If you came up with this you’re a genius. Even if you got inspiration from other projects making something with that little code that can simulate these complex emergent properties is a huge achievement
Thanks for the compliment. This project was inspired by Ventrella's Clusters (the link is in the descriptions). Once I wrote the code, I spent the entire month trying to make the code as concise as possible and as educational as possible. Hopefully, this presentation inspires more work on investigating emergent patterns from very simple rules.
Guys, these things have existed for decades. Nearly every youtube coding series out there is drawing upon earlier research and isn't a breakthrough in of itself. The beauty here isn't "being original", it's presenting things in a simple and accessible way.
While Conway's Game of Life has been impressive for a long time, the striking part of this adaptation is the organic way the movement, shapes, and patterns appear. There are a number of ways to use this approach to visualize concepts about chaos, probability, prediction, and determinism in systems. The first-principles development approach to set it apart from similar programs is the cherry on top. It looks great!
@@estebanod the point is, the game of life shows very well, just like this demonstation that we see above, that a set of very simple rules can produce very complex and unpredictable behaviours(just like in real life)
@@Mushele This is far closer to representing emergent life coming from simple rules than Conway's Game Of Life. I absolutely love Game Of Life, but this looks like what one sees from microscopes. Cells consuming other cells, cells losing their cell wall and leaking their insides, cells that are highly active, other cells that are mostly stagnant, etc.
Currently studying computer science at university, and this dude is one of the reasons I love what I do and keeps getting inspired. Keep up the good work, you’re a legend!
I wonder how much more emerges if we make the rule coefficients a function of a common parameter (we can call it "temperature"), then have that variable go through a "day cycle" of sin(t). This might make some of the very unstable/twitchy patterns more stable for a bit, and vice-versa. Or make t itself a function of (x,y) and make warm/cool pockets with different stable patterns, swapping particles between them. Lots of neat stuff to play with here, thanks for sharing it!
Isn't "temperature" the "value" of how much particles moves? At a certain point, some measurements that we use at normal level doesn't apply to molecular level
@@AlissonNunes Not dumb, but I do think you're taking the model a little too literally (which his presentation kind of encouraged). This model is too simple to capture anything like that level of detail. It gives us big picture, super hand-wave-y patterns, which is neat, and helps guide one's thinking for more fine-grained problems. This is why I said "call it" temperature: it's a kinda-sorta analogue for temperature within the very coarse-grained model we're using. Honestly, my motivation is entirely to make it fun to watch for longer. It's a bummer that each model stabilizes to a static state, though. I'm mostly interested in finding ways to make it visually interesting for longer spans of time =)
Dude, this was so, so well done! From the pacing, to the code walkthrough, open source, pop culture reference, music, video length. Superb. I love artificial life, and this is so exciting to see. You discovered some really dope paramaters
Computers and code are the most accessible facsimile to a generic laboratory. Be it some finance stuff, physics, biology, quantum mechanics - whatever - if you take an interest and want to see how an idea pans out, coding is the way to go. Frankly, it even teaches respect to all those scientists before the computer age, who managed to produce useful insights without computers :) But today, anyone should be able to code a little, so they can use it as a tool of learning.
I'm a python and coding beginner and such projects are an inspiration to continue learning and not give up. To me, this is a masterpiece even if I don't understand the code. Thank you.
While looking at the thumbnail, it's complexity put me off from watching the video, thinking "I'm probably not going to understand a thing". But upon actually watching it, you showed that the rules are so simple that you could go through writing every line of code in a small portion of the video. Stunning.
I don’t know whether I have enough experience to understand what might be complex for others, or whether it’s just that simple, but whatever it is I’m stunned by how simple the explanation is and how beautiful the results are. 10x points for starting from 0 with a single empty html file.
This is amazing and beautiful and I can't wait till I get mine fully up and running. I hope am am able to save people a few hours by suggesting to go right to github for finding the actual code to copy down and just use the video for what order to write everything up.
This is not just perfect presentation of amazing simulation with source code, code walkthrough tutorial, but also metaphysical essay with humor and great images. I am really thankful for your work. Thank you. I will be pleased to try your program and to code my from your tutoring. Amazing
Wow. I've seen these kinds of simulations before, but what I was not expecting was this level of production and entertainment. Cool stuff, hope your channel gets the subs it deserves!
Oh man, this is truly amazing! First time ever I see code explained in such way with examples on the right. Really you deserve millions likes on this video
Sublime presentation, impressive on several fronts, well done. I've seen explorations of this concept from Conway, Hoftstadter, and Wolfram as you mentioned, but I don't think I've seen anything close to this level of elegance and complexity of emerging behaviour. I think the key differentiator is adding clean, physical laws with an emphasis on simplicity - and then allowing time to take over. You also make many astute comparisons and analogies in this video. Imagine how complex our simulations could be in decades to come!
I think by adding some random fluctuation in attractive and repulsive force and allowing interchangability of particle types based on some parameters might have given us very chaotic results at first but very much stable events after some time. Also I think it might have added thatbextra layer of physics which led to life.
I like how you made and explained the code part by part, i believe even a beginner can understand your video and with your explanation i can convert this concept to other languages and plataforms and apply my own ideas, thanks for helping. Someone already said, but you are a Genius, you have a lot of potential and you are using it for good. Keep the amazing work.
The shakiness is purely becasue of the instability of explicit time stepping used in nemerical integration (an artifact). Also this is a perfect example to use webgl shaders to acceelrate (save particle position and velocity as rgba in a float texture, read them in vertex shader and update), render a quad with same amount of pixels mapping to the particles
Thank you for this, amazing video, great explanation, I certainly did not expect to actually be shown the code let alone a full rundown from scratch. Please make more videos like these, the motivation it brings to open up a code editor is next level, these are the types of videos I wish I could find more of, perfect pacing, i like how you sped up most of the coding to match your explanation as you went. Other people would have turned this into a 3 hour tutorial including all their mistakes, fixes, overexplanation, etc. Very wonderfully produced. You sir have an amazing brain. Thanks again.
Both the actual programming part and the philosophical part at the end were some of the most brilliantly simplistic yet clever stuff I've seen, good job.
Very cool project! It's not really a life simulator. It's more like simulating chemistry from another dimension. If you add here not only particles, but also waves, you get a quantum physics simulator!
