeneuve. This is the same guy that directed Incendies,
that placed fairly high on my 2010 list, and he’s currently in pre-production
to be directing a Blade Runner sequel. Based on films like these ones, I’d say
there’s hope that it’s in good hands. Prisoners is a gripping thriller
that goes by the books, but better. The vast majority of it is shot so well that
it almost has kind of a David Fincher vibe to it. Now, some people consider this movie
to be on the same level as any other random Hollywood thriller,
which is a little sad, because this film does
so much more than that. The cinematography is
incredibly impressive, the children in this movie
actually act like children, and, to top it off, there’s some
fantastic performances in this movie, with Hugh Jackman’s acting abilities
being used to their full potential. Now, obviously, the movie isn’t perfect.
There is one performance in this movie that wasn’t all that great, and it
does feel slightly clichéd at points, but with everything this movie
accomplished successfully, it’s hard not to give it
proper credit. If what you’re looking for is a well-made
thriller that’s accessible to most everyone, then I would recommend
checking this one out. [Clip] Did you give him a lie detector?
You gave us a lie… Did you give him one? Sir, I understand what you’re asking me.
Yes, we did. We gave him a lie detector,
and there’s no way of… [brief nervous laughter] A lie detector doesn’t work
if you don’t understand the questions. Well, maybe he wasn’t on his own.
How could he drive an RV – if he has an I.Q. of a 10-year-old?
– Hey. We’re considering all possibilities. – I don’t think you are considering…
– No, I hear what you’re saying. Sir… Now, you listen to me.
Shut the fuck up for a fucking second! [sobbing] This is what I’m gonna
need you to do for me. I need you to calm down. I’m sorry. I’m… sorry. Please, listen to me for a second. Mr. Dover, I understand
this is an incredibly hard time, but I have every uniformed police
officer in this state looking for Anna. I don’t understand what any
of this means. They said he ran. They said he tried to get away. I don’t
understand why he would try to run away. We’re considering all
possibilities, Mr. Dover. [YMS] Number eight on this list is
Blue Jasmine from Woody Allen. Cate Blanchett won Best
Female Performance for ths movie and I’ve got to say
it was well-deserved. If you like dramas/comedies with strong,
interesting and well-performed characters, then this movie is for you. Cate Blanchett plays an affluent woman
who finds herself needing to move back in with her not-so-affluent sister.
Watching both of these actors perform is the highlight of the movie,
because they both do an outstanding job. Seriously, there’s so many subtleties
in Cate Blanchett’s performance that none of the other nominations
came even close for me. The story is clever and well-written,
appropriately jumping back and forth between past and present,
with each new piece of information bringing more context to the
characters and their struggles. This is a fantastic film and I’d
recommend it to everybody. [Clip] So, what are you gonna
study in college, Jasmine, then? Let me guess. A nurse. Huh? Is that how
I impress you? A nurse? You got something against nurses?
My sister’s a nurse. Nurses are very hot to go to bed with. [scoff] Because they have extensive knowledge
of how the human body works. Careful what you accuse my sister of. No, I’m just saying, I know
quite a few good nurses… Chili, why don’t
we change the subject? You know, you think you’re being
charming, but you’re not. You always stare into
space like that? I had a friend who used
to do that, all the time, but there was something
wrong with him. He was epileptic. I’m not epileptic. If you see the waitress, I’d like another
Stoli Martini with a twist of lemon. So, what are you
gonna study, Jasmine? Jesus! Leave her alone!
It’s like the third time you asked her. So what? She hasn’t
answered me. I don’t know, but I’ll be sure
to keep you informed. Oh. Okay, sorry. [YMS] At number seven is The Past,
from the director of A Separation. Now, even though I found A Separation
to be a little overrated, I still enjoyed it a lot. But if there’s one thing that’s
for certain about this director, boy, does he ever know
how to end a movie. This is another movie where I don’t
want to reveal too much about the plot, because the way that the plot is revealed
is pretty fucking important to the story. Every single one of the performances
was absolutely fantastic, with Bérénice Bejo from The Artist
taking away Best Female Performance from Cannes Film Festival.
Anyway, grab some tissues and watch this movie for yourself,
because I think it’s pretty fantastic. [YMS] At number 6 on my list is
a documentary called The Act of Killing. This is one of the most unique, disturbing
and resonating documentaries ever made. The film follows around gangsters that were
hired by the Indonesian government in the 1960’s to kill anyone who
opposed the military dictatorship. Over the course of the film, they proudly
brag about their accomplishments. Suffice it to say, this movie
is kind of fucked-up. This film is like one giant statement
on how human beings can normalize pretty much anything, regardless of how
absolutely atrocious and horrifying it is. Now, one of the ways I try to judge
documentaries as films is to ask myself this: “If this exact same movie were fictional,
would it still be a great movie?” And the answer for this film
is a resounding “yes”. A dfferent filmmaker might have
approached this subject by essentially giving us
a factual lecture on the events, but Joshua Oppenheimer’s approach managed
to turn this into a powerful piece of art, wherein the subjects of the film
are character studies themselves. The Blu-ray has both a theatrical cut
and the director’s cut, theatrical being two hours, and the director’s
cut being two hours and forty minutes. After having seeing both of them, I
would recommend the director’s cut, because a decent amount of the footage
that was missing from the theatrical release was pretty great. However, if you’re more comfortable
with watching a two-hour movie, the theatrical cut is still great. So, decide for yourself, because
the movie isn’t ruined either way. Anyway, I can’t recommend
this movie enough. I would also highly recommend
checking out The Look of Silence, which might be in theaters
for some of you right now. It’s a documentary from the same
director on the same subject, but with a completely
different approach. I’ve only seen it once, but right now
it’s difficult to say which one I like more. But, personally, I found it to be
the best film of 2015 so far. Anyway, check out The Act of Killing
and prepare to be amazed and disturbed at the same time. [YMS] At number 5 on my list
is Simon Killer, the second film from
director Antonio Campos. A while back I watched
his first film, Afterschool, and although I thought
it was alright, the presentation felt
a little too borrowed. At no point did I feel
as though he was untalented, but the whole film just felt
as though he was trying really hard to be Benny’s Video. Fast-forward to Simon Killer, and I’ve
got to say, I’m really fucking impressed. The first time I watched this movie
I thought it was pretty decent. The second time I watched it
I thought that it was pretty great. And, on my third watch,
I absolutely loved it. Now, don’t get yourself fooled by the title
into thinking that this is some sort of movie about a serial killer.
Instead, this film functions as a meticulous character study
of a complete sociopath, and Brady Corbet brings
this character to life pretty fucking flawlessly. I’ve seen him in a lot of
supporting roles over the years, and he’s always done a great job,
so it’s great to finally see him in a lead role, because
he did a fantastic job. As for the directing, there are still some
Haneke-esque elements there, but this time it’s got enough
of Antonio’s own voice in there that it doesn’t really
feel like a copycat. Just try to imagine that Michael Haneke
and Nicolas Winding Refn had a baby, and this is the second film
they’ve ever made. This movie might not be a
ten out of ten film for me, but it shows a lot of potential
and a lot of promise for this director. And I can’t wait to see what he does
in the future with a higher budget. I should also mention that the song
choices for this film were all fantastic. The film got released on region B Blu-ray
under the Eureka Masters of Cinema series, so, if you live in region B, or have
a region-free Blu-ray player, I’d suggest picking this one up. Region-locking is incredibly stupid,
but at least this company seems to agree. If you put the disc in a region A player
it makes a pretty decent point. Anyway, if you’re looking to get into
the mind of a character that will both intrigue and disturb you, then I’d
recommend checking this one out. [Clip] Oh. Okay, I mean,
imagine this. Your phone… I mean…
Your phone… It doesn’t have
a camera. But… if it did… you’d take this
and you’d put it… right here. Here. Go sit over there. And whatever happened…
in that room… You would have it. And then what? Er, and then… [woman giggles] And then…? I mean… Instead… of taking…
a little money… from… a lot of men… you could take…
a lot of money… from one. [YMS] Number four on my list is
Upstream Color by Shane Carruth. This is his second film ever,
with his first being Primer back in 2004. Both of these films
are ones that Shane wrote, directed, produced, starred in,
and even composed the music for. Holy shit! And wow, is he ever
able to work within a budget! Primer had a budget
of just $7,000, and even this one was
dirt-cheap at $50,000. Like Primer, Upstream Color doesn’t
really hold your hand as you watch it. The first time you watch this movie, you’re likely
going to feel a little confused as it goes on. But trust me that this film is not one giant
artistic metaphor, like The Dance of Reality. The film is showing you an actual story,
and everything that’s happening is pretty literal. I might make an explanation
video at some point, and that shouldn’t be
too difficult to do, but don’t hold me to it
because there’s a lot of stuff that I’m trying to
catch up on first. With Upstream Color, Shane Carruth
has dramatically improved in terms of cinematography,
with some sequences in the film almost feeling as though they
would belong in The Tree of Life. This film is original, inventive,
and pretty fucking clever, and I can’t wait to see
what he comes up with next, even if we have to wait
another nine years. If you want to watch a well-delivered
drama that makes you think, then check this one out. [YMS] At number three is Inside
Llewyn Davis by the Coen brothers. It goes to show that,
at this point in their career, they’ve got film-making
down to a science. Everything from the time period
to the quirks and mannerisms of the characters
just feels so real. And the folk music that plays a big part
in this movie is done exceptionally well. Now, there’s obviously a lot more
to this movie than just the music, but if you really hate folk music,
then I’d suggest not watching it. As a person who listens
to all genres, I’d say that the music
accompanied the film very well. Oscar Isaac did a fantastic job
playing this character, and his struggles become more and more
relatable as the film goes on. This is one of the very best films of
the year, and I’d suggest checking it out. [Clip] It’s not a big re-education… for the public. Mel? Mel! How you doing, kid? Mel, there was no advance
on my solo record. There’s gotta be
some royalty. Fucking Christ’s sake, it’s cold out.
I don’t even have a winter coat. Jesus Christ.
You’re kidding me. – Take this, kid.
– Mel, no. I insist. I insist! I don’t want your fucking coat.
What’ll you wear? – Kid, I’ll get by.
– It won’t even fit me. This is… It’s bullshit, Mel.
It’s just a big fat fucking bluff. Bluff?! Kid, what are you ta…?
Bluff?! I offer you this…? Get the fuck out
of my office! – All right, thanks for the coat.
– What? All right, well, wait.
Aw, shit. Let me give you 40 bucks. [YMS] Number two on my list is
12 Years a Slave by Steve McQueen. Now, it’s kind of sad that there’s
so many people out there that think that this was only critically acclaimed
because it’s supposedly race-baiting. And that’s sad to me because
that means either one of two things: either they haven’t watched it,
or they have absolutely no grasp at all for what makes
good film-making. You’d have to be absolutely clueless
about performances, cinematography, music and so on, because this film
is absolutely outstanding on all fronts. This is Steve McQueen’s
third feature-length film, and, so far, all three of them
have been on my yearly lists. He is, right now, my
second-favorite director, and who knows?
