This man is releasing so many Isaac runs a day. NL please keep it up. I can’t watch your streams live sadly, but I think your streamed Isaac runs have had some of my favorite jokes from you to date. Dross Geller still gets me.
I feel like you could clip most of Northernlion's banter moments and use it as an ad for the importance of mental health care. Like that one section with the maniacal laughter. I mean this with the utmost respect and admiration, Ryan. I wouldn't be here for 8 years otherwise.
That thought experiment is the dumbest shit. 1st you’d be risking $900 dollars to potential gain $100. The 2nd your risking paying $100 more to potential save $900...not equivalent risk/pay off at all
Thank you. I came down here to see if anyone else had pointed this out yet because I was stunned when Ryan said "obviously the mathematics are roughly equivalent"
But you are not implementing the chances. Repeat this experiment 10.000 times and you will see that it does not matter which options you choose, despite having a very strong bias towards one option.
@@MinecraftCoolCreeper the chances don’t matter at all if the payoff to risk isn’t equal. One is betting $900 for 1/9 the return, the other is betting $100 for 9 times the return. If you repeat it 10,000 times sure it’ll be equal. The numbers multiplied out are the same but for someone to be given the option once it makes no sense to risk $900 which is the crutch of the thought experiment. The greater payoff is what creates the bias not the thought of losing vs. keeping
@@Sketch_Study I can recommend reading the book, he explains further what they found in research and how a more humanlike method of risk/reward can be calculated. The important point is that on average the return is the same, despite having such a strong bias towards one option.
@@MinecraftCoolCreeper the return is the same when risk is taken every time yes. That does not make the risk of both options equal. That does not make the reward of both options equal. How NL stated it makes it sound stupid to choose one over the other, when really there’s less incentive to take the risk of losing $900. If you look at it in a vacuum of you can only say yes then they’re equal but there is more beneficial opportunity to one side then the other. The bias is not some misconception of the result.
NL talking about loss aversion and endowment effects makes me really happy. NL if you read this, put Deaths of Despair by Anne Case and Angus Deaton on your reading list! I think you'll like it
17:55 I love how NL blasts weebs all the time while being a Marvel fan... "Oh the good guys beat the bad guys for the 37th time!! Poggy!! I didn't expect that"
I work in food service and I don't know what kind of pears NL eats. All of our canned pears have a funky gristle to them. Canned peaches, however, have heavy pog energy.
The conclusions they drew from the risk reward ($900 vs 90% for $1000) dilemma are fundamentally flawed. It doesnt make sense to take risk on a gain because the risk vs reward factor only nets you an extra hundred dollars in your favor vs the alternative. But on the loss, the risk vs reward factor is a THOUSAND dollars in your favor by taking the 90%, at only a hundred dollar risk vs the alternative. Their logic doesn't make sense. The difference in choices in the gain vs loss scenarios is literally just people taking the mathematically better option...
@@TheRealPunkachu How so? I literally clarified the 90% odds right in my explanation. Just because there are 2 outcomes it doesnt automatically imply a equal probability. Edit: Actually here, let me just restate it in more accurate terms: In the GAIN scenario option A is a guaranteed +$900, so choosing option B is a 90% chance for +$100 extra, and a 10% chance for $0 (basically a loss of -$900 vs choice A). In the LOSS scenario option A is a guaranteed -$900, so choosing option B becomes a 90% chance for -$100, or a 10% chance for -$0 (which is basically a gain of +$900 vs choice A). When you think of it like that, its literally a no brainer that taking the risk on the GAIN scenario is dumb because you have a 10% to loose WAY more than you gain from the risk, but the risk on the LOSS scenario is smart because you stand to gain WAY more than you lose from the risk. Mathematically it works out over an infinite number of rolls that you stand to gain/lose an equal amount for both options in each scenario, but we're only taking ONE roll. And, at only +/-$100 the margin of risk is too low to matter at all.
@@dethloard Mathematically it works out over ONE roll. A 10% chance of a 900 gain is equivalent to a 90% chance of a 100 gain. You do not stand to gain more than you lose from the risk, because you only stand to gain it in a very small minority of situations. You can't say that something "works out over an infinite number of rolls" and then say ONE roll is different when you're taking the exact same roll every single time. That's not how math works. The 'risk averse' option in both cases is to not do the roll, and the 'risk seeking' option in both cases is to do the roll.