@@lemming7188 Divide the screen into a grid, and give each cell a vector, make the cells influence their neighbors, make them change color depending on the intensity of the vector. Some thing like that, thou I'm sure there are dozens of ways of implementing this, and probably all of them run faster than my idea.
@@lemming7188 wery good question. My suggestion about waves is more joke than offer. But i think waves could be a carrier's of powers like in real world. The simulation have a lot of powers. Every link between particles with different color is power. Every power would be an elastic plane and every particle would pertrub the plane. Waves move on plane and influence to other particles. Of course, it is very complicated. And it will be absolutely not same programm.
@@christhorne116 Adding stochasticity to maxwellian electrodynamics is enough to produce the results of QM in the linear regime. Adding non-local sources (wave-like rather than point-like) to that would probably be enough to capture at least some of the non-linear QM phenomena.
"Perhaps if the density here was slightly offset, I would have been a millionaire, but I knew; 'this universe is set up against me'" hahahaha I feel you brother Thanks a ton for offering the source code in C++, too. I'm definitely going to spend too much time tinkering with sliders now.
This video is profound and I will be using it in my discussions about the nature of the universe. I hear many people claim that complex multicellular life cannot come from simple rules without intervention. This program demonstrates very well that simple particles with simple rules can make things that look like complex organic cells. Limiting yourself to attraction and repulsion was a good decision, because they are very simple rules that can be related to the Fundamental Forces like Gravity and Electromagnetism which most people are familiar with. I think abiogenesis is not as unlikely as some would claim, and we are always finding experiments and demonstrations like this that chip away at proving that it's possible and probable.
The rules are not simple. There's a lot of things that needed to happen before these 'simple' rules were written. Like the intelligence of the mind required sit down and write it, and all the technological developments nessesary before you can even type the first keystroke of code etc etc. Also. These examples are very chaotic unstable and unpredictable, which is a very different situation than the world we actually live in. With enough tweaking of the settings and variables eventually you might find something more akin to the behavior of life or particle physics as we would recognize in the universe, but at that point the simplicity suggested here is no longer simple. I love this project because it really does get you thinking about the fundamental nature of things. Like who added the code to "render the particles" lol or set them in motion, and then give them rules and boundaries of behavior.
@@kreendurron No. Artraction and repulsion are simple. There is no "particle rendering" there is just quantum fluctuations, and you're seeing the emergent "life" that is demonstrated in this video. There is no great renderer. There is a quantum universe that follows deceptively simple rules. If we tweaked the settings then there would be a different universe. I see no reason why your god would choose this exact one. Your intelligent design theory is simply pride. Put it away.
@@chaotickreg7024 Particle Rendering is analogous to creation. Where did you get the particles from? The process of this video demonstration is telling. First you need the particles. Now that they are there. You need to setup rules for the particle interactions once they are in motion.... then someone needs to say... okay go. And off they go. And they behave according to the established rules. Questions the naturalists have to overcome... where did anything come from? If you say, it just was and is and is to come. How is that any different than "God just was and is and is to come?" Why are there rules of attraction and repulsion? What set it into motion? And why should I put it away? Because YOU said? I think not. Where's the fun in that?
@@kreendurron This is a god of the gaps fallacy. We can demonstrate everything all the way down to "Where did particles come from?" And scientists are happy to reply with "It is impossible for us to know at this point given the complete lack of information to go off of" And then you come in like "ACTUALLY I can just use my intuition to go beyond the beginning of time, and what I see it an INTELLIGENT SUPER BEING that demonstrates nothing to us but must exist because I exist." And I think that is an absurd proposition. Instead, take a minute and consider the world from the perspective of "We might never know where particles are from, it's possible this all could gone very very different, but I'm glad the dice rolled in my favor." And then see if life still makes sense. It should. I've never seen anything that made me go "OBVIOUSLY emergent physics couldn't have done THAT" and so you're left with a creator god of gaps, and I hope even that gap gets closed before you lose your mortality.
@@kreendurron I think special relativity breaks the "universe as code" theory too. There is nothing that connects 2 objects over a distance, there is only the forces propagating from them. I cannot send information across a distance without disturbing the matter between me and my target. There is no stream of data connecting anything to anything else. Instead, it's more like every particle has to, on its own, compare passports and travel plans with every single particle around it. There is no Main() function in this universe. This universe computer would require a processor with more cores than there are particles.
I deobfuscated Ventrella's code once a long time ago. I think it worked in a very similar way, with predicting the other particles positions, except I think in his the rules can be dynamically redefined for particles based on who they've encountered so far
1/d instead of 1/d^2 is actually more accurate for a 2D world. Force fields are observed to conserve a flux, (number of field lines does not change). Inverse square law is a byproduct of having 3 spatial dimensions, force fields disperse as a surface (e.g. a sphere) which scales quadratically with radius. In a 2D universe force fields disperse as a line (e.g. a circle) which increases linearly with radius.
I'm a little late to the party! Great work mate, I have been fascinated by this kind of emergent behaviour since hearing about boids and the simple rules applied to them, I will certainly be using your ideas as inspiration, thanks man. I will add.. Your code example was easy enough to follow and well explained cheers again, I've got weird little thing with wings flying about in my browser :D
Very innovative. I’m a junior developer/Art & Designer. I would love to play with the code and make some nice visual elements. Imagine what you can come up with while using Zbrush, Maya, Blender and Unreal Engine.
Just wanted to stop by and say this is the coolest fucking thing I've seen as a programmer for a long time. Got me excited even. I want to make one of my own now! Thanks stranger!
As I said in the video, this universe setup is against me! Edit: OK now the views have increased dramatically. The settings of this universe may not be against me 😅
Off the top of my head, I think if you start with 1 particle/entity that can only attract or repel, you will end up with something more like the way the universe actually (is thought to have) emerged. But this is very exciting! Thx for the code; I will play around with it.
This was... Mind-blowing !! 🤯 First introduction to code, and I understood mostly everything that matters, in order to give life to all that "matter"'. Impressive ! Thank you
This video is amazing and underrated. I've been following life simulations as a hobby for a couple of years now and this is one of the most interesting ones I've come across in a while! It seems like a more advanced Boids, the organicness of the patterns, simplicity of the code and presentation is amazing. My cell biology knowledge is a bit rusty, I think I remember polarity being an important factor in osmosis? I love the elegance of this simulation and would hate to ruin it, but I wonder if more complex mechanisms can be simulated by taking more inspiration like that from real life cells. Edit: maybe I'll try recreating this (Don't know C++ so I'll have to go from scratch) and somehow add in lifespan and evolution to get changing cells... somehow... I'll have to think on it
I came here to say that, taking a squareroot is a very expensive operation. But I also think that the behaviour will significantly change due to the distance being quadratic, which means that attraction over long distances will be way stronger.