He might even become my first, because he is one of the
absolute most talented people working in the film
industry today. In 12 Years a Slave, he was
able to get the very most out of every single
actor he worked with. There’s an incredible amount
of attention to detail, in not only the performances,
but how the characters are written. Characters that had more educated
backgrounds had a different kind of dialect
than those that didn’t. Hans Zimmer’s score was phenomenal,
as he was able to bring in a modern intensity while sticking
to traditional instruments. Overall, the presentation of this film
was pretty fucking genius, with Steve McQueen having an
expert grasp on how to tell the story. What’s shown, what’s not shown, and how
things are revealed are all very important, and Steve McQueen understands this
better than most everyone. There are scenes in the film where a shot
will continue to linger on a subject, and as it does that, you’re forced to absorb
so much more about the situation, and, suddenly, you’re not so much
watching a movie anymore, and you’re left to become
but a witness of the gruesome brutality being displayed on the screen. This is one of the most
powerful films I’ve ever seen, and it’s the best story of human
survival I’ve seen in a very long time. And if you’re not going to see this movie
because you think that it’s supposed to somehow make you feel guilty for an event
that you weren’t even alive to experience, then I hope that someday you
manage to overcome that feeling, because otherwise you’ll be missing out
on one of the absolute best films of the year. [Clip, screaming] [screaming] [screaming] [gasping and whimpering] [gasping] [door closes and locks] [groaning] [chains rattling] [gasps of pain] Help. Help me! Help me! Somebody help me! Help! [YMS] And my number one
film of 2013 is… Yeah, you guessed it.
It’s Her. Director Spike Jonze has done
some amazing work in the past with other writers
in charge of the story, so with him being the sole
writer and director of this film I was pleasantly surprised
to see something this great. It seems as though all that time
he spent with Charlie Kaufman really rubbed off on him,
because this feels like the Charlie Kaufman movie
that he never wrote. Both the writing and the presentation
flow together so perfectly in this movie that I’m glad he has the directing skills
to be able to bring his vision to life. I love that this movie never tries
to endlessly lecture you on the rules of its universe, and while
that can work for some futuristic movies, this one commits itself to being
more about the characters. The futuristic setting is merely
a vehicle for the character’s story. So, having an opening title explaining
what year it is and every detail about the political climate and so on
would just be so unnecessary. However, the most important thing
to consider about the rules of the universe for any movie is that those rules
don’t contradict themselves. Without a consistent universe,
it’s not a believable universe. Spike Jonze was able to add more legitimacy
to his universe through his presentation. Rather than having characters explain
things like the smog in the atmosphere, the prevalence of technology in their lives,
the current state of video-games, and so on, the movie showed these things
in a way that we were able to pick up on these things by ourselves,
and because of that, it implies to our brains that there is
a universe in the film that’s bigger than what we’re seeing on-screen.
And thus, it adds to the believability, where something futuristic
and surreal can still feel real. Not only that, but the film
pays close attention to how human beings
operate psychologically. Even today, we see technology
playing more and more of a role in our lives, both
romantically and sexually. In one quick scene near the
beginning of the film we can see exactly how far this has gone,
with our main character effortlessly connecting to a network
of people seeking out fantasy role-play. And, once again, this isn’t something
that’s explained or lectured to us. It’s something that we’re able to
observe and figure out for ourselves. Joaquin Phoenix, as usual, does
a phenomenal job playing his character. The soundtrack by Arcade Fire
was perfect, and choosing that kind of tone and style
for this film was incredibly appropriate. Rather than having that cheesy
clichéd electronic music to constantly remind the audience
that they’re in the future, Arcade Fire brought more of a
current, but almost retro feel to it, and in doing so, it helps our brains feel
more connected to the events in the film. Mixing the familiar and the unfamiliar
helps bridge the gap. Listening to one of the
piano songs from this film I can tell that they’re using a real
piano instead of synthesizing it, and when those faster right-hand
movements come in, it’s obvious that they’re not
using a metronome. And it’s having those little imperfections
that makes it all sound so genuine. To have a sterile and perfect sound
for this film would be out of place, because the film’s universe
is neither sterile nor perfect. [Clip] I think there was the idea where
we were trying to make this very… warm, tactile world, with the materials,
and the fabrics, and the woods, and create this… this world that felt like,
this utopic world that everything’s nice, everything’s comfortable, yet even
in this world we’re… you’re seemingly getting everything you need,
and having this nice life, there’s still loneliness and longing,
and isolation, and disconnection, and… I thought I had to define what it…
I’m picturing it would be utopic, and that sort of… started this…
this train of thought, which was, you know, sort of where we ended up,
making this world that’s comfortable, and nice, and convenient, you
know, much like our world, but just a heightened version of our world, where
everything is getting nicer as the years go, and there’s more design, and there’s more
convenience, and our technology is making things easier, but…
There’s still this loneliness, and… – longing.
– change. [YMS] I love absolutely everything
about this movie. Writing, acting, directing,
production, design, everything. And it’s got Chris Pratt!
Everybody likes him! If you haven’t seen this movie,
then see it as soon as possible, because it is my
favorite film of 2013. [Clip, laughing] – Samantha!
– What? Wouldn’t you? Why not? I don’t know. I’d have to
see if there was some… I can’t believe I’m having this
conversation with my computer. – You’re not!
– [laughs] You’re having this
conversation with me. – You want me to e-mail her?
– Uh… You’ve got nothing to lose.
Do it. Do it. Do it. – Yeah.
– Yes! – E-mail her.
– Okay, perfect. Yeah, let’s do it. Make… make a
reservation someplace great. – Yeah? Well, I’ve got just the place.
– Who is that talking? Oh, that’s my
friend Samantha. – Is she a girl?
– Yeah. I hate women! All they
do is cry all the time! [laughs] That’s not true.
You know, men cry too. I actually like crying sometimes.
It feels good. [snickers] I didn’t know
you were a little pussy. – [laughs]
– Is that why you don’t have a girlfriend? I’ll go on that date, fuck her brains out,
and show you how it’s done. – You can watch and cry.
– [laughs] – Okay. This kid has some problems.
– You have some fucking problems, lady! Really? Okay,
I’m gonna go. Um… – Good. Get out of here, fatty!
– [laughs] Oh. Good luck! [beep] Come on!
Follow me, pussy! [laughing and giggling] [YMS] Well, there you have it.
Some 2013 shit. The next one of these you’ll see from me will
either be for 2007 or 2014. Don’t know yet. Anyway, I hope I’ve introduced you
to some movies that you’ll love. Feel free to report back
in the comments section. Anyway, thanks
for watching. I’m gonna go work on some
other reviews now. Bye! Hey, guys! It’s Adam here, coming at you
with my top five reasons why I love abortion. Oh, wait a second. I see some names
coming up from the bottom of the screen. And they’re so… they’re so dank that it…
just completely derailed my train of thought. Now all I can think of
is how those names got there. They must’ve gotten there by
going to Patreon.com/YMS, ’cause… they’re so dank.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this video, because it took me fucking
forever to make, and now my back is really sore from
sitting in this chair so long… Anyway, I try my best to update
people on when things are coming out… on my Twitter, that’s the
best place to go if you… if you are interested in finding out when
things are supposed to be coming out. However, I am really, really,
really, really bad at anticipating when things are gonna come out
if it’s far ahead in the future. Like, my last… my last tweet that I made,
I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be fairly accurate as to which… which day this will
be published, but, in terms of trying to figure out when things are gonna
come out, like, months in advance, it’s really fucking difficult.
Because… every video takes a different amount of time to make, some
things are more time-sensitive than others, if something’s still in theaters,
I wanna tackle that first, I have to put something else on hold
while I work on something else… It’s… it’s a big fucking mess,
and now it’s almost the end of the month. I thought that I would get… two
Patreon-supported videos out this month. It might not happen.
It looks like it probably won’t happen. Even though I’m like, halfway
through another video… This shit takes time.
And, because of that, I’m now making plans to get
some extra help on this channel. Mark English, who’s been editing
videos for my gaming channel for the past, I guess, year now,
he’s been doing a great job. If you have not seen one of the
videos from my gaming channel, start with this one right… here!
God-dammit! Start with this one r… Fucking… no, just start with the one
in the… bottom of the… thing. Start… start with that one. Yeah.
That’s a… That’s a good one to start with. And… if, if you like that, then you’ll like
the stuff that he’ll be making for this channel. We’re in the middle
of making plans for it, I will make another video about that
and some other changes coming up, so stay tuned for a big, big, like, update…
re-evaluation… where the channel is going, et cetera video.
I’m gonna be making one of those in the next couple of weeks.
Anyway, I love you, guys. Thank you very much for your support,
whether it be on Patreon, or… sharing my videos, or commenting,
or liking, or anything, Feedback, et cetera. All of that reddit, Voat, and, like,
everywhere, fucking… Crazy Town… Anyway, now that this video’s out
of the way, my next big project is gotta be a YMS review.
There haven’t been any for a while, because of the
Synecdoche, New York videos that I’ve been working on.
They really, really took up a lot of time. I’m gonna have to figure out my schedule
in a way that I can do everything consistently, and make sense.
Again, that will be addressed in the video coming up.
But, anyway, I love you guys. Thank you very much.
Couldn’t do this without you. I’m gonna peace off right now and
get ready for my Sunday Twitch stream, ’cause it’s Sunday morning right now.
Not while you’re watching this, unless that’s just a coincidence,
and it’s another week that’s not today. Peace out! Love you!
[Subtitles by Jokerine]
Guys, what’s a creepy thing women do that we might be unaware of? It could be stalkerish, creepy, clingy, etc.