@@TheRealPunkachu gain. If the difference was more than $100 in each case you would get completely different answers because of the magnitude of the risk reward. Because you DO stand to gain more (in other words the POTENTIAL reward for taking the risk is greater), even if it is at a lower probability. If they wanted to directly compare the risk aversion of a 10% chance for 900 gain vs a 90% chance for a 100 gain that is a completely different scenario, an thus unfair to draw the conclusions they did for this scenario. Both situations are effectively -gain- oriented when you distill it to the mathematical basis, as you have proven. So saying that people are pro/adverse risk in gain vs loss scenarios is an unfair conclusion, since both are effectively gain scenarios with flipped odds when distilled. If anything all they’ve proven is that people are more willing to take risk at low odds for a large gain and high odds small loss than take a risk at high odds for small gain and low odds for a large loss. Which, again, is very different. Edit: Which sounds better as an individual if you don’t really understand the odds? “Pay $100 for a small chance at $1000” or “Pay $900 for a large chance at $1000”. That’s basically the study they made.
17:00 If I have 0 $ and you give me 900, that's a big deal. If you take 1000$ instead of 900, that's not as big of a deal. It's still maths, it's not only that we take bigger risks when we stand to lose.
Pause with book of virtues is also strong as hell. Every time the pause wisp dies, time stops for 2 seconds and you can move about freely. Broken combo if you have stacked soul hearts.
With every episode I'm more and more convinced that Northernlion might be the voice actor for Oswald in Dark Souls 1. That "ack ack ack ack" laugh is just too similar. xD
The idea of the 900 dollar gain vs 1000 gain and then having that be swapped to a loss seems like a logical fallacy to me. In the first example you have a garrentied chance at 900 dollars meaning you can count that as money you have, why then risk all 900 of that on a 10% chance at gaining a meager 100 dollars more. In turn the other example is a garrentied 900 dollar loss, so it would make perfect sense to risk only 100 dollars at a chance at eliminating the 900 dollar loss. So it isn't really a balanced equation at all. In example A 900 dollars is at risk and in example B 100 dollars is at risk
That anecodte NL had about the book raising the bias of people's risk taking vs losses and gains is an extremely bad example. In that scenario, the reason the bias exists is because the risk reward scenario is weighted- in the gains you're risking the guaranteed $900 on a 10% chance, for a relatively insignificant increase of $100, whereas in the losses scenario you're risking losing that extra $100 on the 10% chance to come out relative to the other option +$900. I don't think it's that good a show of bias when the actual risk to reward is different for each scenario.
I am so happy to see an episode posted right now.. I was sad that I finished the other one before going to bed and had nothing left to watch. Thanks a lot NL. Hope you're well
The thought experiment doesn't actually say much about accepting risk depending on gain/loss. The problem here is the difference between the best case scenario, the worst case scenario and the consistent option. The potential options for both cases are $1000 - $900 - $0. In the first case you could always get $900 or you could take a risk for $100 more while also risking getting nothing. Compared to $900, $100 isn't all that much so it isn't really worth the risk of getting nothing. However, in the second case, everything is reversed. The default is losing $900 and you can try to lose nothing while risking losing an extra $100. At that point losing an extra $100 isn't all that bad so you might as well try for the long shot so you can lose nothing.
I know I need to go to bed when I got tilted at the "Jimmy" Bit. You only count as a Jimmy if you go by Jimmy. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmie Johnson, Jimmy Hoffa etc.
On the subject of the "guaranteed $900 VS 90% chance at %1000", the reason it flips when you lose instead is because you want to give the other person the worse option i.e. the one you wouldn't choose. Why take the chance when you only *gain* an extra $100. Why *not* take the chance when you only *lose* an extra $100
My theory on the $900/$1000 thought experiment is that being given money is less valuable than it is damaging to have money unexpectedly taken away. If there is a chance that you don’t have to have something taken away, you are much more likely to take that chance because it would have a greater impact difference.
honestly it's a case where lossing $900 would be devastating where i have no idea how i would cover it. raising it 100 would basicly mean nothing to me so the 10% chance to to be ruined... yeah that has value.