@@mccvargues7792 Just in case anyone reading this doesn't fully understand what y'all are talking about, they mean you square the check distance instead of taking the square root of the computed distance. So.. instead of if (CheckDistance < sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2)) you use if (CheckDistance^2 < (dx^2 + dy^2)) then, you are within the tested distance without having to call the computationally expensive sqrt function. Good suggestion you two!!
@@mccvargues7792 I think yes but I think you said the opposite. he's using 1/d instead of 1/d^2 if he excluded the sqrt d would become d^2 and 1/d^2 would make the interaction between particles get weaker as distance increases than 1/d. So yes the behavior would change. But you'd be using the correct formula for gravity as he mentioned for less effort. And the interaction has become weaker for greater distances.
just gotta say the music from death note being used as a backdrop to your quick coding made me laugh pretty hard, all it needed was an overly dramatic reading of the script and it'd be a true death note scene XD i'll take a canvas... AND DRAW IT!
I like that you give the code. You have to play around with it yourself. The complexity from simplicity is staggering and hard to believe. It is the same flight of imagination as the cellular machine life by Conway. the behaviour of it's attractors resembles eukaryotic life and it lacks the quantisation artifacts of Conway's game. I urge everyone to play with this.
Amazing work! It'd be a million times better if combine this with evolution-like process. What I can think of: 1. Add a new type of object, let's call it "nucleus" 2. Genetic information: Each nucleus stores the information of formation of particles in polar coordinates to it. e.g. red: [ [1, 90], [2, 45] ], blue: [ [2, 60] ] Each will be spawned surrounded by other particles arranged according to the gene. 3. Metabolism: Each time there's another type particle that is close enough to a nucleus, it will "eat" it and increment a counter of that particle inside it. e.g. red++. 4. Reproduction: When there's enough particles eaten to satisfy the number of particles of each type needed for the genetic code e.g. red == 2, blue == 1, another one of this nucleus will be spawned elsewhere 5. Mutation: For each reproduction process, there's a chance of a small change in the genetic code. 6. Death: Each time a particle that a nucleus "owns" is eaten or gone too far, the HP of that nucleus is reduced. If it's 0, the nucleus dies. 7. Growth: The genetic information can be split into stages and the nucleus will need to consume enough particles to go to its next stage. It means the consumed particles will be respawned around the nucleus based on the next stage's gene. Reproduction will be done after the last stage is reached.
@@jonrjeffrey I think it should, but it would require orders of magnitude more particles, and particle types. The synthetic nucleus there should act like a shortcut that represents a mechanism that would require tons and tons of particles to function.
no such thing as electron shells in an atom.... think it more like a magnetic & dielectric field emanating from the atom, with the field having certain properties that can be "measured as electrons, and the size of the field." As the great physicists JJ Thompson stated, an electron is simply 1 unit of dielectric induction.
Very beautiful project, I loved every part of it. Very interesting to see a Chladni Pattern emerge at 9:09 // these are known to be the nodal lines of a resonant body, and they literally plot Helmholtz equations solutions in function of frequency, the latter being quite omnipresent in any kind of physics, and even in neuroscience, structuring the causality within brain waves. Cheers
This is way cool! I’d love to see more stuff like this! It’d be interesting to see what kind of self-organizing patterns could emerge from more than 4 fundamental particles, and/or with additional dynamical interactions
Some of the instabilities could be a result of simulating in discrete domain. Different sample time: if you multiply all the forces by 0.5, record the simulation and play it at 2x speed, the results with fast moving particles (e.g. instabilities) will be different. There are also continues domain solvers, but understandably that would make it not very approachable.
This is a nice expansion of particle life simulations I knew I had seen long ago. After some digging, "particle life" seems to be the key search term. The first version in this vein appears to be from 2016, but the rules were simplified to be more like we see here in videos around 2018.
in the matter of fact, real force between any two particles in this model is always the same and equals 'g' parameter. just note, that x component of force is g * dx / d, and y component is g * dx / d. if you just calculate total 'length' of this force, you'll get f = sqrt((g * dx / d)^2 + (g * dy / d)^2) = sqrt(g^2 * (dx * dx + dy * dy) / d^2) = g * sqrt(d^2 / d^2) = g. so force between two points is always constant, regardless on the distance, we just need to decompose it on axes depending on dx and dy. the limit 80 just makes the force to be zero outside this radius. I think the value of 80 just determines the radii of the circles that we see in the video
This is cool! I typed in the js code, tweaked it a little*, and made a fish! :D (I wasn't setting out to make a fish, but that's what it looks like to me.) * added two parameters to rule(), one is the maximum distance for interaction (80 by default, as in your code), and the other is an option to do 1/d² instead of 1/d. Also a few other tweaks, but I think those are the most noteworthy. The rest was just playing with rules.
This was really interesting. It reminds me of the artificial flocking algorithm, where you can get interesting behavior from simple rules. I never considered what the effects of multiple entities might look like. It makes the idea of emergent life seem more plausible, because in our universe we seem to have these atomic units with various attractive and repulsive forces at different scales, and its easier to visualize how things can group together and create more complex systems.
Yooo this is amazing! I've seen a couple simulations like this in the past (eg. by "Particle Life" by Code Parade) but this is far more complex than what I saw so far. Good job! I tried making a simulation like this myself in the Unity game engine but the performance sucked and I ran into some issues... Shameless self promotion: I made a 'slime' simulation inspired by one of Sebastion Lague's videos and uploaded a little showcase of that on my channel :P It brings me so much joy seeing complex behaviour emerging from simple rules :D
Kuwertzel, Unity is a "fourth" level programming language. Physical logic gates -> Machine language -> Programming languages (C, Fortran, etc) -> Fourth level languages (Unity, Mathematica, etc).. That is to say, Unity has something like C between it and the machine code. Generally, the more user-friendliness you have, the less efficient the physical machine (CPU) is given instructions. Maybe you already knew, but it's why your program will run (very) slow when coded in Unity.