and we have no clue it’s being seen that way. Over-romanticizing a person to which the person
in real life and the person in their head are very different people with very different
interests. A lot of women I know do this, where they
have a continual romantic fantasy about a particular person and don’t find anything
weird about it. For example my first girlfriends already had
a detailed design of how I am as a person before I even knew they liked me, and then
got deeply upset or frustrated when it turned out that I’m not the sweet prince that they
perceive me to be in their minds. Its very off putting. EDIT:
For the record I’m well aware that both genders do this, however based on my experience and
observation it seems to be something that a lot of young women do that they are unaware
of. I get this. I kind of blame all those princess stories
from our childhoods where the princess was going to get Prince Charming every time and
the way they would meet and immediately marry gave us the impression that the men of our
dreams would walk out of the stories and into the bodies of real people and everything would
be puppies and rainbows. Attempting to send friend requests/reach out
to any family members of mine on Facebook *before* I’ve introduced you in person. I can’t believe this needed to be said to
an ex of mine. I think friend-requesting anyone you haven’t
met is creepy. I’m looking at you, random friend of my SO’s
brother… *Sometimes* it is just fat finger syndrome
when facebook suggests “people you might know”. I’ve dated multiple girls that block the door
during arguments because they know I won’t touch them when we’re fighting and they don’t
want the argument to end. Several times I’ve been forced to keep arguing
until 2-3 in the morning because my ex would block the exit, knowing she had free reign
of my space and I couldn’t do anything about it. As an example: My most recent ex once drove
to my house during a snowstorm because she knew I wouldn’t make her stand out in the
cold, and then stayed for 6 hours, with me asking her to leave the entire time. Oh this is more than just creepy. Yeah, I’ve come to more properly label it
as “abusive” as time has passed. Given the phrasing of the question though,
I think there’s invisibility to how it makes a guy feel and thought it was worth mentioning
it for the possibility of lack of awareness. Blatant “sexy” manipulation to make me do
things. Some women think they’re so clever, bending
over, or thrusting their chest at me, while asking me for something in a creepy child
voice. Stop. Either you’re terrible at this and it’s just
tiresome, or you’re being obvious and don’t care and that’s just…no. I might help you, sure, but not because you
give me a quick brush with the tiddy. When I was 10 years old, I found the most
buttery popcorn I’ve ever seen in the pantry of my church. So I popped it and carried it outside. While I was walking this twenty-something
girl just came up to me and pulled this shit. She had the pouty lips and the childish voice
and asked me, “can I have some popcorn?” I gave her some, but not because of anything
she said. When I gave her some, she just put a finger
to her mouth and said, “we can keep this a secret…just between you and I”
It was pretty uncomfortable. Talking about our sex life in detail. With guys the conversation is “you hooked
up with her? cool” then we talk about sports. I have heard extremely intimate details of
what happened between us from their friends, and this has happened across many years and
partners. I had a night with a friend of a friend who
i’d never met before, she proceeded to tell my friend most details of it (i knew she probably
would) but then my friend told all her friends who i’m also friends with. So my buddy comes up to me and tells me that
she’d told their whole group of friends about me and that night, even though she wasn’t
there. Kinda weird if you ask me. When she frequently goes into too much unsolicited
detail about her ex, or brings him up all the time. Seriously, if I’m hooking up with you, the
*last* thing I want to be thinking about is your ex. This has happened with a few girls, all of
whom I’d literally only hooked up with a few times when they started doing this. Depends though. If she’s just talking about life experiences
that happened to have occurred while she was with her ex and he ends up in the story I
don’t find that creepy. Especially if she was with him for a long
time. Sometimes it’s hard to avoid that coming up
when someone is your partner for a long time. That women can be oddly comfortable talking
about anything to another woman, even if they’ve known each other for a few days. Seriously, I’ve known some women that told
some serious deep stuff to another woman many would consider an acquaintance at most. That many women can jump from friend to friend
and consider them ‘best friends’, even though they’ve known each other for probably 6 months
or so. Witnessing women taking selfies of themselves,
and the many takes they do to get that one good picture, while being completely oblivious
to their surroundings. Women actually only need a few minutes together
in a bathroom or a toilet queue and we bond. I’ve had some amazing connections and deep
and meaningful conversations with strangers in this situation. If someone is crying in there forget about! Every women surrounds her with support and
we all become mother hens. It is odd I suppose but I also think it’s
nice. I’m with you on the selfie obsession though. I’ve got 3 teenage girls and I’m amazed at
their ability to disengage and be totally unaware of those around them while they snap
chat. Having a shit of selfies on instagram. It makes me think that you are full of yourself. It is actually quite unattractive after a
while. Eventually I wonder “who is taking these photos?”
(if not selfies) and “Is she a complete narcissist?” or “does she do anything besides instragram?” Seriously. I don’t know how the ‘selfie girls’ and ‘instagram
models’ have time for anything else. Picture of self like this. Picture of self dressed in this. Picture of self over here. How does anyone find the time? A couple of my exs expected to hang out every
night. Not 3-4 times a week, EVERY NIGHT. This really smothered me. Had another GF that would call me within 5
minutes nearly every day of me getting off of work additionally she required a one hour
long phone call at night as well. I don’t even love myself that much. I don’t know if it’s “creepy” per se, but
way too many women ask what I feel to be invasive questions. Particularly about my past flings. Why they ended, what the girls looked like,
etc. I’m not into that. Omg. Yes. Hooked up with a girl for a few weeks recently
and my ex came up in conversation one day and she asked what happened, i said I didn’t
really want to talk about it, but she would not let it go. Wanted me to tell her her name so she could
look at her facebook, wanted to know why we broke up, was it messy, everything. She wasn’t super jealous or anything, just
annoyingly curious and unwilling to accept that I *really* don’t want to be discussing
that with someone I’m hooking up with. 1) Thinking it’s cute to grope/slap-ass as
a form of flirting. It’s not okay when guys do it to you. Treat people the way you wish to be treated. 2) If I just met you I don’t want to take
Snapchat selfies with you. -this might just be a me thing because I’m
not big on selfies. Haha I dated a girl for a month who would
get PISSED at me when I didn’t want to take pictures with her and post them on Facebook. Me and my friends now refer to her as the
black mirror girlfriend. She couldn’t wrap her head around the fact
that I don’t like sharing much about my personal life on social media. Most of us have hundreds of fb friends and
the majority are just acquaintances… it just weirds me out how some people are so
comfortable sharing everything going on in their life to all these people. I think you have it wrong. It’s not being comfortable with sharing everything,
it’s NEEDING to share everything. They need people to know how “awesome and
adorable and random” their lives are. It boggles my mind how much people seek validation
from other people. Taking pictures for social media. Get mad if i don’t want to be in it. Don’t like it just accept a no. I straight up tell my friends and girlfriends
I’m considering to never take photos of me without my permission or we can’t be close
because if you can’t respect my decisions we can’t be friends. I’m fairly sure it’s a conversation with her
best friends about me (or a crush/hookup/whatever). Something in the lines of
“So… what happened?How big is it?” Yes! This is something that irritated me about
my last relationship. Some stuff should just be between me and her,
I don’t want her friends knowing every little detail about what happens between us. Same boat..girlfriend literally couldn’t keep
anything I told her a secret How they already have a plan to change me
and mold me into something else when we start a relationship. it makes my skin crawl. So when are you quitting smoking? I didnt even mention wanting to quit, i smoke
because i want to, not because i feel i have a habit or addiction i need cured. As a former bouncer. Dealing with women who think they have sexual
control over all they meet. And them pushing their cleavage together and
talking in a cutsie breathy voice would get them into the club without ID, or whatever
they wanted. It makes several assumptions when women do
this. That men are controlled by their sexual needs,
that they have little self control, that i cant see right through their bullshit for
being the shallow manipulation tactic ot is. Taking everything you say in the absolutely
worst light possible. You have no idea what’s going to offend someone
next. Better just to be quiet. This is my ex. She could take a genuine compliment as an
insult. It was honestly impressive the way she could
turn anything into a personal attack. “You like this? So you don’t like the other things I wear
for you? You’re so not supportive of me!” It’s like we are so used to relentless and
continuous streams of positive feedback that any interruption in the constant stream of
affirmations is taken as a direct personal attack. On top of that the emotional commitment to
politics or a TV show or a celebrity means anything you said about that is also now a
personal attack… Because women are typically less threatening
than men, it seems like some women feel they have license to be very forward sexually,
way that can be considered creepy (“I’m attracted to you, so I’m touching you a lot” type of
stuff). This also happens a lot if you’re an attractive
gay dude. When in my 20s I was more fit and attractive,
and this happened a lot… Women thinking it’s ok to goose you, smack
your backside, cup your package, or otherwise do things which would get any guy arrested
if he did it to a woman without being invited to do so.. because *”Tee-hee, isn’t this funny!? He’s totally gay and not interested!! Ha ha….*”. No, just no. I’m not a fucking side-show curiosity. I broke up with my last two girlfriends because
they couldn’t keep anything a secret, i would tell them my deepest feelings, a family tradgedy,
or something else very private, ask her to keep it between just the two of us then a
day later she had told her best friend and then told her best friend and so on. Until i find out from a co-worker who doesn’t
even know her, but knows a friend of a friend. So womens irresistible urge to gossip. Facebook stalking
We’re fully aware that this is creepy. I don’t think it’s creepy. I see everyone do it these days .
Touching my beard. There’s an expectation from most females that
I will just let them get all up in my personal space. My dad always had a Glorious, manly beard. Random strange women would come up to him
in the grocery store and, mesmerized by its awesomeness, shove their hands deep into it,
stroking and cooing at him as though they were lovers. My dad is scared to hell of women because
of this, and has shaved the hairy beast clean off. Twas a curse! !
Treating animals like children. I don’t
want to be around a girl who dresses up a dog and takes 20 pictures of their dog a week. Taking 20 pictures of a child a week is equally
creepy. Thanks for watching! Be sure to subscribed for more Reddit Stories
Shankar: What I did yesterday, or Monday,
was to describe to you the First Law of thermodynamics.
So, let me remind you what the context was.
We’re going to study a system, that’s our thermodynamic
system, and for all our purposes you can imagine that to be some
amount of ideal gas trapped inside this piston and cylinder
combination. We put some weights or maybe
some sand on top to keep the piston where we want it.
The gas has a certain pressure and a certain volume and we
represent that by a point in this diagram.
That defines the state. That’s called the state of the
gas. On a microscopic level,
the state is very complicated, right?
There are 10^(23) atoms or molecules zipping around.
We’re not interested in such detailed properties.
We want to look at bulk macroscopic properties of which
pressure and volume is a complete pair.
That’s all you need. I think I reminded you that you
don’t need a third axis for temperature because we have this
equation PV=nRT. So, if you know P and V,
you don’t need temperature as another variable.
That’s called the equation of state.
You can use this all the time. Whenever the gas has got a
pressure and volume, feel free to use PV=
nRT. Alright, so here’s the gas.
And then I want to change its state, and I explained to you
that unlike particles whose state can change as fast as you
like, you cannot change the state of
a gas abruptly because if you take half the weight off the
top, the piston will fly off;
there will be a period when the gas is not in equilibrium.
Different parts of it will have different densities,
different pressure. You cannot represent that
complicated state as a point in this plane.
So, what we want to do is to make changes which are slow
enough for us to follow. So, one way to do that is to
take one grain of sand. Take one grain of sand,
then you lower the pressure a little bit, the piston will move
up a little bit. Move up means what?
Bigger volume, lower pressure,
the gas will come there and then you can take off another
grain and by making the grain smaller and smaller,
you can make these dots closer and closer.
It’s going to take you a long time but in principle you can
make the gas move on some path. That is a thermodynamic process.
This process is always near equilibrium.
You never deviate too much from equilibrium, and it’s called a
quasi-static; that means not quite static,
but as slow as you like, and it is called reversible.
Reversible means that you can also go right back to where you
came. If you took a grain out,
piston expands. You put the grain back,
piston contracts. So, you can go down this way or
you can go up this way. I’ve just chosen to,
let’s say, go down like this. When that happens,
we want to say the following thing about the state of the gas
before and after. At every point in the PV
diagram, the gas has something called the internal energy. The characteristic of internal
energy is it’s called a state variable.
And this is a very important concept.
A sate variable depends on where you are in the PV
diagram, what your state is. It does not depend on the
history; it does not depend on all the
things the gas has gone through in its life.
If you tell me you are here, then we may associate with that
point an energy that doesn’t look into the history of that
gas. That energy is nothing other
than the kinetic energy. You’ll remember that it’s 3/2
kT per atom, N atoms,
that’s the internal energy. You can also write this as 3/2
nRT. If you count the molecules then
use Boltzmann constant, or you count the number of
moles then use the gas constant. It’s the same thing.
But nRT is PV, so if you like,
you can also write it this way. That shows you very clearly the
internal energy is uniquely determined by PV,
and P and V determine the product PV.
So, at each point in this diagram, the gas is a certain
energy. But energy is simply that ½
mv^(2) for each molecule. You add it all up,
that’s the total energy. Okay, so we can write it many
different ways. Now, the First Law of
Thermodynamics asks the following question.
If I want to change the energy of this gas, how can I do it?
