Youtube comments of Me andmi (@629Justme).

  1. 55
  2. 32
  3. 28
  4. 23
  5. 19
  6. 18
  7. 15
  8. 14
  9. 14
  10. 13
  11. 13
  12. 12
  13. 11
  14. 11
  15. 10
  16. 10
  17. 10
  18. 9
  19. 9
  20. 9
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 9
  24. 9
  25. 9
  26. 8
  27. 8
  28. 8
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. I appreciated your video "highly" by how it was explained and pointed out the inconsistencies of the officers that are paid to protect and serve. I then got a bit peeved by how you asked "if he was pro de-funding the police" or hates cops. You need to check yourself. When someone with over 3 million subscribers pushes misinformation we have yet another group of folks that misunderstand what de-funding means. First of all, there is no connection with any type of hate. NONE. Its isnt a hate based idea, its a really, really badly worded proposition. De-funding the police really means to reallocate the monies that police are paid with to create better ways to serve certain instances. It should have been called "reallocating" instead of de-funding. De-funding means taking a portion, a percentage of the police budget and create divisions to deal with - especially social issue type complaints that someone with a gun isnt needed and possibly could escalate the situation. Its not removing police from their jobs. How does even that idea come with an idea that someone hates cops? Its about dividing the budget better. Just like most organizations, their is a chain of command and knowledge that sending the receptionist to fix a broken pipe isnt the best way to handle a problem that a plumber is trained for. Similarly, a car crash may need a person with a gun, but there are better ways of allocating that persons skill set. De-funding really means reallocating, so how to use a gun training, isnt sent to get a cat out of a tree. Thats the Fire departments job :)
    3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. I KNOW that it more an reaction to the idea than an understanding how it all works. Nvidia became a leader in AI development because its GPU hardware is designed to do a lot, a whole lot, of parallel processing at the gigahertz level. It turns out that AI works very well on hardware that processes in parallel. All AI software (pretty sure) runs better on parallel processing hardware than the options. This means that it was an misunderstanding of what was accomplished when DeepSeek was announced. If deepseek runs very well on basic hardware - btw, deepseek was complied and coded on Nvidia hardware - how much better will it run on the best Nvidia hardware. It a confusion thinking that AI is solely dependent on hardware forgetting that its - synergistic relationship - the coding - the software that IS AI. In every case. Its not the hardware that IS AI, its the coding that makes it all possible. So AI, in everycase runs better - best - on parallel processing hardware. Deepseek is the software. Nividia is the hardware. Nvidia does parallel processing hardware better than any one else. Nvidia stock should had remained as it was or even rose a bit because of this announcement. Instead "computers for dummies" didn't understand what the synergistic relationship of the product launch meant. It means that if Deepseek runs good on old hardware, "Windows XP" hardware. Deepseek will run supremely on new 2025 hardware. Nvidia stock will recover as soon as level understanding comes back in. For now those of us that understands the mistake will LOL, silently and glad that the overreach is over. I wonder if AMD stock took a bit of an upturn as its parallel processing hardware comes in a bit more affordable.
    2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. I will watch the entire video later, but the first story is an unfortunate thing that happens at times: Semantical debates. Words that some people use to describe that which is to be the same but different to another. If someone is given a patent, its an new idea or a improvement to something. If a person has been given a patent, john and jane doe will say he invented something. Semantics. It really means, he invented something or improved something. I will watch the rest of teh video soon, but history has shown that there are many important patents created by african americans that havent been given their proper respect had another culture made it, been given. Walter Lincoln Hawkins, Clyde Bethea, Percy julian and others (if you have posted about them, I will edit this later), except for julian all worked for "The" bell labs. Its more a discussion about additions to society, than the thoughtless omission in many minds that it couldnt happened. ** followup** Saw the rest of your video and we are in disagreement, mainly: #2 - Benjamin bannaeker. You havent disproved anything.You just have a feeling that something is exxagerated. Thats the same as saying that he did it, but Im just not sure he did it all himself. You need folks to believe that you are an authority to get away