@@zbnmth This is just plain wrong. I've written Particle Life in JS (fnky/particle-life on GitHub) and its performance is fine. This is without much optimisations (no WebGL shaders, just Canvas and purely running on the CPU). Unity is first of all, not a programming language, but an engine. Secondly, any language can be slow if you don't know about pitfalls that are usually general to every language; i.e. allocating within a deeply nested loop can be very slow if not cached or managed properly. Doesn't matter whether you write Rust, C++, C or even Assembly. The important part is to understand those pitfalls and how to use the language to avoid them. C#'s runtime (CLR) is fast and is used in many applications, more complex than this. Not only that but your C# code is also heavily optimized through Roslyn before being translated into MSIL/CIL and then to machine code by the JIT compiler.
Super supervideo! I followed your instruction to write the script code. My browsers (Chrome, Firefox and Edge) don't like the "Let" inside the for instructions. Without the Let keyword it works good. The behavior is slightly different depending on the browser because Firefox it's very fast while Edge is the slowest and I slightly changed some parameter affecting velocity. Great great work!
It would be interesting to see what happens with a more sophisticated integration algorithm, such as Runge-Kutta for the force-acceleration-velocity-position.
@@FreeScience the dynamics will evolve differently, but only slowly as a divergence. The chaotic nature of the system will quickly override any predictability anyway.
Brilliant. I was searching for life simulations and found your video which goes very quickly from a simple dance between two yellow dots to the whole mega freakin universe thing with all its complexity. Well done! Now, me go programming. . . .
Really great work! It would be amazing to put this into Unity 3D and also add the third dimension along with some smooth random camera interpolations to view everything.
Really neat! I actually never thought that a set of particles' relation to one another is as simple as 1 is attracted to itself but simultaneously repels another. Now, it seems ez to explain
just as we can code this basic form of life/particles with physics, imagine our world is a simple throwaway code toy to some higher being in a higher universe. I guess the througline which we didn't code was math itself, and the emergent phenomenon
This is incredibly cool and I love the walkthrough of the code. I have a question. You have some rules like rule(green, yellow, f1) and rule(yellow, green, f2). It looks to me that's equivalent to rule(green, yellow, f1+f2). Is that so?
Uh, no, looking closer at the code now I see that rule() only updates atoms in the first group. So you can have asymmetrical forces which is really "non newtonian" but is probably what allows the emerging patterns. Very cool.
@@OscarLazzarino Yes to make it symmetric f1 should be equal to f2. Asymmetrical forces don't exist at the atomic level but I guess it is abundant at the level of large compounds, proteins, and enzymes
@@brainxyz all forces are symmetrical in real life according to Neuton's 3rd law. But this asymmetry might be why your simulation makes such interesting results, so imo it is a good thing.
That would be pretty insane... I think it would be easiest to create in the open source node-based programming language Processing with the P3D renderer.
this got philosofical really quickly. also i wanted to point out that the cbm is a product of the electrons recombining with the nucleous all across the universe at the same time and emiting gamma radiation. the cooler and hotter areas are of course denser and less dense areas but only diferenced by a fraction of a degree yet causing massive diferences in the end. the recombination era takes place 370k ish years after the big bang and the cbm shows the effects on slight differences that existed since the very begining (you have to think that the universe was a lot smaller and denser during the big bang meanig that these diferences were even smaller) 🤓🤓🤓🤓
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
If you came up with this you’re a genius. Even if you got inspiration from other projects making something with that little code that can simulate these complex emergent properties is a huge achievement
Thanks for the compliment. This project was inspired by Ventrella's Clusters (the link is in the descriptions). Once I wrote the code, I spent the entire month trying to make the code as concise as possible and as educational as possible. Hopefully, this presentation inspires more work on investigating emergent patterns from very simple rules.
ruclips.net/video/makaJpLvbow/видео.html
no, this isn't an original idea.
Code Parade did it first.
@@HardcoreMontages code parade was nowhere near the first
Guys, these things have existed for decades. Nearly every youtube coding series out there is drawing upon earlier research and isn't a breakthrough in of itself. The beauty here isn't "being original", it's presenting things in a simple and accessible way.
While Conway's Game of Life has been impressive for a long time, the striking part of this adaptation is the organic way the movement, shapes, and patterns appear. There are a number of ways to use this approach to visualize concepts about chaos, probability, prediction, and determinism in systems. The first-principles development approach to set it apart from similar programs is the cherry on top. It looks great!
Oh hey
Amazing
I've never seen an algorithm of this simplicity granting such lifelike behavior. Truly Impressive
game of life
@@Mushele game of life is nowhere near a living cell simulation
@@estebanod neither is this
@@estebanod the point is, the game of life shows very well, just like this demonstation that we see above, that a set of very simple rules can produce very complex and unpredictable behaviours(just like in real life)
@@Mushele This is far closer to representing emergent life coming from simple rules than Conway's Game Of Life. I absolutely love Game Of Life, but this looks like what one sees from microscopes. Cells consuming other cells, cells losing their cell wall and leaking their insides, cells that are highly active, other cells that are mostly stagnant, etc.
Currently studying computer science at university, and this dude is one of the reasons I love what I do and keeps getting inspired. Keep up the good work, you’re a legend!
I wonder how much more emerges if we make the rule coefficients a function of a common parameter (we can call it "temperature"), then have that variable go through a "day cycle" of sin(t). This might make some of the very unstable/twitchy patterns more stable for a bit, and vice-versa. Or make t itself a function of (x,y) and make warm/cool pockets with different stable patterns, swapping particles between them.
Lots of neat stuff to play with here, thanks for sharing it!
Thats a cool idea
slightly differences in the game rules with add exponentially more complex structures. Like in real life
Isn't "temperature" the "value" of how much particles moves? At a certain point, some measurements that we use at normal level doesn't apply to molecular level
The "temperature" increases by the sun that emits radiation (photons), which are more molecules... Or I'm just being dumb
@@AlissonNunes Not dumb, but I do think you're taking the model a little too literally (which his presentation kind of encouraged). This model is too simple to capture anything like that level of detail. It gives us big picture, super hand-wave-y patterns, which is neat, and helps guide one's thinking for more fine-grained problems.
This is why I said "call it" temperature: it's a kinda-sorta analogue for temperature within the very coarse-grained model we're using.