There are two ways to change the energy of the gas,
and the total change in U,
meaning U at the end minus U at the beginning,
where these are two nearby points,
is either the heat input minus the work done by the gas–Let me
write it as capital PdV. Sometimes you write it as
∆Q – ∆W. That’s the First Law.
So, you have to take some time to understand what it says. Notice from this formula here,
the energy of an ideal gas, and only an ideal gas because
that’s the only thing we are going to talk about,
is a function only of temperature.
If you know the temperature of the gas, you know the kinetic
energy of the molecule, so if the number is constant,
the energy is determined. The energy depends only on the
temperature for an ideal gas. So basically,
when I say how can I change the energy of the gas,
I’m asking how can I raise the temperature?
One obvious way is this. Put it on a hotplate which is
slightly hotter than the gas. Then the heat will flow from
the hotplate to the gas. That’s called heating up the
gas. There you don’t see anything
happening, right? It’s occurring at a molecular
level. The molecules in the hotplate
are, on average, moving faster than the
molecules in the gas and during the collision;
kinetic energy will be transferred from the hotplate to
the gas. That invisible flow people used
to think of as the caloric fluid, but now we know it’s just
molecular kinetic energy transferred from the molecules
in the plate to molecules in the gas.
That’s this guy. This ∆W,
the plus sign of the W is the work done by the gas,
and minus of that is the work done on the gas.
And that means if you want to increase the temperature of the
gas, you’re also told you can do the following.
Push down on the piston. If you push down on the piston,
you are reducing the volume. ∆V is negative,
minus P∆V is positive, and that’ll also increase the
energy of the gas. Or, if you take a grain of sand
out, and the piston moves upwards, the gas works against
the environment and it pays for it through its internal energy
because then P∆V will be positive and this thing will
be a negative contribution of the internal energy.
So, there are two ways to change the energy of the gas.
One is a way you can actually see by moving up and down the
piston. You can see somebody moving it.
It’s a macroscopic motion of something you can see.
That’s called the work done on the gas.
Other one is energy transferred at a molecular or microscopic
level, which is what we call heat.
And the First Law says the total change in the internal
energy is the sum of two numbers.
First one is the heat input and the second one is the work done. So, what I did for you last
time was a practice calculation in which I took a gas here,
went along an isotherm. That means temperature is a
constant. That’s the meaning of the
isotherm. And I want to go from some
initial point to some final point.
So, this volume V_1 and
pressure P_1. This is P_2
and V_2, and I want to find the work
done by the gas during this expansion.
Well, P times ∆V, you can see,
is really that shaded area here because it’s a rectangle of
height P and width ∆V.
So, P∆V is just the area under the graph that you
follow. So, the work done,
the sum of all the infinitesimal works,
is the pressure as a function of volume times dV from
the starting volume for the ending volume.
What is P as a function of V at a constant
temperature is nRT over V? Now, I’m using the factor at
every point PV is nRT, so P is
nRT over V, and this is a logarithm and we
all know how to do the integral, as log of the upper limit minus
log of the lower limit. So, that’s the first successful
calculation of work done. You can take the gas on any
path you like, you know.
As long as you knew the pressure at each volume,
you integrated the function from the left limit to the right
limit; that’s the work done.
For isothermal process, it’s particularly easy because
the pressure is inversely proportional to volume,
and you do that integral. This is the work done.
For example, if the gas expands to double
the volume at temperature 300 Kelvin, the work done is number
of moles, gas constant, 300 log of 2.
Multiply all those things; that’s the work done by the gas.
If that is the work done by the gas, we can also say the
following. The internal energy change is
That’s the trick question I told you to watch out for.
If you’re going at constant temperature, you don’t change
the internal energy. So, if the change in internal
energy is zero, it follows at every step,
∆Q=∆W. This quantity we call
∆W. Therefore, the work done by the
gas is also equal to the total heat input of the gas.
We indicate that by drawing a little arrow like this;
it’s just the way we like to show that heat flows into the
gas. Do you understand physically
what’s happening? You take this gas,
you keep it on a reservoir at temperature T_1
[T_1 is just T].
It’s stuck at that temperature. If you take a grain of sand,
gas is expanding. Normally, when the gas expands,
it does work and if energy will go down, it’ll cool down.
But you’re not letting it cool down because you’re pumping in
heat from below, maintaining at that
temperature. So, this process you should
visualize as a piston with some weights sitting on a plate at
You take off a grain of sand, it moves up a little bit but
you don’t let it cool down because you send in heat from
below, maintaining it at that
temperature. For example,
you got this computer air, right?
You blow air on your keyboard to blow off the dust.
You know, when you blow the air out, the can cools down.
It cools down because the compressed air is working
against the atmosphere as it comes out and,
therefore, it loses internal energy and it cools down.
That’s because you’re not giving it enough time to absorb
heat from the room. If you let the air out slow
enough so that in the process of expansion it tries to cool down
but the room pumps some more heat,
then, of course, the can will not cool down.
But, you know, that’s not the purpose of
buying canned air. You don’t want to buy canned
air so you can release it at room temperature.
You don’t care if it cools down; you just want the gas to come
out really fast. So, if you don’t allow heat to
come in, an expanding gas will cool down.
Okay, that’s also why the universe cools down.
Process of expansion. Alright.
So, here’s a simple problem where you can do many things.
You can find the change in energy from start to finish.
Zero. Work done you find by
integrating PdV and the heat input is equal to work done
because there’s no change in energy.
This is all the stuff I did last time.
I also did a couple of other topics.
I’ll just remind you what they are.
I said we can define a specific heat for a gas.
Now normally, specific heat is the number of
calories to raise one gram or one kilogram by one degree.
But for a gas, what matters is not the number
of grams but number of moles. You have already seen it here.
The energy of the gas is not proportional to the grams of gas
you have but to the number of atoms you have or the number of
moles you have. So, we define specific heat to
be the heat needed to produce a certain temperature change for
one mole. We take a mole of gas and you
heat the guy and you see how many calories do I need to get
an increase of one degree. But that turns out to be
insufficient. This derivative does not have a
unique value. Can someone tell me why it’s
not sufficient information? You remember from last time?
Yes? Student: [inaudible]
Professor Ramamurti Shankar: In other words,
when I take a solid and I say find the specific heat,
take one gram of solid, pump in some heat so the
temperature goes up by one degree, keep track of the
calories. You are done.
For a gas, it turns out if you took this gas in the cylinder
and you pump in some calories, it’s going to try to heat up
and when it tries to heat up, it may also expand.
When it’s expanding, then some of the energy that
you pump in the form of heat, some of it’s turning into work
to push the piston out. The part that goes through the
internal energy, the part that really heats up
the gas, is now less because you put in
some heat from below, you lose some heat to the
expansion, so what goes in to change the
internal energy, which is what controlled the
temperature, is less than the heat you put
in. So, if the gas expands during
the heating process, there’s a certain energy lost
due to work you have to take into account.
On the other hand, another person can do the same
experiment of the gas but put a pin here so the piston cannot
move. Then, of course,
it cannot do any work and all the heat you put in goes into
internal energy. That gas will heat up more
readily. For a solid,
we don’t worry about it because the expansion of a solid is such
a tiny fraction of its volume when the temperature changes
that the fact that a chunk of copper,
when you heat it, is also expanding against the
universe, against the atmospheric pressure,
is a negligible effect. The ∆V is so small for
a solid we ignore it. For a gas it’s very important.
Therefore, for a gas there are two kinds of specific heat.
In fact, you can define many definitions.
The two common ones are C_V,
which is ∆Q over ∆T at constant volume,
and that’s how you denote that in calculus [pointing to the
equation]. The other one is
C_P, which is ∆Q over
∆T at constant pressure.
So, let me derive one more time these two specific heats because
it’s worth going over this again and again.
The key to all of this is the First Law.
The First Law, written after transposition,
looks like this. Let’s put ∆Q on one
side and the other stuff on the right-hand side.
In the first case, at constant volume,
there is no P∆V term because ∆V is zero.
∆U/∆T, and for one mole,
you remember U is 3/2 nRT but n is 1,
for one mole. So, dU/dT is a simple
derivative of this function with respect to T, which is
3/2R. What do you notice about this
formula? It’s the specific heat of one
mole of a gas doesn’t depend on what the gas is.
As long as it’s a monoatomic gas, it doesn’t matter what the
mono atom is. It could be hydrogen,
it could be helium; it doesn’t matter.
That’s why we like to think about the molar-specific heat or
specific heat per mole. You get an answer that’s
universal. If you took specific heat for a
gram, then one gram of hydrogen and one gram of helium won’t
have the same specific heat because they don’t have the same
number of atoms. But if you count in moles,
the beauty of the formula is this number is true for all
ideal gases, whereas if you took the
specific heat of copper or silver or iron,
it varies from material to material.
Specific heat of ideal gases is very simple.
You don’t need to look at a table.
Here’s the answer for all ideal gases.
It’s very important it’s a monoatomic gas,
which is a point-like atom which only moves but doesn’t
have any internal structure so it can spin and rotate and
vibrate. If it can do that,
there are other contributions to energy, but we’re not going
there. Now, let’s calculate
C_P. C_P is
∆Q over ∆T at constant pressure.
So now, you cannot ignore this term.
So, ∆U, from what I did before,
will be C_v times ∆T,
plus there is a new term. P∆V is ∆ of
PV because P is constant.
If P is a constant, the change in PV is the
same as P times change in V.
But PV=RT, so if C_v
∆T plus R∆T. If you divide every side by
∆T and take ∆Q over ∆T,
then C_P will be C_v plus
R and that’s a very famous formula.
And you should understand why specific heat at constant
pressure is more than specific heat at constant volume.
Think about that. If the gas is stuck at a given
volume, it’s easier to heat it up because all the heat goes
into internal energy. If it is at constant pressure,
you’re letting the piston move up and some of the heat is being
paid to move the piston, only the rest is going to
change the internal energy. That’s why C_P
is always bigger than C_v,
and for an ideal gas, C_P is
C_v plus R and this number,
γ, is defined as C_P over
C_v. This is always the definition
of γ, where there is an ideal gas or
not. For an ideal gas,
we can calculate C_p over
C_v, which is 3/2 R plus
another R, divided by 3 /2 R,
which is 5 over 3. So, γ is not always 5 over 3.
You should be aware of that. But for ideal gas,
γ is 5 over 3. So, this is a review of what I
did last time, but I’m very eager that you
guys should be on top of this and it’s worth doing it one more
time. But now, I’m going to consider
some more processes where I want to find work done. So, maybe I’ll start fresh here. Let’s take the following
process. I start here.
I go on an isothermal here [pointing at graph],
then I go backwards at constant pressure until I’m right below
this point, then I go straight up. You can ask,
“What is the work done in this process?” The work done in the curvy part
of it is all of this. That’s in the part AB.
In the part BC, work done is the area of this
rectangle but it’s counted as negative, because a gas is being
compressed. Or, if you like,
it’s at some constant pressure but the change in volume is
negative for every step. So, even though the work done
is said to be the area, you’ve got to keep track of
sign. If you’re compressing the gas,
P∆V is negative. Therefore, in the part
BC, we must take away the shaded region and CA,
no work is done because volume is not changing.
Area under the vertical line is zero.