with this. You only stated that he likely didnt "build" americans first clock. Im not drinking the koolaid. YOU,are debunked. #3 - Alexander miles "DID" invent the first "ELEVATOR" self closing doors. The other guy, invented closing hatchways. dont semantic me here either. YOU,are debunked. #4 - You gave edison first, credit for "inventing" an improvement, first successful commercial lightbulb, then dont give the same etiquette to lattimore. Its not overstated to commercialize the invention that Edison has a major role in. How can you commercialize something if you can only make them one by one by hand. Lattimore properly gets respect for figuring out how to mass produce and commercialize the end result. Biased? YOU,are debunked. #5 - Alexander specifically stated on his patent that he was making something for elevators. You tried to disprove it by saying that something made for gates was the same. Heres something that looks like a folding chair from nordic times, is disputed for something that looks like more like what we expect it to be. You "Are" biased. YOU,are debunked. #7 - Semantics. Both of you are missing the point, and the lock as stated "IS" most definitely in use today, expressly for the concerns that created its need. Locks, latches, the lockpicking lawyer. There are variations of the theme that fits needs all over. He is still qualified as the invention that he got a patent on. You are confusing a lock with its needed tumbler mechanism. Ever try to keep a door locked with only the part that you put the key in. See what just happened. You need both to keep a door locked.So both can be considered locks. YOU,are debunked. #8 - Improving the invention gets you a patent and a patent sometimes says that something was its first. Semantics. Frederick McKinley Jones however put refrigeration on trains and trucks "FIRST". So the facts actually goes to another black person. YOU,are debunked. #9 - Modern toilet. Yeah, the patent actually says that its an improvement to the commode. Semantics again, but its not the toilet. U got this one mainly corect. #10 - Mop. An improvement still qualifies an an invention. #11 - Portable pencil sharpner? Sure are a lot of inventions here that arent disputed as to if they are actual inventions or not. Another of teh masses that are likely not needed as much today. I gotta agree with you as to why and where the idea it was portable came from. #12 - Potato chips. Credit must be given to Mr crumb for his contribution. The example that you posted specify says that the slices are to be 1/4 inch thick. This is most not a chip. How many times are inventions about time and place? He was in the right place and time and that social celebrity, has made him its inventor. YOU,are 4/5 of the way debunked. #13 - Thanks for seeing it the way I also saw it. Missing the major invention that still has ramifications today. We are on the same page here. #14 - Traffic light. He invented the three way traffic light. Since cupcakes, croissants, wedding cakes and gluten can all be traced to the industrialization of wheat, its proper to give credit for the three way traffic signal to Morris. His beginning evolved into what we see today. Somebody has to give credit for their invention of the three lights - that was an actual improvement - to what came before. #15 - Thanks again. This guy missed a huge opportunity to give proper credit to an amazing and super inclusive talent. But, you gotta remember what she did. Its "TOTALLY" unfair to say that its a lie to say she didnt. Even she doesnt take full credit when someone says so. She however laid the foundation for the "wheat" that everything else is based on. A little exaggeration with no exaggeration. Hidden figures anyone? 1/2 debunked. I needed to clarify what a debunked fact really looks like. You took way too many liberties in Benjamin banneker not earning his props, and tried to dismiss Shirley Anne jackson as being totally wrong. She went from being the first black woman earning a PHD at MIT, to the Nuclear regulatory commissioner for the United States to Rensselaer Polytechnic 18th president, and thats just a start. My score is 13 of 15 accurate claims. Toilet and pencil sharpener have issues. So you are by a democratic percentage, wrong about your debunked claims. They will stand the test of time, just not when a person is working to disprove them and not be balanced in their findings. ** followup 2 * Looks like Shirley anne jackson is more known for her other accomplishments than the ones stated. I couldnt find out what exactly her contributions were. Its like "I", if I wanted to say, she is responsible for the physics understanding for all semiconductors, but I dont want to go that far. Her understandings has laid the bedrock for many accomplishments, but touchtone and others stated arent found. There is a story here, but it looks like your are correct and my score must be 12 of 15 accuracy. Hope to see what exact accomplishments she has given to the scientific community. I like "Hidden Figures"stories.