Honestly, my motivation is entirely to make it fun to watch for longer. It's a bummer that each model stabilizes to a static state, though. I'm mostly interested in finding ways to make it visually interesting for longer spans of time =)
Dude, this was so, so well done! From the pacing, to the code walkthrough, open source, pop culture reference, music, video length. Superb. I love artificial life, and this is so exciting to see. You discovered some really dope paramaters
As a person who has never coded before but is interested in biology this was really cool!
Computers and code are the most accessible facsimile to a generic laboratory. Be it some finance stuff, physics, biology, quantum mechanics - whatever - if you take an interest and want to see how an idea pans out, coding is the way to go. Frankly, it even teaches respect to all those scientists before the computer age, who managed to produce useful insights without computers :) But today, anyone should be able to code a little, so they can use it as a tool of learning.
I'm a python and coding beginner and such projects are an inspiration to continue learning and not give up. To me, this is a masterpiece even if I don't understand the code. Thank you.
While looking at the thumbnail, it's complexity put me off from watching the video, thinking "I'm probably not going to understand a thing". But upon actually watching it, you showed that the rules are so simple that you could go through writing every line of code in a small portion of the video. Stunning.
I don’t know whether I have enough experience to understand what might be complex for others, or whether it’s just that simple, but whatever it is I’m stunned by how simple the explanation is and how beautiful the results are. 10x points for starting from 0 with a single empty html file.
Super interesting. In some of these simulations, there even were shapes ressembling cell division and macrophages phagocyting !
I really appreciate how you show step by step how to achieve it with plain vanilla js
I don't know what to say man, it just changes the way I look at the universe. Thank you for sharing this. Great job.
This is amazing and beautiful and I can't wait till I get mine fully up and running. I hope am am able to save people a few hours by suggesting to go right to github for finding the actual code to copy down and just use the video for what order to write everything up.
I got a tell you. It was perfect. Perfect. Everything, down to the last a few detail.
This is not just perfect presentation of amazing simulation with source code, code walkthrough tutorial, but also metaphysical essay with humor and great images. I am really thankful for your work. Thank you. I will be pleased to try your program and to code my from your tutoring. Amazing
This is one of the coolest life like simulations I have ever seen
Now make it 3d
*human appears*
And then 4d
Yes please make it 4d too
@@Scuiidno 10D
@@EggEgg-c7x What about 40D?
Wow. I've seen these kinds of simulations before, but what I was not expecting was this level of production and entertainment. Cool stuff, hope your channel gets the subs it deserves!
Its a crime that this channel doesnt have wayy more subscribers.
it's real amazing product I have seen. It demonstrates how complexity is emergent from simple rules. Thank you
I havent left a comment on a utube video for years but this has to be one of the simplest-coolest things ive watched on the platform
Oh man, this is truly amazing! First time ever I see code explained in such way with examples on the right. Really you deserve millions likes on this video
You Sir have that special talent of not only making something very intersting but also explain it in a simple way.
Sublime presentation, impressive on several fronts, well done. I've seen explorations of this concept from Conway, Hoftstadter, and Wolfram as you mentioned, but I don't think I've seen anything close to this level of elegance and complexity of emerging behaviour. I think the key differentiator is adding clean, physical laws with an emphasis on simplicity - and then allowing time to take over. You also make many astute comparisons and analogies in this video. Imagine how complex our simulations could be in decades to come!
I think by adding some random fluctuation in attractive and repulsive force and allowing interchangability of particle types based on some parameters might have given us very chaotic results at first but very much stable events after some time. Also I think it might have added thatbextra layer of physics which led to life.
I like how you made and explained the code part by part, i believe even a beginner can understand your video and with your explanation i can convert this concept to other languages and plataforms and apply my own ideas, thanks for helping.
Someone already said, but you are a Genius, you have a lot of potential and you are using it for good. Keep the amazing work.
The shakiness is purely becasue of the instability of explicit time stepping used in nemerical integration (an artifact). Also this is a perfect example to use webgl shaders to acceelrate (save particle position and velocity as rgba in a float texture, read them in vertex shader and update), render a quad with same amount of pixels mapping to the particles
Thank you for this, amazing video, great explanation, I certainly did not expect to actually be shown the code let alone a full rundown from scratch. Please make more videos like these, the motivation it brings to open up a code editor is next level, these are the types of videos I wish I could find more of, perfect pacing, i like how you sped up most of the coding to match your explanation as you went. Other people would have turned this into a 3 hour tutorial including all their mistakes, fixes, overexplanation, etc. Very wonderfully produced. You sir have an amazing brain. Thanks again.
Both the actual programming part and the philosophical part at the end were some of the most brilliantly simplistic yet clever stuff I've seen, good job.
this is exactly what all programming tutorials should be. Simple, clean, fast, to the point, and showing how it works. Thank You!
Did it work for you? I followed along and it didn't work.
i cant get html to display in chrome bruh its blank
now i cant yellow particles to appear i give up
WOW!!! I’m only halfway through the video but I’m already mindblown! It’s amazing how such a complex system can arise from so few rules!
Very cool project!
It's not really a life simulator. It's more like simulating chemistry from another dimension.
If you add here not only particles, but also waves, you get a quantum physics simulator!
How could one go about adding waves to a program like this?
@@lemming7188 Divide the screen into a grid, and give each cell a vector, make the cells influence their neighbors, make them change color depending on the intensity of the vector.
Some thing like that, thou I'm sure there are dozens of ways of implementing this, and probably all of them run faster than my idea.
@@lemming7188 wery good question. My suggestion about waves is more joke than offer. But i think waves could be a carrier's of powers like in real world. The simulation have a lot of powers. Every link between particles with different color is power. Every power would be an elastic plane and every particle would pertrub the plane. Waves move on plane and influence to other particles.
Of course, it is very complicated. And it will be absolutely not same programm.
Hmmm whoop whoop pump the brakes there sonny…just adding waves will NOT give you QM
@@christhorne116 Adding stochasticity to maxwellian electrodynamics is enough to produce the results of QM in the linear regime. Adding non-local sources (wave-like rather than point-like) to that would probably be enough to capture at least some of the non-linear QM phenomena.
Hihetetlen, milyen egyszerű csak maga a létezés, a kölcsönhatások elkerülhetetlenek.
Kiváló leképezése még ennek is, amit írtam..
Gratulálok!
What a great piece of work! This is even more amazing than Game Of Life. You HAVE to do a 3D version.
I came here to know about Particle Life and learned more philosophy. Tysm for the video, it looks absolutely splendid!