So, you can see that in this full cycle, when I go from
A to B to C back to A,
the work done is the area enclosed by the loop in the
PV plane. That’s a very useful result.
We say the work done in a cycle, there’s a symbol we like
to use. This curly thing on the
integral means taken around a closed loop. But you guys have to be little
careful when you write this, because somebody else can do
the following thing to gas, do exactly the opposite.
Come down like this, go down like this,
and go down like that. Go up like that.
The opposite way. In this case,
the work done is considered positive because the part of it,
AB, is taller than the BC at
point Y, so the net work is positive.
Here, it’s the same amount of work but the net work is
negative. So, you’ve got to be careful
that you describe the sense in which you do the loop.
So, the same loop, as a geometrical figure,
as the same area, but the work done by the gas is
positive in this case and negative in this case,
and you can use common sense to find out if it’s positive or
negative. But here is another very
interesting result. Let’s go to the full cycle and
ask, “What’s the change in U?” Yes?
Student: [inaudible] Professor Ramamurti
Shankar: Right. His answer was PV is the
same. And more generally,
even if it’s not an ideal gas, it’s a gas made up of whatever
you like. It’s any system.
If you return the system back to the same state,
the internal energy returns to that value.
That’s what I meant by internal energy doesn’t depend on the
history of the gas. For example,
you can take the cylinder, you leave it alone,
I measure the energy, I go outside the room and come
back. In the meantime,
you took it on a loop and brought it back.
I will not know, and I don’t care because as far
as I’m concerned, if P and V are
back to where they are; the gas is back to where it is;
energy is back to where it is. So, the change in the internal
energy is zero. That means the work done and
the heat input are the same. So, let’s be very clear.
If you guys do problems, I don’t want you to lose points
for sign mistake. W is always the work
done and Q is always the heat into the gas. So, this is a gas here which
has done some work and some heat that’s been put into the gas,
and the two have to be equal because the energy doesn’t
change in the end. Now, that leads to a very,
very subtle and interesting point.
There is a very clear notion of what is the energy in the gas.
There’s a unique answer. There’s no notion of what is
the heat in the gas. You look at a gas and you
cannot say this is the heat in the gas.
That makes no sense. Try to understand why.
Because if you say there’s some amount of heat in the gas,
okay, whatever you want, some number,
I do the cycle and I come back to exactly where I am.
I’ll put in some amount of heat Q, which is non-zero.
So, if there’s anything called the heat in the gas,
it has changed by an amount of Q.
That’s why there’s no notion of heat in the gas or work in the
gas. There’s only energy in the gas.
A state variable returns to its original value and when you go
on closed loop, the change should add up to
zero. That’s not true for work,
that’s not true for heat, but it’s true for the
difference. That defines an internal state
variable. Okay, now I’m going to consider
a new process which is of special importance.
So, the processes I’ve considered so far are
isothermal, at constant pressure is called isobaric,
and I don’t know the name for constant volume,
but no work is done at constant volume.
Now, I’m going to consider the last process very,
very important. It’s called adiabatic. Adiabatic process is in which
the gas changes its volume but it’s completely thermally
isolated, so ∆Q is zero.
You wrap this guy in a blanket and you do things to it.
No heat can flow into the gas or out of the gas.
That’s called an adiabatic process.
Isothermal is quite different. Isothermal, you keep it on a
hotplate at a given temperature and as the volume changes,
say as the volume increases, heat comes in from below.
Or, when you compress it and you don’t want it to heat up,
heat is rejected below. But this is not the case here.
In an adiabatic process, if you let the gas expand you
thermally isolate it from everything.
So, you should think about what’ll happen to a gas if I
start here. That’s what isothermal is.
What do you think will happen? So, let’s draw a few isotherms.
This is temperature, say T=300. This is T equal to what?
More than 300 or less than 300? Student: Less.
Professor Ramamurti Shankar: Less.
And why do I say less? You take any point here;
it’s got the same volume but lower pressure,
so P times V is less.
So, this may be T=200. If I start here,
now I let the gas expand adiabatically.
That means I pull out the grains of sand,
the gas expands against the atmosphere, but no heat is
allowed to come in. Think about what that means.
Gas is pushing the piston. Gas is doing some work.
It’ll pay for it through its own internal energy.
Internal energy will go down and that means temperature will
go down. So, what you will be doing is
you’ll be cascading down from one isotherm to another,
plummeting down in temperature until you come and stop
somewhere at the lower temperature.
So, an adiabatic process will cross from one isotherm to the
next to the next to the next, changing temperature. Another way to say this is that
the drop in pressure for a given drop in increase in volume,
it would be more precipitous for adiabatic because it’s
expanding but there’s no energy coming into the form of heat so
pressure drops more precipitously.
So, it won’t be PV equal to constant, and the question
is, “What is it?” What is the equation for an
adiabatic process? What is P as the
function of V? That’s what we want to ask now. So, whenever you have any such
question in thermodynamics, up to this point the only law
we know is the First Law of Thermodynamics.
So, you have to go back to that. So far, I’ve driven home the
point that every question asked in mechanics can be traced back
to Newton’s Law. There are no new laws.
But when you come to thermodynamics and you study
heat and temperature, there is new stuff and the
First Law of Thermodynamics is called a law,
because there is no way you can derive it from Newtonian laws.
It’s a new concept. So, let’s ask what is P
as a function of V, given that ∆Q=0?
So, what’s our strategy going to be?
How would you even begin this? Do you have some idea of what
you might do? This is a tough question so
even if you give a wrong answer, that’s fine.
How do I calculate the relation of P to V given
that ∆Q=0? Yes?
Student: [inaudible] Professor Ramamurti
Shankar: Okay. Let me write down everything he
said. When I said ∆Q=0,
your first reaction has to go back to the First Law and write
∆Q as ∆U + P∆V,
and set that equal to zero. But ∆U is
C_v times ∆T, plus P∆V
is zero. By the way, ∆U is
C_v ∆T for one mole.
I’m going to consider one mole of gas.
Now, this is another thing you people should understand.
The way in which pressure falls for temperature is going to be
the same, whether I consider one mole or two moles or ten moles.
The rate at which it changes will not be dependent on how
many moles I took, so if you want you can take
n moles and put an n here.
You’ll find everywhere an n will come and cancel
out. Now, P is nRT
over V. So, maybe I’ll do it this way
for you guys. If you want,
put an n back there, but you will find n
cancels part of the equation because nC_v
∆T, plus nRT ∆V over
V equals zero; so the answer doesn’t depend on
how many moles you took. So, I will take one mole for my
calculation. Think about what this says.
Divide everything by T. You get C_v
over R∆T over T plus ∆V over V
is zero. This is telling you that as you
change your volume and you’re coming down this graph of
adiabatic expansion, when you go from there to
there, there’s a change in temperature such that the change
in temperature by the temperature,
plus the change in volume divided by the volume,
should add up to zero. That is a condition of no heat
flow. So, it relates a change in
T to a change in V.
What I would have ideally liked is a change in P due to a
change in V, but what comes more naturally
is a change in T over a change in V.
But let’s worry about that later, because we’ve got PV=
RT. We can always swap the
temperature for pressure in the end.
So, let’s just take this definition.
So, every change, remember now,
you understand you go from one point to the neighboring point;
there’s a plunge in temperature. That’s why ∆T will be
negative and ∆ will be positive and these numbers will,
of course, cancel. Now, let’s add all the changes.
Let’s call it doing the integral.
Do the integral of that from start to finish,
do the integral of that from start to finish,
and that integral of zero is just zero. So, this tells me
C_v over R times log of
T_2 over T_1,
plus log of V_2 over
V_1 is zero. Now, you’ve got to go back and
think about your logarithms and realize–and I can write it as
log of T_2 over T_1 raised to
the power C_v over R,
times V_2 over V_1 is equal to
zero. We just combine all the
logarithms and realize the log of X to the power
n is n log X.
So, that is the same as this. Now, the log of something is
zero means that something is 1, because log of 1 is zero.
So, we rewrite the final expression I got up there by
saying T_2 over T_1 raised to
C_v over R times
V_2 over V_1 is equal to
1. And we usually write it as
follows. We say T_2
raised to the C_v over
R, V_2 to the
power of 1 is T_1 raised to
the C_v. I’m sorry, T_1
raised to C_v over R times
V_1. So, this is the relation
between the temperature and the volume.
Yes? Student: [inaudible]
Professor Ramamurti Shankar: You could do that.
That’s correct. You could write down
three-halves if you like. At the moment,
I’m trying to keep it general. If it was a gas for which
C_v was not three-halves R,
all of this would still be true.
But he is quite right. For an ideal monoatomic gas,
C_v over R would be just 3 over 2.
So, what it’s telling you is that when the gas expands,
the temperature falls. I already told you that.
It’s telling exactly how it falls.
It tells you that T to some strange power times
V is constant during the process.
Now, if you want to know what happens to the pressure,
you can do the following. You remember PV=RT. There are many ways to write
this. I’m going to write it in
another way and you guys see if you can follow this.
T_2V _2 to the power
R over C_v is equal to
T_1V _1 to the power
R over C_v.
You believe that? That’s just a mathematical
trick. If that is true, this is true.
You know how I went from here to here? How did I go from here to here?
Do you have an idea? Student: You take
R over C_v to the
power of [inaudible] Professor Ramamurti
Shankar: Exactly. Raise both sides to the power
R over C_v.
It’s cooked up so that C_v over
R goes away and R over C_v falls
on V_2. There is another way to write
it, if you like. I’ll tell you why I write it
this way. Because T_2 is
just P_2V _2.
But let me combine that one V_2 with this
and write the one plus R over C_v.
Then, I can show it as P_1V
_1 to the power 1 plus R over
C_v. You may object that PV
is not T but is RT, but R will
cancel so I didn’t bother with that.
And this–don’t draw the box around this yet.
I will write it in a way that’s very, very standard and if you
remember in your high school days,
you may remember is written as P_2V
_2 to the γ,
is equal to P_1V _1 to the
γ, but γ is just 1 plus R over
C_v, which you can see is equal to
C_v plus R over
C_v and that is C_P over
C_v. So, this γ is really
C_P over C_v.
For an adiabatic process, P_2V
_2 to the γ is P_1V
_1 to the γ.
That’s one way to write it, but I will also expect you to
know that you can also write it in terms of temperature,
as temperature times volume raised to a strange power is
equal to a constant, before and after. Any questions?
So, what we have done is found pressure as the function of
volume on an adiabatic curve. So, I’m now going to do one
last ingredient for the rest of the stuff, which is the
following. I’m going to calculate the work
done in an adiabatic process from here to here.
This is one, this is two. This is not an isothermal,
which looks like that, it’s an adiabatic process.
What’s the work done in adiabatic process?
So, let’s calculate that. Work done is equal to integral
P(v)dV. But remember,
PV to the γ is a constant.
Do you guys understand the relation of writing PV to
the γ equal to constant? It’s the same as saying
P_1V _1 to the
γ is P_2V _2 to the
γ. That means you can pick any
point on the path and P at that point times V at
that point to the power of γ will be a fixed
number. That number is C.
In other words, this C can be
P_1V _1 to the
γ if you like, or P_2V
_2 to the γ if you like or
P_3V _3 to the
γ if 3 is another point on this trajectory.