Worm is amazing! That said, it's probably too long for NL to ever read it. Also I gotta plug Wildbow's current serial, Pale. Honestly might be the best thing he's written. It's the perfect combo of heartwarming and horrifying. Half the characters feel like they came from a Junji Ito manga but are also somehow sweet and lovable.
Day 1 of telling NL to adjust his HUD offset, and that curse rooms and sac rooms don't take deal chance anymore. I know I'm setting myself up for spoilers, but oh baby, I'm willing to take the chance.
The $900 logic is dumb. In the first scenario you're gaining 900 with option 1. Then, with option 2, you can risk the 900 to gain 100. In the second scenario option 1 you're losing 900. Then, with option 2, you're risking 100 for a 10% chance to not lose the 900. Saying risking 100 to potentially gain 900 and not risking 900 to only gain 100 means you're more risk adverse when gaining vs when losing is dumb.
It turns into the cracked key when you are moving backwards through the levels on the true ending. The cracked key unlocks the door that holds the alt version of the character you are using.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
If there's one thing that NL is amazing at in Isaac, it's his ability to survive as long as possible in the most garbage of runs.
Just busting out a whistle of Bad Romance like it's nothing. What dad energy is this? He's just too powerful these days.
ever since repentance came out, it's all isaac all the time.
and i love it.
Yes It’s bc he uploads his twitch Vods into parts and I hope he keeps doing it
These uploads are making my boring Sunday night so much nicer
Tough times don’t last, only NL’s Bethany run
This man is releasing so many Isaac runs a day.
NL please keep it up. I can’t watch your streams live sadly, but I think your streamed Isaac runs have had some of my favorite jokes from you to date. Dross Geller still gets me.
I feel like you could clip most of Northernlion's banter moments and use it as an ad for the importance of mental health care. Like that one section with the maniacal laughter. I mean this with the utmost respect and admiration, Ryan. I wouldn't be here for 8 years otherwise.
I can't believe that Jimmy Fallon's Among Us Stream chat was filled with NSFW ASCII art
let's absolutely go, was HANKERIN for more repentance content so this is a pleasant surprise
THE POG JUST KEEPS BEING UPLOADED BABY FUCK YEAH MONDAY
I like how NL gets louder when Isaac's mother is pleading with the father as if he's trying to avoid some memories.
Like he says in one of the RUclips videos: vibing makes emotions less awkward, or so it goes.
Some of the abuse subtext kinda sets me off, can't imagine what it does to people that had it worse than me
That thought experiment is the dumbest shit. 1st you’d be risking $900 dollars to potential gain $100. The 2nd your risking paying $100 more to potential save $900...not equivalent risk/pay off at all
Thank you. I came down here to see if anyone else had pointed this out yet because I was stunned when Ryan said "obviously the mathematics are roughly equivalent"
But you are not implementing the chances. Repeat this experiment 10.000 times and you will see that it does not matter which options you choose, despite having a very strong bias towards one option.
@@MinecraftCoolCreeper the chances don’t matter at all if the payoff to risk isn’t equal. One is betting $900 for 1/9 the return, the other is betting $100 for 9 times the return. If you repeat it 10,000 times sure it’ll be equal. The numbers multiplied out are the same but for someone to be given the option once it makes no sense to risk $900 which is the crutch of the thought experiment. The greater payoff is what creates the bias not the thought of losing vs. keeping
@@Sketch_Study I can recommend reading the book, he explains further what they found in research and how a more humanlike method of risk/reward can be calculated.
The important point is that on average the return is the same, despite having such a strong bias towards one option.
@@MinecraftCoolCreeper the return is the same when risk is taken every time yes. That does not make the risk of both options equal. That does not make the reward of both options equal. How NL stated it makes it sound stupid to choose one over the other, when really there’s less incentive to take the risk of losing $900. If you look at it in a vacuum of you can only say yes then they’re equal but there is more beneficial opportunity to one side then the other. The bias is not some misconception of the result.
NL talking about loss aversion and endowment effects makes me really happy. NL if you read this, put Deaths of Despair by Anne Case and Angus Deaton on your reading list! I think you'll like it
Hey NL, just finished watching the last one, insanely hyped to see this, was literally just wishing there was more to watch
Check twitch there likely is more
17:55 I love how NL blasts weebs all the time while being a Marvel fan...