"I know this universe is set up against me" - Had a solid chuckle 😂. Rock on brother, really nice work.
"Perhaps if the density here was slightly offset, I would have been a millionaire, but I knew; 'this universe is set up against me'" hahahaha I feel you brother
Thanks a ton for offering the source code in C++, too. I'm definitely going to spend too much time tinkering with sliders now.
This is the best video i've seen on RUclips for a very, very long time
If there's one sentence I have to say about this channel to this man ... that sentence would be:
Don't never ever stop ...
Please!
This is by far the most interesting cell simulation i have seen
This video is profound and I will be using it in my discussions about the nature of the universe. I hear many people claim that complex multicellular life cannot come from simple rules without intervention. This program demonstrates very well that simple particles with simple rules can make things that look like complex organic cells. Limiting yourself to attraction and repulsion was a good decision, because they are very simple rules that can be related to the Fundamental Forces like Gravity and Electromagnetism which most people are familiar with. I think abiogenesis is not as unlikely as some would claim, and we are always finding experiments and demonstrations like this that chip away at proving that it's possible and probable.
The rules are not simple. There's a lot of things that needed to happen before these 'simple' rules were written. Like the intelligence of the mind required sit down and write it, and all the technological developments nessesary before you can even type the first keystroke of code etc etc.
Also. These examples are very chaotic unstable and unpredictable, which is a very different situation than the world we actually live in.
With enough tweaking of the settings and variables eventually you might find something more akin to the behavior of life or particle physics as we would recognize in the universe, but at that point the simplicity suggested here is no longer simple.
I love this project because it really does get you thinking about the fundamental nature of things.
Like who added the code to "render the particles" lol or set them in motion, and then give them rules and boundaries of behavior.
@@kreendurron No. Artraction and repulsion are simple. There is no "particle rendering" there is just quantum fluctuations, and you're seeing the emergent "life" that is demonstrated in this video. There is no great renderer. There is a quantum universe that follows deceptively simple rules.
If we tweaked the settings then there would be a different universe. I see no reason why your god would choose this exact one. Your intelligent design theory is simply pride. Put it away.
@@chaotickreg7024 Particle Rendering is analogous to creation. Where did you get the particles from?
The process of this video demonstration is telling. First you need the particles. Now that they are there. You need to setup rules for the particle interactions once they are in motion.... then someone needs to say... okay go. And off they go. And they behave according to the established rules.
Questions the naturalists have to overcome... where did anything come from? If you say, it just was and is and is to come. How is that any different than "God just was and is and is to come?"
Why are there rules of attraction and repulsion? What set it into motion?
And why should I put it away? Because YOU said? I think not. Where's the fun in that?
@@kreendurron This is a god of the gaps fallacy. We can demonstrate everything all the way down to "Where did particles come from?" And scientists are happy to reply with "It is impossible for us to know at this point given the complete lack of information to go off of"
And then you come in like "ACTUALLY I can just use my intuition to go beyond the beginning of time, and what I see it an INTELLIGENT SUPER BEING that demonstrates nothing to us but must exist because I exist."
And I think that is an absurd proposition.
Instead, take a minute and consider the world from the perspective of "We might never know where particles are from, it's possible this all could gone very very different, but I'm glad the dice rolled in my favor." And then see if life still makes sense. It should. I've never seen anything that made me go "OBVIOUSLY emergent physics couldn't have done THAT" and so you're left with a creator god of gaps, and I hope even that gap gets closed before you lose your mortality.
@@kreendurron I think special relativity breaks the "universe as code" theory too. There is nothing that connects 2 objects over a distance, there is only the forces propagating from them. I cannot send information across a distance without disturbing the matter between me and my target. There is no stream of data connecting anything to anything else. Instead, it's more like every particle has to, on its own, compare passports and travel plans with every single particle around it.
There is no Main() function in this universe. This universe computer would require a processor with more cores than there are particles.
I deobfuscated Ventrella's code once a long time ago. I think it worked in a very similar way, with predicting the other particles positions, except I think in his the rules can be dynamically redefined for particles based on who they've encountered so far
1/d instead of 1/d^2 is actually more accurate for a 2D world.
Force fields are observed to conserve a flux, (number of field lines does not change). Inverse square law is a byproduct of having 3 spatial dimensions, force fields disperse as a surface (e.g. a sphere) which scales quadratically with radius. In a 2D universe force fields disperse as a line (e.g. a circle) which increases linearly with radius.
I am unsure if I have ever seen anything this amazing. Thank you so much for the open GitHub file man you’re a legend. I’m at my desk screaming.
I'm a little late to the party! Great work mate, I have been fascinated by this kind of emergent behaviour since hearing about boids and the simple rules applied to them, I will certainly be using your ideas as inspiration, thanks man.
I will add.. Your code example was easy enough to follow and well explained cheers again, I've got weird little thing with wings flying about in my browser :D
I can see that your content quality is improving. Keep it going.
Don't know why this is on my homepage but I'm glad it is!
Wow I am impressed ! This is genius man. This is so meta and also shows how life actually is formed cause of different behaviour of particles!
This has kickstarted an amount of coding and phylosophical questions inside of me that are beyond comprehension. This is amazing.
This video is as much a lesson in biology, programming, math, astronomy, and physics as it is a lesson in literature.
This is by far the best video I have ever seen explaining the idea of emergence. Kudos to you.
Very innovative. I’m a junior developer/Art & Designer. I would love to play with the code and make some nice visual elements. Imagine what you can come up with while using Zbrush, Maya, Blender and Unreal Engine.
do it
Just wanted to stop by and say this is the coolest fucking thing I've seen as a programmer for a long time. Got me excited even. I want to make one of my own now! Thanks stranger!
Wow. I’m really amazed of that little amount of views.. Your work is very cool, hope you get much more views and subs!
As I said in the video, this universe setup is against me!
Edit: OK now the views have increased dramatically. The settings of this universe may not be against me 😅
@@brainxyz Incredibly! xD
Off the top of my head, I think if you start with 1 particle/entity that can only attract or repel, you will end up with something more like the way the universe actually (is thought to have) emerged. But this is very exciting! Thx for the code; I will play around with it.
Wow! That stuff around 12:28 really resembles mitosis, crazy!
Mind blowing how little effort you put in it to generate this patterns. I think this is kind a proof of that life really apeard extendly
appeared what?
Please do an hour long video of just this! It's so satsifying.