    2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. I just wish it were possible to understand these issues from both sides. Neither side wants the other to be the majority "democracy" in the world. Its not a flaw, its tribal. So to point out that china wants Chinese things and America wants American things makes not a lot of a point. The only democratic way to go forward is to be diplomatic and find places where there is compromise. The Chinese didn't ask America to make their goods, America found out a way to make their own goods for a tenth of the price. This is the strange way that this situation has evolved. Now Americans are blaming China for Americans ability to buy stuff cheaper because the optic is that it has taken away american jobs. Possibly? But then isnt the blame on the companies that has offshored because they can now make products cheaper so more americans can afford them? So china is a problem because they make goods at prices that make them more accessable to more americans thus making more americans happier because they can afford more items and still pay rent. And many americans hate china......while looking at a chinese made TV or other consumer item. I wouldnt be suprised of hatred spewed on china by some americans tweeting on chinese made electronics that give them access to hate speech sites that if not for china they wouldnt have the access because the price would be out of reach. Its a strange problem. But I bet that somewhere its because responsibility is trying to be shifted. I am pro making sense and looking it it fairly, nothing else.
    2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. She wasn't roasted. She was caught up in the non democratic politics of fascism and one party governments. America is supposed to be a majorly two party system where both sides come together - co-opetition - to find policies that eventually resolve issues that both sides have. Its never a solution that makes everyone satisfied but finds the most appropriate solution that gives both sides something that they need/want/request. What is supposed to happen is that the Right slams the Left and the Left slams the Right. Equal opportunity to make their point. What has happened is that one side is thought to be the only truth even though they are the ones most caught with lying - an accusation that becomes a confession. Its expected there will be disagreement and we all go on to have a two party system that has one side gaining a majority of policies that agree with them and the other a smaller portion of policies that agree with them Its become wrong. Its attempting to become fascist - a one state party in a Democratic Republic that was once the bastion of democratic principals. How can only one party represent a democracy? They cannot. So thinking she was roasted means that someone forgot that in a democracy she and every other left leaning/centrist leaning/independent leaning/former republican leaning folks have someone that speaks to them. Its not a game. Its a way to try to govern a population of over 250 million with different ways of looking at things and different importance's. Non right affiliated citizens have to have a voice in this democratic republic. If not it becomes a fascist one party system. That's not what the American constitution said we will be.
    1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. ​ @bestcyborg889  F**d up, that one persons stance on wanting to see things more inline with a democratic republic could make you feel better about your day. I have been viewing and listening to folks like you and see that you missed the point about my stance. I dont hate republicans I see that Trump is bad for the Democratic Republican nation. Its two parties that is supposed to make things better for all. The blue gets some of what they want/need, the red gets some of what they want/need. He has made you and other like you think that its a sporting event where there is only one winner. You have been lied to but thats what happens when folks stop thinking and let their actions be run by someone that they gave credence to to do so. Lied to??? Until now democrats and others have been telling MAGA's that Project 2025 isnt what they have been told. MAGA's have been saying that its a lie and we should stop listing to fake media and propaganda. Trump told us he didnt know about what it was so all of you democrats dont know whats going on. One of your maga leaders Steve Bannon admitted yesterday that: In an apparent attempt to troll their political opponents, MAGA allies gleefully announced the extreme conservative blueprint is 'on the agenda and Project 2025 will be there. So who was telling the truth? Im a citizen in a democratic republic that sees balance as the meaning that the constitution was written for. Project 2025 is devoid of balance and leans heavily far right and fascist. Look it up. Its Fascist, not word play, actually fascist. So the democratic republic is trying to be a far right republic and you are concerned about "Making America Great Again" by way of making it only one sided. Its not funny. Its a wake up call. clarity over.
    1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. The runnin party is dealing with the mess created by the "former" administration. Dont blame the current party for things that are real complicated because of covid, shipping issues, a war in Ukraine and tariffs and deals made by the former administration with Saudi Arabia. In fact, a cogent conversation/debate could be made that the war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened but because of the former president - that was impeached- trying to get Ukraines president to agree with him about a conspiracy about the son of the current president. At that time congress had approved monies to reinforce his military and was a step for America to back Ukraine in its application to NATO. Had it gone as congress had approved, America would had been a force behind Ukraine and a member of NATO. The chances of Putin attacking a new member of NATO and an Ally of America seriously reduces the chance that Putin would do as he did. Seriously and was the reason for the summit. Ukraine was wanting to have America show up as backing Ukraine to the world. Instead the former administration made it clear that America was at arms length at best with Ukraine, and didnt want to really back them unless Ukraine did as the former administration wanted them to. Ukraine wouldn't, so likely what Putin wanted to see, because nobody has more military might than America. Then there is the Saudi deal. Just to say, that gas prices may seem to go up overnight. In reality, it takes months for the results of deals made month previously to affect the prices. A complicated mess with a few moving parts.
    1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1