"Oh the good guys beat the bad guys for the 37th time!! Poggy!! I didn't expect that"
wasn't team unity minecraft like 50% blasting marvel?
that wasn't a weeb blast, that was specifically a hxh blast
yeah man that's never happened in anime
I love watching your videos especially while I'm in the hospital they help me feel better thank you and please keep up the great work
NL got me through my hospital stay too
I work in food service and I don't know what kind of pears NL eats. All of our canned pears have a funky gristle to them. Canned peaches, however, have heavy pog energy.
Dole.
"You know he can't whistle"
😆
The conclusions they drew from the risk reward ($900 vs 90% for $1000) dilemma are fundamentally flawed. It doesnt make sense to take risk on a gain because the risk vs reward factor only nets you an extra hundred dollars in your favor vs the alternative. But on the loss, the risk vs reward factor is a THOUSAND dollars in your favor by taking the 90%, at only a hundred dollar risk vs the alternative. Their logic doesn't make sense. The difference in choices in the gain vs loss scenarios is literally just people taking the mathematically better option...
Your reasoning implies the two situations are equally likely. That's not the case.
@@TheRealPunkachu How so? I literally clarified the 90% odds right in my explanation. Just because there are 2 outcomes it doesnt automatically imply a equal probability.
Edit:
Actually here, let me just restate it in more accurate terms:
In the GAIN scenario option A is a guaranteed +$900, so choosing option B is a 90% chance for +$100 extra, and a 10% chance for $0 (basically a loss of -$900 vs choice A).
In the LOSS scenario option A is a guaranteed -$900, so choosing option B becomes a 90% chance for -$100, or a 10% chance for -$0 (which is basically a gain of +$900 vs choice A).
When you think of it like that, its literally a no brainer that taking the risk on the GAIN scenario is dumb because you have a 10% to loose WAY more than you gain from the risk, but the risk on the LOSS scenario is smart because you stand to gain WAY more than you lose from the risk.
Mathematically it works out over an infinite number of rolls that you stand to gain/lose an equal amount for both options in each scenario, but we're only taking ONE roll. And, at only +/-$100 the margin of risk is too low to matter at all.
@@dethloard Mathematically it works out over ONE roll. A 10% chance of a 900 gain is equivalent to a 90% chance of a 100 gain.
You do not stand to gain more than you lose from the risk, because you only stand to gain it in a very small minority of situations. You can't say that something "works out over an infinite number of rolls" and then say ONE roll is different when you're taking the exact same roll every single time. That's not how math works.
The 'risk averse' option in both cases is to not do the roll, and the 'risk seeking' option in both cases is to do the roll.
@@TheRealPunkachu gain. If the difference was more than $100 in each case you would get completely different answers because of the magnitude of the risk reward. Because you DO stand to gain more (in other words the POTENTIAL reward for taking the risk is greater), even if it is at a lower probability. If they wanted to directly compare the risk aversion of a 10% chance for 900 gain vs a 90% chance for a 100 gain that is a completely different scenario, an thus unfair to draw the conclusions they did for this scenario. Both situations are effectively -gain- oriented when you distill it to the mathematical basis, as you have proven. So saying that people are pro/adverse risk in gain vs loss scenarios is an unfair conclusion, since both are effectively gain scenarios with flipped odds when distilled.
If anything all they’ve proven is that people are more willing to take risk at low odds for a large gain and high odds small loss than take a risk at high odds for small gain and low odds for a large loss. Which, again, is very different.
Edit:
Which sounds better as an individual if you don’t really understand the odds? “Pay $100 for a small chance at $1000” or “Pay $900 for a large chance at $1000”. That’s basically the study they made.
That prism is such a cool item!
17:00 If I have 0 $ and you give me 900, that's a big deal. If you take 1000$ instead of 900, that's not as big of a deal. It's still maths, it's not only that we take bigger risks when we stand to lose.
I love that NL is *still* giving Dan shit for that Spelunky video titled “Mommy?”
Still thinking about how it would take NL over two hours to read a single volume of Manga by the metric he gave in this video
Pause with book of virtues is also strong as hell. Every time the pause wisp dies, time stops for 2 seconds and you can move about freely. Broken combo if you have stacked soul hearts.