This was... Mind-blowing !! 🤯
First introduction to code, and I understood mostly everything that matters,
in order to give life to all that "matter"'. Impressive !
Thank you
This video is amazing and underrated. I've been following life simulations as a hobby for a couple of years now and this is one of the most interesting ones I've come across in a while! It seems like a more advanced Boids, the organicness of the patterns, simplicity of the code and presentation is amazing.
My cell biology knowledge is a bit rusty, I think I remember polarity being an important factor in osmosis? I love the elegance of this simulation and would hate to ruin it, but I wonder if more complex mechanisms can be simulated by taking more inspiration like that from real life cells.
Edit: maybe I'll try recreating this (Don't know C++ so I'll have to go from scratch) and somehow add in lifespan and evolution to get changing cells... somehow... I'll have to think on it
Halo, Death Note, Veritasium... you're a man of culture, I see.
4:50 if you just take out the sqrt you can correctly calculate it squared and it's actually removing code.
I came here to say that, taking a squareroot is a very expensive operation. But I also think that the behaviour will significantly change due to the distance being quadratic, which means that attraction over long distances will be way stronger.
@@mccvargues7792 Just in case anyone reading this doesn't fully understand what y'all are talking about, they mean you square the check distance instead of taking the square root of the computed distance. So.. instead of if (CheckDistance < sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2)) you use if (CheckDistance^2 < (dx^2 + dy^2)) then, you are within the tested distance without having to call the computationally expensive sqrt function. Good suggestion you two!!
@@mccvargues7792 I think yes but I think you said the opposite.
he's using 1/d instead of 1/d^2
if he excluded the sqrt d would become d^2
and 1/d^2 would make the interaction between particles get weaker as distance increases than 1/d.
So yes the behavior would change.
But you'd be using the correct formula for gravity as he mentioned for less effort.
And the interaction has become weaker for greater distances.
just gotta say the music from death note being used as a backdrop to your quick coding made me laugh pretty hard, all it needed was an overly dramatic reading of the script and it'd be a true death note scene XD
i'll take a canvas...
AND DRAW IT!
This is friggin cool. A "randomize" button in the C app would be amazing
It might be a good first pull request to the repo
@@JB-fh1bb Its number 7 apprently.
@@waterpicker6879 🎉
I like that you give the code. You have to play around with it yourself. The complexity from simplicity is staggering and hard to believe. It is the same flight of imagination as the cellular machine life by Conway. the behaviour of it's attractors resembles eukaryotic life and it lacks the quantisation artifacts of Conway's game. I urge everyone to play with this.
Amazing work! It'd be a million times better if combine this with evolution-like process. What I can think of:
1. Add a new type of object, let's call it "nucleus"
2. Genetic information: Each nucleus stores the information of formation of particles in polar coordinates to it. e.g. red: [ [1, 90], [2, 45] ], blue: [ [2, 60] ]
Each will be spawned surrounded by other particles arranged according to the gene.
3. Metabolism: Each time there's another type particle that is close enough to a nucleus, it will "eat" it and increment a counter of that particle inside it. e.g. red++.
4. Reproduction: When there's enough particles eaten to satisfy the number of particles of each type needed for the genetic code e.g. red == 2, blue == 1, another one of this nucleus will be spawned elsewhere
5. Mutation: For each reproduction process, there's a chance of a small change in the genetic code.
6. Death: Each time a particle that a nucleus "owns" is eaten or gone too far, the HP of that nucleus is reduced. If it's 0, the nucleus dies.
7. Growth: The genetic information can be split into stages and the nucleus will need to consume enough particles to go to its next stage. It means the consumed particles will be respawned around the nucleus based on the next stage's gene. Reproduction will be done after the last stage is reached.
Technically shouldn't analogues of all of these sorts of processes (hopefully) emerge with the right fine tuning of parameters?
@@jonrjeffrey I think it should, but it would require orders of magnitude more particles, and particle types. The synthetic nucleus there should act like a shortcut that represents a mechanism that would require tons and tons of particles to function.
This is a textbook example of Intelligent Design. Good work guys - you are helping prove, once and for all, that life requires a creator.
You have no idea what you are talking about, or how foolish your comment makes you look
i'm no physicist but these remind me a lot of how I imagine electron shells in atoms.
several of them resembled ice crystals at times too
no such thing as electron shells in an atom.... think it more like a magnetic & dielectric field emanating from the atom, with the field having certain properties that can be "measured as electrons, and the size of the field." As the great physicists JJ Thompson stated, an electron is simply 1 unit of dielectric induction.
this is something i found interesting about coding
"This cell has learned to teleport"
*Omae wa mo shindeiru*
*NANI?!*
Wow. The video was not just a programming demo but a story in and of itself!
Because of the music, I kept waiting for him to say "And I will become the god of a new microworld"
The online demo is great, thank you! It seems that every random rule-set has something interesting going on.
is this based on rule-set ?
Very beautiful project, I loved every part of it. Very interesting to see a Chladni Pattern emerge at 9:09 // these are known to be the nodal lines of a resonant body, and they literally plot Helmholtz equations solutions in function of frequency, the latter being quite omnipresent in any kind of physics, and even in neuroscience, structuring the causality within brain waves. Cheers
This comment made me go down a delicious rabbit hole. Thanks
Chladni is goat
This is way cool! I’d love to see more stuff like this! It’d be interesting to see what kind of self-organizing patterns could emerge from more than 4 fundamental particles, and/or with additional dynamical interactions
Glad to see complexity theory become more and more mainstream and well-explained
With your foundation, this will allow others create more complex simulations of life
You're a genius, I'm absolutely amazed with how much effort and creativity you put on this project, plus you got a nice taste of music 👌🏻
Some of the instabilities could be a result of simulating in discrete domain. Different sample time: if you multiply all the forces by 0.5, record the simulation and play it at 2x speed, the results with fast moving particles (e.g. instabilities) will be different.
There are also continues domain solvers, but understandably that would make it not very approachable.
This is a nice expansion of particle life simulations I knew I had seen long ago. After some digging, "particle life" seems to be the key search term. The first version in this vein appears to be from 2016, but the rules were simplified to be more like we see here in videos around 2018.