It’s convenient to call that invariant product of PV
raised to γ as C. Because then we can do the
integral as dV over V to the γ with a
constant C here from V_1 to
V_2. And this is a pretty simple
integral. You guys know that the x
to the n integral is x to the n plus 1
over n plus 1, such that V to the
γ minus 1, over γ minus 1. Because this is really V
to the minus γ. Now, did I get it wrong here?
I think I got it wrong. Sorry.
It’s 1 minus γ, 1 minus γ,
over 1 minus γ. Because V to the minus
γ dV, is equal to V to the
minus γ plus 1 over minus γ plus 1.
Right? x to the n
integral is X to the n plus 1 over n
plus 1, n happens to be minus γ here.
Okay, now watch this. This constant I said can be
written as any of these numbers, but let me write when it
multiplies this; let me write as
P_2V _2 to the
γ. Can you see what happens if I
do that? Try to do this in your head.
C multiplies all of this. When C multiplies this
guy, let me write the constant as P_2V
_2 to the γ;
that gives me a P_2
,V_2 to the γ combines with
V_2 to the one minus γ,
to give me just V_2.
Likewise, C multiplying this one, when the same C
multiplies this, let’s write C as
P_1V _1 to the
γ, and we’ll find there’s that. And people like to rewrite this
by changing the sign everywhere as P_1V
_1 minus P_2V
_2 over γ minus 1,
because γ minus 1 is the positive quantity.
So, this is the work done in an adiabatic process. So, what’s been going on?
Let’s think about what I’ve been doing.
I told you that there is a new process called adiabatic,
a really important process, in which the system is not
allowed to exchange heat with the outside world.
∆Q=0 is a condition relating ∆U and
P∆V. And the changes are correlated
and the effect of adding up all the changes, namely doing the
integral, is this one,
namely temperature to the C_v over
R times V_2 does not
change along the path. So, if you take any two points,
that combination of temperature and volume doesn’t change.
Then, since PV equal to essentially T,
you can also write it as pressure times volume to the
power of γ doesn’t change.
So, I’m saying you can call all of that equal to some constant
C. The C is not a universal
constant, like velocity of light.
For a given gas, on a given experiment,
it does not change as it goes through adiabatic expansion.
So, don’t think of it as a universal constant.
On the trajectory, on the adiabatic curve,
it’s a constant. It’s like saying kinetic energy
plus potential energy is a constant.
It’s not a constant you can look up in a book.
It depends on what your particle is doing.
But for that particle in those conditions, kinetic with
potential adds to a particular constant we call total energy.
Likewise, PV to the γ is a constant for this
particular gas. Okay, so all this is actually a
preparation for something else. And that’s what we are going to
discuss now. So, between now and the end of
this course we are going to discuss the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. So, we have done all we want to
do with the First Law. So, you guys should be able to
be given various graphs on the PV plane,
find the work done in going from here to there,
find the change in internal energy,
find the heat added and so on. I hope you can do such
problems, but they’re all going to be one of these formulas.
Say there’s going to be adiabatic or constant pressure
or constant temperature, so you just plug the numbers
in, keep track of the signs by using common sense.
Alright. So now, we come to the last
part of thermodynamics, which is to me one of the most
beautiful parts of thermodynamics,
which starts out with asking the following question.
There are certain things in this world that are perfectly
allowed but don’t seem to happen.
Let’s take many examples. Take the Joule experiment.
You take a cylinder of water with a paddle that can spin and
you put some weight around the pulley and the weight goes down.
Paddle spins; the water heats up.
You take a movie of that, and the movie is so fine it can
even catch individual molecules. Now, you play the movie
backwards. So, you watch the movie being
played back and what do you find?
Suddenly, the weight starts moving up, paddle spins the
other way, and the water cools down.
This is not in violation of any of the laws you have learned
including the First Law of Thermodynamics,
because when the weight went down and the water heated up,
some amount of work was done on the water,
and the energy of the water went up.
In the reverse process, the energy of the water went
down and instead the weight went up, so work was done by the
system. But that doesn’t seem to happen.
If the weight comes down you can wait all day.
Well, let me give you another example.
Take a chunk of wood, you slide it there.
Sorry. It was not a piece of wood and
it didn’t stop. See, this is why I don’t do
demonstrations because even the simplest demonstration I have
done doesn’t work. So, that’s why some of us
become theoretical physicists. I did a demonstration where
some trolley is supposed to shoot a little marble.
All the marble had to do was come down and even that didn’t
work, so I don’t do demonstrations.
Well, let’s try this. Here’s an eraser,
and give it a push and it stops.
Take the movie of that. Play it backwards.
You will find suddenly, you know the table heats up a
little bit due to friction. The table can cool down and the
eraser can move backwards picking up speed [laughter].
Right. So, why did we laugh?
You have no reason to laugh right now because it doesn’t
violate anything you have learned,
other than your daily experience, because in the
reverse process every atom, you know, every atomic thing on
the desk that started moving, is made to stop,
turn around, and move in the backwards
direction. And every collision between
atoms on the desk and atoms on the eraser will obey all the
laws of mechanics. For example,
if you have a planet going around the Sun,
if you stop the planet and you reverse the velocity,
it will go the opposite way and the opposite motion is in
complete accord with Newton’s laws.
In fact, there may be somewhere a solar system where the planet
actually goes the other way. It doesn’t violate anything.
So, in all the movies which are played backwards,
at the very microscopic level there’s nothing that says it
cannot happen, and yet it does not happen.
Here’s another thing that does not happen.
I take a box and I put some gas molecules on one side and
there’s a partition holding them in that side.
Then I remove this partition and I wait a little bit;
then I know the gas fills up. That’s like perfume leaking out
of the bottle. Now, take a movie of these
molecules. When they go from here to here,
and play the movie backwards–What’ll happen when
you play the movie backwards? Let’s say this guy was moving
like this the instant we played the movie back.
Well, in the backwards movie it started going the other way and
slowly the whole thing will untangle itself and end up here.
That also will not happen. We all know that if you go to a
room and you release some gas from one side,
it can fill the room but it’s not ever going to come back,
and yet it doesn’t violate any laws because if I made a movie
and played it backwards, in every microscopic
interaction between molecules, there’ll be no violation of any
of the laws of nature. But that doesn’t happen.
Here’s another thing that doesn’t happen.
I take a chunk of some hot copper and I take a chunk of
some cold copper. Hot, cold.
I just put them on top of each other, come back in an hour,
it’s become, say, lukewarm. That’s fine.
But now maybe, if I wait long enough,
the lukewarm will automatically spontaneously separate into hot
and cold. That doesn’t seem to happen.
The heat simply seems to flow from hot to cold but never back
from cold to hot. But flowing from cold to hot
will not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
As long as the same number of calories go from cold to hot,
it doesn’t violate anything. And that doesn’t seem to happen.
So, this can go on and on and on with some large number of
things that are allowed but don’t happen.
So, we cannot explain them with any known laws of physics so we
elevate that to a new law. The new law will say these
things cannot happen. But you don’t have a law that
says these things cannot happen, right?
That’s not a good enough law. You’ve got to say what things
cannot happen. I’ve got a list a mile long.
Hot and cold, when mixed, will never separate
back into hot and cold. A gas, that genie that got out
of the bottle, won’t go back,
there’s gas that came out won’t go back.
There’s a whole lot of processes which we call
irreversible. They never seem to happen
backwards. They only happen forwards,
and we cannot list all of them. So, you wonder if there’s any
law–see, anytime you cannot explain something from prior
things, you elevate that to a law.
But you like an economical law. You would not like a law that
says the following million things cannot happen.
And it’s really amazing that there is one law,
a single law, that not only is qualitative,
but is quantitative, that tells you exactly when
some things can happen and when some things cannot happen,
and according to the one single law, all the things that we say
don’t happen won’t happen. Will be forbidden by the law,
and that’s a Second law of Thermodynamics,
but what form does it take? Well, we will see it introduces
a certain quantity called entropy, about which let’s say
right now we don’t know anything,
and the law will simply say the entropy of the universe will
always increase. You don’t have to write it down
now. I’m going to define the concept.
It’ll arise naturally from more thinking.
The one law that entropy will always increase,
in the universe as a whole, is enough to forbid any of
these forbidden processes. In other words,
if the paddle spun the other way and the weight went up and
the water cooled down, you can show the entropy of the
universe would have actually gone down.
That’s why that’s not allowed. If you drop a piece of egg,
it comes and splatters all over the floor.
If it rejoined and rose back to your hand, it won’t violate any
other principle other than the law of entropy,
because the shattered egg has more entropy than the egg that
comes back to your hand. And if hot and cold mix to
become lukewarm, you can show the entropy goes
up this way, but if you went the other way,
entropy will go down and that’s now allowed.
So, one great law will take care of all these things.
So, you’ve got to ask yourself, “What is the one great law and
how do we get to it?” Well, it turns out this great
law was discovered by an engineer called Carnot.
So, here is another thing. People don’t wake up and say,
“I’m going to discover a great law.”
People just go out and do their business and all you need is
have enough sense to realize when you’ve stumbled on
something really great. So, Carnot had a very practical
question. Carnot was working on engines.
At the time they were working on something like the steam
engine. So, a steam engine–You know
what happens in a steam engine. You take some coal,
you set fire to it, then you boil some water,
it turns into steam, then the steam pushes the
pistons and the wheels turn and the train goes forward and
that’s your steam engine. What happens in a steam engine
we can schematically as follows. There is a hot reservoir
T_1 that’s the furnace of your steam engine.
Then, you have an engine in which you’ve got some steam.
You’ve got some water that’s going to be boiled and it’s
going to boil only because you take in some heat.
Here’s my engine, it’s got some substance inside,
it could be a gasoline engine or a steam engine,
we don’t care what happens. Some amount of heat
Q_1 is taken from a hot reservoir and some
amount of work is delivered. Now, here is an engine which,
as drawn here, doesn’t violate any of the laws
of physics, provided Q_1=W,
then energy is conserved. In practice you find that’s not
how engines work. The engine also rejects some
amount of heat Q_2 to a lower
The lower temperature, if you look at a steam
engine–if you’ve gone–Have you guys seen a steam engine?
Okay, if you really go see a steam engine you will find
there’s a lot of hot steam coming out of the back or in a
car, you’ve got exhaust gases coming
out. That’s the hot gas emitted at
atmospheric temperature. Inside the engine is a very hot
place. So, the car emits some heat at
a lower temperature. The steam engine emits some
steam at a lower temperature. So, the work that you can get
is really Q_1 – Q_2 is what you
can get. At least in this engine,
you get Q_1 and -Q_2.
So, we define a quantity called efficiency η.
It’s called the efficiency. It’s what you get divided by
what you pay for. You pay for burning the coal
and you get the work out. The work is,
of course, the thing that makes the engine move forward.
Turns into kinetic energy of the locomotive.
That, then, you can see is Q_1 –
Q_2. What you get divided by what
you pay for, you can write it as 1 minus Q_2
over Q_1. So, in every engine,
some heat is taken in. Some of it is converted to work
and some of it is rejected. To the extent heat is rejected,
the efficiency is less than 1, because Q_2
minus–over Q_1 and is subtracted from 1.
So, you can ask yourself why not build an engine in which you
just don’t reject any heat downstairs?
Why not take all the heat and convert it to work? So, Carnot gave a great
argument on the most efficient engine you can build.