With every episode I'm more and more convinced that Northernlion might be the voice actor for Oswald in Dark Souls 1. That "ack ack ack ack" laugh is just too similar. xD
Loved the Jimmy talk because that was the name of the bully of my childhood, so I immediately thought of him when you said "Bottom 10 Jimmies"
At this point I just play your videos when I wanna sleep. Your voice is so soothing
The idea of the 900 dollar gain vs 1000 gain and then having that be swapped to a loss seems like a logical fallacy to me. In the first example you have a garrentied chance at 900 dollars meaning you can count that as money you have, why then risk all 900 of that on a 10% chance at gaining a meager 100 dollars more. In turn the other example is a garrentied 900 dollar loss, so it would make perfect sense to risk only 100 dollars at a chance at eliminating the 900 dollar loss. So it isn't really a balanced equation at all. In example A 900 dollars is at risk and in example B 100 dollars is at risk
was falling asleep to the video then I heard the goblin laugh and that woke me right the fuck up
That anecodte NL had about the book raising the bias of people's risk taking vs losses and gains is an extremely bad example. In that scenario, the reason the bias exists is because the risk reward scenario is weighted- in the gains you're risking the guaranteed $900 on a 10% chance, for a relatively insignificant increase of $100, whereas in the losses scenario you're risking losing that extra $100 on the 10% chance to come out relative to the other option +$900. I don't think it's that good a show of bias when the actual risk to reward is different for each scenario.
I am so happy to see an episode posted right now.. I was sad that I finished the other one before going to bed and had nothing left to watch. Thanks a lot NL. Hope you're well
The thought experiment doesn't actually say much about accepting risk depending on gain/loss. The problem here is the difference between the best case scenario, the worst case scenario and the consistent option. The potential options for both cases are $1000 - $900 - $0. In the first case you could always get $900 or you could take a risk for $100 more while also risking getting nothing. Compared to $900, $100 isn't all that much so it isn't really worth the risk of getting nothing. However, in the second case, everything is reversed. The default is losing $900 and you can try to lose nothing while risking losing an extra $100. At that point losing an extra $100 isn't all that bad so you might as well try for the long shot so you can lose nothing.
EGG MAN! Don’t make me do it
The rainbone tears are very pleasing on the ol eyeballs.
dear god the Issac just keeps coming and I couldn’t be happier
I know I need to go to bed when I got tilted at the "Jimmy" Bit. You only count as a Jimmy if you go by Jimmy. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmie Johnson, Jimmy Hoffa etc.
29:48 No you just place them down and you magically ignite them through your hopes and dreams... Of coarse you shoot them 5 head.
I got so triggered when he attacked the nobel prize for economics. Come at me bro
WAIT!? THAT'S THE ANDY GRIFFIN THEME SONG?! I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT SONG WAS FOR YEARS
As the youtube audience. I appreciate this run being here XD
On the subject of the "guaranteed $900 VS 90% chance at %1000", the reason it flips when you lose instead is because you want to give the other person the worse option i.e. the one you wouldn't choose.
Why take the chance when you only *gain* an extra $100. Why *not* take the chance when you only *lose* an extra $100
NL is quickly losing his mind on this run and i love it
Silver Jews mentioned, NL unbelievably pogged out of his mind
NL leaves the map covering the entire screen for 20 minutes
I've never had the overly fibrous pear that NL is describing, what is going on in canada
Great Vid Egg, love it
2:47 Now watch me shiii- sip.
Dunno if that was just a slip or intended but funny as hell.
I miss the video store. Renting movies and games and just vibing in there
I love the 'firewood' pears. I like them so crunchy, I have to check my teeth after to make sure I didn't chip any.
NL, if you haven't had the pleasure of book of virtues + shoop da woop... brace yourself, it's a doozie.
Then I heard NL to repeatedly say “dick” in Russian for almost 5 secs, I was pogged. Hui Hui Hui
My theory on the $900/$1000 thought experiment is that being given money is less valuable than it is damaging to have money unexpectedly taken away. If there is a chance that you don’t have to have something taken away, you are much more likely to take that chance because it would have a greater impact difference.
honestly it's a case where lossing $900 would be devastating where i have no idea how i would cover it. raising it 100 would basicly mean nothing to me so the 10% chance to to be ruined... yeah that has value.
Listening to this while writing a paper for my behavioral economics class!
Gosh, I sure do hope NL will badly sing songs to cover up all the dialogue on the way to Home.
