Source Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=Ugxp3t5wukq6u2kZEOx4AaABAg
1:16:11 Go change the direction of a table, please.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=Ugx47u9egY2fniubcPR4AaABAg
1:15:27 As if Tammy doesn't need to do something with her pipeline and other stuff...
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgxnSXzpL6JFQgFQy5l4AaABAg
1:14:16 Let's think about the cliff after we've went over it. Indeed, that's a valid approach, humanity at large is doing exactly that, and at least we can have a fun time for as long as it persists. Who wouldn't board the Titanic or care about the engineers using the cheap steel, or the line to choose a more dangerous route to arrive earlier, or the compartments not being sealed/sealable, or the lifeboat/passenger ratio, or the radio operator being distracted with tweeting, who would want to miss the experience of sinking, freezing and drowning? It was a fun ride at least.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgxUDLc0jLWm-VvklW14AaABAg
1:11:55 That disproves the point. Harry can't exist in a model where work is by definition not enjoyable, and if Harry enjoys what he does, he's not working, by definition. So this strict definition doesn't exist, so it's rather about what people enjoy or not, and if there are things nobody enjoys, but still need to be done, well, we have some incentives or ways of make some people do it, and it's usually called work, because it may indeed be not enjoyed by those who do it, but its different for every individual and might change over time for every individual, so a strict framework to look at it is pretty useless. Work can also refer to "laborious" with no claim if it has to be enjoyable or not.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=Ugy8thhb9dBHSKQ4GFl4AaABAg
48:02 That's obviously nonsense. Furthermore, have you realized that words in a language might have more than one meaning, and that there can be different contexts (let's call them "dimensions" to prove the point)?
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgxrR_Bv3It1cu_4zTJ4AaABAg
47:38 Which ones? I'm writing in different dimensions from time to time as well, construct new dimensions or could work on making them "invisible" if somebody else would want to write in them too.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgwHhcr1t8crTmbhAc94AaABAg
40:05 That's probably not how it works.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgwZhcBk2uWEyuIHmEd4AaABAg
39:02 I think that's stupid thinking. Since Einsteins theory that space and time are connected, everybody is running around calling time the 4th dimension in order to try to be or appear clever, not realizing that three dimensions are spacial and one is time, which have nothing in common just as any other random, arbitrary criterion/metric/axis that can be used and bundled together to put things into relation. In our physical world/universe, of course it's quite common/useful to relate space to time as time is spacial stuff moving around at a certain speed/energy, but if stuff stops to move and "time" therefore cease to exist (if it ever exists), would the supposed 4D construct collapse back into 3D space? What about 4D spaces or a second time dimension? I could as well call heat the 4th dimension and convince people that this is the way they're supposed to think about the universe. I guess mathematicians and software developers have less trouble understanding this, as they may invent any dimensionalities they want/need. Graphical facilitators maybe too (in terms of spacial depths).
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=UgwMncG0j_djamwQCHt4AaABAg
24:31 "Back to the patriarchy", that is.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=Ugxt06p8nLKRRCimSN14AaABAg
22:40 At least, fortunately, the Chinese don't have any patriarchy. Or the old Egyptians, in contrast to the old Romans, Greeks and Jews.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-sc_KCK0II&lc=Ugwv6vs4ZdASB_i5G7J4AaABAg
1:27:08 They were an 'e'.