In other words, there is an upper limit to the
efficiency and it’s not 1. So, what is it and how are you
going to find out? Well, he’s going to find out
what it is, but he also needs a postulate.
Carnot’s postulate is the old version of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. He didn’t talk about entropy.
You can show in the end they’re all equivalent,
but Carnot’s law, which is his own version of the
Second Law, which says the following.
So, Law 2 according to Carnot. Let me just draw a figure;
then, we’ll say T_1 is not
allowed. Carnot says you cannot build an
engine whose sole effect at the end of the day is to transfer
some heat from a cold body to a hot body,
whose sole effect–that’s very, very important.
You cannot have a process whose sole effect is this.
I mean, I don’t feel like writing what this is.
It’s what the picture says. All right, it doesn’t take a
genius to have the heat flow the other way.
You understand? If you want heat to flow from a
hot body to a cold body, that’s trivial.
Just connect them with a metal rod and it’ll flow.
The sole effect of that is transfer of heat from hot to
cold. That’s the way of the natural
order of things, but Carnot is saying you can
never build a set of gears and wheels and teeth and whatever
you like so that at the end of the day,
all that has happened is heat has flowed from cold to hot.
That is going to be taken as a postulate, and people are
willing to take that as a reasonable postulate,
and we want to see what we can get out of that postulate.
It turns out it is that postulate that’s going to
control the efficiency of heat engines, put a bound on the
efficiency of heat engines. So, don’t deduce this.
This is a law. Now, you might say,
well, this is how the law began, and the law assumed more
and more sophisticated forms, so Carnot was not thinking
entropy. That came later,
but his postulate was, please grant me this,
which seems to be a fact in nature.
Then from that let me talk about heat engines and show you
that there is an upper limit to the efficiency of an engine.
In particular, the upper limit is not 1.
It’s clear to everybody that the limit cannot be more than 1.
If it’s more than 1, you are taking some amount of
heat and giving even more amount of work delivered.
That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Conservation of energy. But the fact that you must
necessarily reject some heat, which you cannot use in this
experiment, is the content of Carnot’s result.
So, here is the engine that Carnot built.
This is called a Carnot engine. By the way, look,
don’t rely on my graphics. I mean, you have to go look at
just about any book you can find on the market.
It’ll talk about Carnot engines. So, I’m here to merely tell you
the words and not the pictures. So, Carnot’s engine is like
this. Take two isothermals,
T_1 and T_2.
You remember the adiabatic curves are much steeper.
Draw two adiabatic curves like that.
Then take a gas from A to B to C to
D and back to A. That was the Carnot engine. So, let’s see what we are doing.
In the process AB, take the piston with the gas in
it; slowly lift the grains of sand
so it expands to a volume B at the same
temperature. Then having reached B,
you thermally isolate the gas. It’s not on top of a reservoir
of temperature T_1.
It’s completely isolated. Take out even more grains of
sand. Now, it’s expanding without any
energy coming in. It cools down to
T_2. This is the point C.
Now, you put the grains of sand back, but it’s still on a hot
reservoir at T_2.
I mean, the cold reservoir of T_2.
Put the grains of sand back, temperature is locked in at
T_2 until you come here.
Then, you isolate the gas and put more grains of sand back
until you come back to A. Obviously, such a path exists
because of the way isothermals and adiabatics are in the
PV plane. That’s the Carnot cycle,
and the important part of the Carnot cycle is that it’s
reversible. It’s reversible because at
every stage, when you took a grain of sand out you can put it
back and you can run it backwards.
So, it can also run backwards. The Carnot engine looks like
this. Here is the engine,
it takes some heat Q_1 from a
reservoir of T_1 that
delivers some work W; it rejects some heat
Q_2, of temperature
T_2. This is the model of a steam
engine. Suppose you run the Carnot
engine backwards. By the way, the work done by
the Carnot engine is this shaded region here and it absorbs heat
in the stage AB. It doesn’t have any heat
absorption in the state BC because it’s
adiabatic. In CD,
it rejects some heat and DA again,
there’s no heat transfer. So, heat comes in here,
Q_1, heat is rejected here,
Q_2. If you run the Carnot engine
backwards, let me show you what it looks like.
Everything is backwards in a Carnot engine if you run it the
other way. Some work is put in here,
some heat Q_2 is taken from the lower
reservoir and the heat Q_1 is
delivered to the upper reservoir.
You know what that gadget is. That’s a refrigerator.
So, in a refrigerator, that’s what happens.
You might say hey, you violated the Second Law.
You have transferred heat from a cold to hot body,
but it was not the only thing that happened,
because some compressor somewhere did some work.
That’s certainly allowed. What is not allowed is to have
it flow from cold to hot with nothing involved.
The second thing to notice is the gas, after doing its thing,
comes back to the starting point.
That means you can do it over and over and over again.
In one cycle, the gas has some heat coming
in. Q_1 heat
rejected Q_2, some work done,
W, and it comes back to where it
is and you can go on doing it many, many times.
That’s why it’s a useful engine. If the substance returns to the
starting point, having done some work in return
for some heat, you can do it over and over
again. And Carnot’s question was,
“What’s the efficiency of this engine?”
We’re going to calculate that now.
So, the efficiency of the engine is η,
is Q_1 – Q_2 over
Q_1. Or 1 – Q_2
over Q_1. Well, Q_1 and
Q_2 are pretty easy to calculate.
Let me tell you why. In the process AB,
remember isothermal expansion? The heat input is the work
done, because change in internal energy is zero.
And the work done, you remember,
is nRT log V_B over
Q_2, as a positive number,
is nRT_2 log V_c over
V_D. Remember, Q_2
here is defined as a positive number, even though it’s the
heat rejected, so if I want to get a positive
number, I write the log of the initial over V final,
so I get a–sorry, V_c over
V_D. So, the efficiency now becomes
1 – Q_2 over Q_1,
becomes 1 minus T_2 over
T_1 log V_c over
V_B divided by log–I’m sorry,
V_c over V_D divided by
a log V_B over V_A. Again, if you cannot follow my
script here, you may have to go back and get the subscript
right. But don’t worry too much about
all the details. What I want you to know is the
heat input here and the heat rejected here are all a familiar
quantities from what I did earlier.
But now, here is the punch line; η, I claim is 1 –
T_2 over T_1.
In other words, I’m saying forget this ratio of
logarithms. It is just 1.
I will show that to you, of course.
It’s not going to be written without proof,
but the final answer for efficiency of this engine is 1 –
T_2 over T_1.
So, we need to show why V_c/V
_D is the same as V_B/V
_A. Well, I will derive that here,
then for a couple of minutes I’ll talk about it,
then we’ll come back and resume the discussion. I’m going to show you that
V_c/V _D is the same as
V_B/V _A. I’m going to show that to you.
Then you agree, if I take the logs then,
the logs will cancel. How do I know this?
Well, go back and use the fact that that’s an isothermal
process. That is an isothermal process.
That is an adiabatic process and that’s an adiabatic process
[drawing graph on board]. This is temperature
T_1, this is temperature
T_2, this is A,
B, C, D.
Now, somewhere in your notes is a formula that in an adiabatic
process, volume A times temperature 1 to some strange
power, I don’t care what the power
is–it’s not going to matter. It’s the same.
Sorry, volume B times temperature to some power is the
same as volume C, the same, temperature
T_2 to some power. Because in the process of
adiabatic, we have seen PV to the γ is
constant, but I told you can also write
it as volume times temperature to some power is a constant.
So, B and C are correlated this way.
Likewise, A and D are connected by an adiabatic
process so you can be sure that V_A,
T_A, that happens to be
T_1 , raised to some power,
is the same as V_DT
_2 raised to same power. We don’t care what the power is.
It’s probably C_v over
R or R over C_v.
I’m not interested in that. In fact, if you go back to this
top right-hand corner you can see it is volume times T
to the power of C_v over
R. But it’s not important.
The fact that B and C lie on an adiabatic
curve means that the volume at B and the temperature at
B, which happens to be
T_1, and the volume of C and the
temperature of C, which happens to be
T_2, are connected by this result.
Once I write it down for this adiabatic and this adiabatic,
now divide that by that, and that by that,
and the point is that T_1,
to whatever power it is, cancels top and bottom,
top and bottom, and I get the result I wanted,
which is V_B over V_A,
is V_c over V_D.
Once you put that in, you get the final result
η is 1 – T_2 over
T_1. Now, there are some things you
should know all the time and something you should know some
of the time, and something you should’ve
seen at least once. The derivation of the result
you should’ve seen at least once in your life.
Whether you carry it in your head or not, I’m not interested
in. But what have I really done?
I’ve taken an ideal gas and taken it over a cycle and I
found out that in that cycle, the ideal gas does function
like a very primitive heat engine because it takes some
heat Q_1, rejects some heat
Q_2, and does some work given by the
shaded area. And the ratio of work done to
heat absorbed in the end happens to be 1 – T_2/T
_1. It does not depend on the gas.
It depends only on the upper temperature and the lower
temperature. Now, the question you can ask
is, “Why are you computing the efficiency of this really
primitive and stupid engine when we’re interested in real engines
that GM is going to make or some steamship is going to make or
some engineer is going to make?” We will show next time that
this efficiency is a theoretical maximum.
I will show you next time that no engine can beat the Carnot
engine. No engine can be as good.
It can be as good but cannot be better than the Carnot engine,
and that’s what makes the result important.
It’s a lot like a relativity example, but to show you why
time slows down in a moving frame I took a very stupid clock
where the clock ticks because light beam goes up and down.
That’s not your idea of a clock, but in that clock,
if you can see why it slows down,
you know that every clock has to slow down because all clocks
in a moving rocket must run at the same rate.
Otherwise, you can compare the two clocks and find out you are
moving. Likewise, if you take a very
primitive engine, but you can show that that
engine is the most efficient engine,
you are done because that’s going to put an upper limit on
the efficiency. So, I’ll come back and I’ll
tell you next time why no engine can beat this engine and why
hidden in this result is the notion of entropy.