Someday, I have faith he'll stop burning his spirit hearts for no reason instead of hoarding them for late game
There is an ACTIVE pic-a-flick in town on Vancouver Island still. It's an odd place.
"There's gotta be like some Jimmys who've committed murder"
boy do I have some news for you about Jimmy Carter's war crimes
In my country it's legal to photocopy something like up to 10% of a book. Not sure if it's just in the library
Hey egg, RUclips just asked me to rate this video and I gave it 5 stars
Drinking Bubly blackberry. NL put me on
This and king of retail keep me going
NL the ace cards now convert enemies into consumables
I've always bought when I was depressed and sold when I was high, and I can tell ya, it's REALLY not working for me. :'(
Pineapple was my pick for best canned fruit.
Im not surprised to hear that my man likes the silver jews
Im a big fan myself ;)
22:30 naw i agree having a physical collection is the best
would someone like to link me where the "24 hour ban - permanent" comes from?
3:21 [Northernlion Act 3]
Monday steak X Happy days theme bit had legs.
Oh my god I thought he fricked it when he picked up starter deck like when he picked up the extra pill space item and couldn't get cracked key
NL wheres the grey anatomy letsplay 🥺
NL, where's the Hollow Knight letsplay?
Did they make bumbo a boss? Lol is it bekuz of that abysmal game?
Bumbino is an Antibirth boss.
Bumbo game wasn’t that bad IMHO. Match 3 genre game which requires functional brain
NL should read Worm the webnovel. Its about being a villian.
Worm is amazing! That said, it's probably too long for NL to ever read it. Also I gotta plug Wildbow's current serial, Pale. Honestly might be the best thing he's written. It's the perfect combo of heartwarming and horrifying. Half the characters feel like they came from a Junji Ito manga but are also somehow sweet and lovable.
9:35 that's called a library
Come on egg dad, hop on the new Monster Train content
1 minute into the episode: he’s going infinite
Day 1 of telling NL to adjust his HUD offset, and that curse rooms and sac rooms don't take deal chance anymore. I know I'm setting myself up for spoilers, but oh baby, I'm willing to take the chance.
I remember EGG saying that in the earlier vids that sac/curse rooms don't take the chance down any more so you can check that off the list.
@@sidveeka I'm a picky guy, I wanna see him use this knowledge.
@@Sickmmaner what does that even mean
@@Sickmmaner what? he uses curse rooms in this very episode before going to the boss
@@jiv3o275 when was this?
Tommy need trinky
Tommy need wingy
The $900 logic is dumb. In the first scenario you're gaining 900 with option 1. Then, with option 2, you can risk the 900 to gain 100. In the second scenario option 1 you're losing 900. Then, with option 2, you're risking 100 for a 10% chance to not lose the 900.
Saying risking 100 to potentially gain 900 and not risking 900 to only gain 100 means you're more risk adverse when gaining vs when losing is dumb.
Left a like for NL vibin thru the domestic abuse
Does anybody know the episode where he first encounters this way?
I'm pretty sure Jimmy Saville is the worst famous Jimmy. Kimmell, Fallon, and Eat World are pretty bad, but Saville is like 10000x worse.
I was gonna wait until someone in chat points that out to him but I guess he isn't that well-known outside of the UK.
This episode is when chat plays copyrighted music
24:54 to feel pain
Call Deboosey.
Make a baby compilation the moments are just so wholesome 😩
I understand the desire but there are frickin wierdos on the internet. Just pog when they happen, don't need a comp.
so is anyone going to tell nl he can sleeps in isaac's bed to heal without bringing it into the night side?
When you just finish a video and
Egg Dad gives you another one
i bet he can't whistle for the entire duration of an isaac episode
sorry if it's a dumb question but why does he leave trinkets behind
It turns into the cracked key when you are moving backwards through the levels on the true ending.
The cracked key unlocks the door that holds the alt version of the character you are using.
Eggtastic
Why does he keep using acquiesce incorrectly?
POG I GOT THE PRINTING GAME CORRECT
Oh Eggy
Why leave trinkets behind??
So many darn uploads is it Christmas?
I love egg baby
Anyone else thinks the bible (I know!) is incredibly strong on Bethany or with book of virtues in general?
@18:50 This is my experience with that new Demon Slayer... I got like 18 episodes in and asked "Why do I keep watching this... it's not that good..."
it's morally fine to scrape anything you can for free from Amazon