You are a genius
in the matter of fact, real force between any two particles in this model is always the same and equals 'g' parameter.
just note, that x component of force is g * dx / d, and y component is g * dx / d. if you just calculate total 'length' of this force, you'll get
f = sqrt((g * dx / d)^2 + (g * dy / d)^2) = sqrt(g^2 * (dx * dx + dy * dy) / d^2) = g * sqrt(d^2 / d^2) = g.
so force between two points is always constant, regardless on the distance, we just need to decompose it on axes depending on dx and dy. the limit 80 just makes the force to be zero outside this radius. I think the value of 80 just determines the radii of the circles that we see in the video
This is cool! I typed in the js code, tweaked it a little*, and made a fish! :D (I wasn't setting out to make a fish, but that's what it looks like to me.)
* added two parameters to rule(), one is the maximum distance for interaction (80 by default, as in your code), and the other is an option to do 1/d² instead of 1/d. Also a few other tweaks, but I think those are the most noteworthy. The rest was just playing with rules.
This was really interesting. It reminds me of the artificial flocking algorithm, where you can get interesting behavior from simple rules. I never considered what the effects of multiple entities might look like. It makes the idea of emergent life seem more plausible, because in our universe we seem to have these atomic units with various attractive and repulsive forces at different scales, and its easier to visualize how things can group together and create more complex systems.
0:55 reminds me a lot of a recent simulation of a proton model (quarks + gluons)
I saw it also, had to scroll and use ctrl+F to find the word Proton to find you :D
Wow, you so clearly demonstrated how life emerged with this simulation
Yooo this is amazing!
I've seen a couple simulations like this in the past (eg. by "Particle Life" by Code Parade) but this is far more complex than what I saw so far. Good job!
I tried making a simulation like this myself in the Unity game engine but the performance sucked and I ran into some issues...
Shameless self promotion: I made a 'slime' simulation inspired by one of Sebastion Lague's videos and uploaded a little showcase of that on my channel :P
It brings me so much joy seeing complex behaviour emerging from simple rules :D
Kuwertzel, Unity is a "fourth" level programming language. Physical logic gates -> Machine language -> Programming languages (C, Fortran, etc) -> Fourth level languages (Unity, Mathematica, etc).. That is to say, Unity has something like C between it and the machine code. Generally, the more user-friendliness you have, the less efficient the physical machine (CPU) is given instructions.
Maybe you already knew, but it's why your program will run (very) slow when coded in Unity.
@@zbnmth This is just plain wrong. I've written Particle Life in JS (fnky/particle-life on GitHub) and its performance is fine. This is without much optimisations (no WebGL shaders, just Canvas and purely running on the CPU).
Unity is first of all, not a programming language, but an engine. Secondly, any language can be slow if you don't know about pitfalls that are usually general to every language; i.e. allocating within a deeply nested loop can be very slow if not cached or managed properly. Doesn't matter whether you write Rust, C++, C or even Assembly.
The important part is to understand those pitfalls and how to use the language to avoid them. C#'s runtime (CLR) is fast and is used in many applications, more complex than this. Not only that but your C# code is also heavily optimized through Roslyn before being translated into MSIL/CIL and then to machine code by the JIT compiler.
Super supervideo! I followed your instruction to write the script code. My browsers (Chrome, Firefox and Edge) don't like the "Let" inside the for instructions. Without the Let keyword it works good. The behavior is slightly different depending on the browser because Firefox it's very fast while Edge is the slowest and I slightly changed some parameter affecting velocity. Great great work!
It would be interesting to see what happens with a more sophisticated integration algorithm, such as Runge-Kutta for the force-acceleration-velocity-position.
smoother but slower motion
@@anywallsocket Sure, but I'm more I'm thinking things like preservation of momentum and energy.
@@FreeScience the dynamics will evolve differently, but only slowly as a divergence. The chaotic nature of the system will quickly override any predictability anyway.
His integration scheme is broken. He is isn’t accumulating forces and stepping, he is collecting forces and stepping at the same time.
Brilliant. I was searching for life simulations and found your video which goes very quickly from a simple dance between two yellow dots to the whole mega freakin universe thing with all its complexity. Well done! Now, me go programming. . . .
Really great work! It would be amazing to put this into Unity 3D and also add the third dimension along with some smooth random camera interpolations to view everything.
Really neat!
I actually never thought that a set of particles' relation to one another is as simple as 1 is attracted to itself but simultaneously repels another. Now, it seems ez to explain
I wonder if you could also simulate some form of particle physics with a set of simple rules.
just as we can code this basic form of life/particles with physics, imagine our world is a simple throwaway code toy to some higher being in a higher universe. I guess the througline which we didn't code was math itself, and the emergent phenomenon
This is incredibly cool and I love the walkthrough of the code. I have a question. You have some rules like rule(green, yellow, f1) and rule(yellow, green, f2). It looks to me that's equivalent to rule(green, yellow, f1+f2). Is that so?
Uh, no, looking closer at the code now I see that rule() only updates atoms in the first group. So you can have asymmetrical forces which is really "non newtonian" but is probably what allows the emerging patterns. Very cool.
Nice observation! but I don't think so because these rules specify uni-directional relationships
@@OscarLazzarino Yes to make it symmetric f1 should be equal to f2.
Asymmetrical forces don't exist at the atomic level but I guess it is abundant at the level of large compounds, proteins, and enzymes
@@brainxyz all forces are symmetrical in real life according to Neuton's 3rd law. But this asymmetry might be why your simulation makes such interesting results, so imo it is a good thing.
@@brainxyz also there is no conservation of energy because of the asymetry. But again, I think it is cooler
Evolution in a nutshell. Awesome delivery of this concept that people think is beyond science.
I would really like to see this code running in 3d in a software like blender
That would be pretty insane... I think it would be easiest to create in the open source node-based programming language Processing with the P3D renderer.
I am gonna do this but instead of blender am using a 3d game engine Coppercube
@@captainvenom7252 If you ever do that, I would love to use footage for a music video :) Good luck!
this got philosofical really quickly.
also i wanted to point out that the cbm is a product of the electrons recombining with the nucleous all across the universe at the same time and emiting gamma radiation. the cooler and hotter areas are of course denser and less dense areas but only diferenced by a fraction of a degree yet causing massive diferences in the end. the recombination era takes place 370k ish years after the big bang and the cbm shows the effects on slight differences that existed since the very begining (you have to think that the universe was a lot smaller and denser during the big bang meanig that these diferences were even smaller)
🤓🤓🤓🤓
1:25 Corona anybody? 😂
You can't unseen it now.