I don’t know what I’m laughing about, but guys, it’s your boy Dr. Zubin Damania. It’s the ZDoggMD Show. Okay, check it out. Ohio has a bill about abortion, okay? No surprise, but in that
bill is a line that says, if doctors, and I’m paraphrasing, if doctors don’t want to
be convicted of murder, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, they will attempt to re-implant the fertilized embryo in the uterus. Sounds feasible, doesn’t it? It’s not. It’s total horseshit,
and this is what happens when lawyers and politicians
write laws about medicine. I’m so fucking tired of it, you guys. We are doctors because we know that you don’t re-implant
an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is what happens when a fertilized embryo
implants somewhere other than where it’s supposed
to which is the uterus. Often it’s in the fallopian tube. It can be in the cervix, it can be in other parts of the abdomen. It is one of the top causes of death in early pregnancy of the
mom, because that can grow, it can erode blood supply
and cause fatal bleeding, terrible things. So, the cure for a ectopic pregnancy is removing this abnormally
implanted embryo. It cannot be re-implanted anywhere. That’s just not something that happens. So, you may say, ‘cuz
it says in the law, re-implant where applicable. So that’s lawyers’ way of saying, well, if you can, you know, whatever. Okay, why is that still a terrible idea to put something that idiotic in a law? First of all, it’s unscientific. Second of all, imagine
you’re a woman like many, like, 3-5% of
pregnancies are ectopic or something like that,
I’ll have to confirm that later and then deny it. Imagine you’ve suffered
through an ectopic pregnancy and now you see this law which
you think is based on science and it says, oh, re-implant it in the uterus where applicable. You are now somebody who
didn’t save an embryo that could have been re-implanted. You’ve lost a, you’ve gone
from a medical condition that could have killed you to, “I just electively aborted my child.” That is insane, you guys. Imagine what that could do
to people, and it’s wrong. It’s just not scientifically correct. Now, imagine you’re somebody who’s having an ectopic pregnancy. What happens if you
now hear about this law and you go, wait no, they
can just re-implant it and I can save my pregnancy? You might delay coming to see the doctor. You might have unrealistic expectations. You might have emotional
trauma when they tell you no, the lawyers are stupid,
which you should have known anyways ’cause they’re lawyers. So guys, here’s the call to action. Don’t let non-medical
non-scientists write our laws, and if they do, boot them out of office. That’s all. I have nothing else to say, right? All right. (snaps fingers) (Totally inappropriate comment) (laughs) Just kidding. (laughing)
Hey guys, If you’ve got like 5 minutes, I’d like to tell you a small story. So, I read that today is Coming-Out Day, and I now feel confident enough to tell you that my preferred pronouns
are she/ her. I’ve got some feedback that I wasn’t communicating well, and I guess this was scary, hard to talk about, or explain. I felt like I didn’t know the answers; if I did know them, I didn’t know how to communicate them, if I were to communicate them, would people take me seriously, if they were to believe me, wouldn’t that alienate them even more? I’m fortunate enough to be studying here in Amsterdam, and in both English and Dutch, she/he is just a 1-letter difference. In Chinese, they’re the same word. I learned Chinese, so this actually kind of sucks for me, because right now, even in Hong Kong, they’ve just started shooting people just for, liking democracy. while, as I currently understand it, Hong Kong still identifies as a democracy. So like, in China, I think identifying as a gay trans person, is pretty fucking illegal. In India, punishment for rapists is cut to 10%, if the victim is a trans person. In most states in the
US, if someone were to sleep with a trans person, then murder them, in most states this is legally okay. In Russia, the Middle East, Africa, I don’t even want to know. Transgender people are just one vulnerable group though, and right now, politics is pretty much fucked up everywhere, with dictatorships growing in
power, and even the ‘free’ countries being ruined by gerrymandering, hacked voting machines, and fake news, if not directly run by foreign actors and corporations. I’m fortunate enough to be at an academic institution in one of the *least* shitty countries, yet even here, academic consensus isn’t enough, and people are forced to go out and demonstrate by the thousands to fight for something so scientifically uncontroversial as climate change, because our biggest political party feels it doesn’t align with shareholder value. I’ve been meeting a lot of people recently who are significantly less fortunate than I am, even though they mostly live here too. I’ve met some activists who checked off most of, like, black, female, poor, uneducated, gay, trans, in sex work, and living with HIV, if not disabled, too. And I’m like, Shit. As we’ve heard in the AI UvA intro, at the start of last year, *we’re* probably gonna get good offers from industry. But, I just kind of hope that, instead of just contributing to the next surveillance systems,
* sorry I mispronounced this! some of us will also have a few ideas on how we can fix politics in the world. Because right now, shit kind of sucks, and AI, is probably just one of the few tools that can actually help to make a difference. I shouldn’t even have been here, as I was originally rejected for this program, my two previous degrees being in Japanese and Business Administration, and up to January this year, I still had a full-time job. I wouldn’t have imagined that only months later, my concerns would shift from getting sleep to getting sleep, and clothing. But today, I picked jeans to talk about gender, and a pokemon t-shirt to talk about politics. Because gender isn’t about clothing, just as it isn’t about genitals, make-up, or sexuality, and politics isn’t about people in a suit. It’s about us, and everyone else. I’m not currently planning on doing sex reassignment surgery, but I’m getting my hormone recipe next week, and I’ll probably do a name change, like, *after* exams. So if I’m like, crying a lot over the next couple months, or you won’t even recognize me anymore, then, that’s why. Anyway, if you have questions, like, now, or, later, if we, still have a break, or after, to ask, then, feel free. Thank you.
Right now we’ve learned that Donald Trump’s
personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani is back in Ukraine right now, right? He’s in Ukraine right now and what is Rudy
doing back in Ukraine? He is talking once again, former prosecutors
that were part of how this entire scandal started in the first place. Look at what Giuliani is doing as per the
New York times Tuesday. He met with a former Ukrainian prosecutor
in Budapest. This is URI loot Sanko that name. If you’ve been watching the impeachment inquiry
hearings should ring a bell because it has come up dozens of times during those hearings. Wednesday he went to Kiev or Kieve as we are
now told is the Ukrainian pronunciation. Went to Kiev, Ukraine to meet with more Ukrainian
prosecutors including the infamous Victor Shoken who is almost at the center of this
entire controversy. The reason why Rudy is back in the region,
back in Ukraine, meeting with these people now he’s supposedly gathering information
to be part of a documentary series for a right wing media outlet meant to promote Trump and
to defend Trump against the case for impeachment. What a convenient trip for Rudy Giuliani,
right? Imagine you’re running impeachment hearings
centered around Trump and his associates using Ukraine to try to smear Joe Biden in a bribery
extortion scandal and you say, okay, you know who we should really bring in. Let’s bring in Rudy Giuliani. He should testify. Let’s get in touch with Rudy. We did. You know what? Turns out he can’t come to the hearings because
he’s in Ukraine right now, meeting with the exact same people, asking for information
that can be used in a right wing media piece to argue that there is no case for impeachment
against Donald Trump hearings about Rudy possibly committing or organizing crimes to help the
president. Sorry, he can’t make it. He’s tied up back in Ukraine, possibly committing
crimes or organizing crimes to help the president under the guise of he’s now a TV producer. I guess working on some right wing media. Um, a documentary meant to defend Donald Trump. And you know what? We really shouldn’t be surprised by this. Remember that when about, I think it was six
months ago, Donald Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC news and George
Stephanopoulos said to him, mr president, after everything that’s happened with Russia
after the Mueller probe this, that, all this different stuff, if Russia came to you with
a dirt on opponents for 2020 or China came to you with dirt on opponents for 2020, would
you go to the FBI or would you, would you accept it? And Trump said, yeah, I did. At least look into it. Go to the FBI now, probably not. But I would at least look into what they were
bringing me. And if I were them, if I was as immoral as
they are, I would probably be doing the same thing because there have been no consequences
if you are Trump and you see, well, so far I’ve gotten away with everything. Sure. Some of my old friends are in prison, but
I’m fine. I would probably assume impeachments going
nowhere, likely accurate, and that means I still have to figure out how to win. In 2020 dispatch, Rudy back to Ukraine accepted
the dirt from Russia except they’re from China. At this point, I would hope that authorities
are watching Rudy Giuliani’s movements, which actually leads me to the next question. Was it that great of an idea to have them
leave the country in the sense that his two henchmen left Parness and Igor Fruman were
grabbed by authorities, arrested and indicted as they were heading to Europe on one way,
plane tickets. Giuliani might be close behind them or he
might never see consequences at all. We just don’t know. Because when someone is in that second justice
system, when you’re in the justice system for what are effectively the American oligarchs,
not everybody else, you actually, uh, it becomes harder to predict whether you’ll, you’ll ever
be held accountable for your actions at all. So Rudy, back in Ukraine, it sounds stranger
than fiction, but that’s the reality. If this were a screenplay, it wouldn’t be
believable. It would be thrown onto the cutting room floor. It happens to be real life. Let me know what you think about Rudy and
Ukraine. I’m on Twitter at D Pacman or leave a [inaudible]. Why? If
you’re watching on YouTube
Twitter announced recently that their ban
on political advertising is going to extend to legislation and social causes, a move that
could hurt candidates in groups who aren’t funded by big money donors. Farron, you said, you’ve said this a couple
of times. Anytime you see social media saying we’re
gonna, we’re, we’re really gonna make it difficult for you to use social media to advertise your
idea, your legislators, legislative concept, your candidacy. Who suffers? The, well the people who are grassroots mostly. And one of the things that’s really so awful
about this new decision is that you can’t even run an ad on Twitter anymore because
they ended it November 22nd. You couldn’t run an ad saying, you know, vote
yes or vote no on proposition one. You couldn’t explain the benefits, you know,
proposition one just to generic. But you can’t advocate or any outcome in any
kind of race or legislative battle. And that is absolutely devastating to the
people who use this as the tool to talk to their constituents. Well, here’s what it says, it says that it’ll
define political content. Now follow this. It’s going to define political content as
anything that references a candidate, a political party, a pointed government official or referendum
or ballot measure or legislation or regulation. What in the hell, I mean, that’s what journalism
does. We talk about these things. The problem is that we, that this is being
run, these decisions are being run in an in an environment where politically correctness
is killing us. I mean, we’ve got, we’re like, we’re, it’s
almost like are we too stupid to be able to read something or see something and make a
decision ourselves? They want to think for us and it’s not just
Twitter. We’re seeing it across the board right now. It’s like, it’s like this millennial snowflake
concept that is killing us. It’s all based on political correctness and
we’ve got to get away from it. The first amendment matters. We ought to be able to talk about a ballot
issue. We ought to be able to talk about legislative
issues that concern us on things like the environment, dangerous products, corruption
in government. This is saying we can’t do that. Well, the problem is they saw Facebook. Facebook took a lot of heat and rightfully
so, but then Facebook said, listen, our decision is we’re not going to fact check anything. You want to run an ad, you run an ad. If somebody reports it as being bad, we’ll
look into it. But we say whatever, run, whatever, and Twitter
says, wow, that’s, that’s one extreme. We’ll go to the other extreme and say nothing
at all. You can’t do anything. But Twitter is a far greater tool to reach
a huge amount of people in the shortest amount of time. And that is what these grassroots candidates,
these, you know, consumer organizations, they rely on Twitter far more than they do on Facebook. Okay. Let’s, let’s put it in a real, healthcare,
okay. Universal healthcare. What do we have with universal healthcare? You have a concept, a cause. Correct? And you have a bill legislative bill, and
according to the rules, you can’t talk about that on Twitter. Now, that’s how ridiculous it’s become. Now the other part of it is we’re going to
have, who is it that’s going to make these decisions? I mean, you’re going to have people that understand
that all of these issues so well that they can define, well, this is actually, this is
actual political discussion. We can’t permit this. Or is this discussion that ties into a bill
that’s pending that we ought to be able to talk about? You see, the problem is anytime you go down
this avenue, you’re saying to the American public, you are so frigging stupid that we
can’t trust you to be able to read something and figure it out yourself. That’s what this is. This is, this is, this is let’s take care
of stupid people because we’re smarter than they are. And what’s going to happen is that eventually
something’s going to squeak through and if it’s a right-leaning thing, the left is going
to be furious and claim a bias. If it’s a left-leaning thing, the right’s
going to claim a bias because eventually, because of the people they’re going to have
doing this, something’s going to sneak through and this is going to come back and bite Twitter
because regardless of which side it is, they’re going to be accused of having a huge bias
and it’s going to throw it all out the window. I, I hope it comes back and bites them. Farron, thanks for joining me. Okay. Thank you.