Amazing video by Technology Connections. It's a long one, but don't miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 152 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Thanks for mentioning the last 30 minutes, but for additional clarity, there is a fake ending 30 minutes before the actual ending. Please watch those last 30 minutes!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 116 points 9 months ago

    I will always upvote technology connections, I have watched so many videos of his about things I would have thought i couldn't care less about and enjoyed them all!

  • source
  • [–] 84 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    As someone not from the US, I can't say how much I appreciate the last part of his video. As much as I understand why YouTubers want to "keep politics out of entertainment", it's disappointing and makes me lose interest in some US content because it seems like they are ignoring what's going on around them.

    And about the batteries, that's unfortunately an argument I sometimes hear from skeptics. "What are we going to do with all those batteries?" they ask. I explain that they can mostly be recycled and like to ask what are we going to do with all the CO2 in the air, but apparently it's different. Ironically one of those persons is my father, that has a cabin with a solar system that I installed for him. He originally bought a generator but since it's very noisy to run only for some lights, he prefers using the battery bank powered by a few solar panels on the roof. I'd show him this video but he doesn't speak English and it's probably a lost cause anyway.

    We can only hope that at least a few people can be influenced by this video; both parts.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    For what it's worth, ALL technology connections videos have manually added English closed captions, not auto generated gibberish. It's some of the best captioning work I've ever seen. He actually takes the time to sync them to the auto/video, prevents spoiling jokes/punchlines, and adds an Easter egg at the end of most episodes (usually describing the smooth jazz outro).

    You might actually have decent luck using the subtitle translation feature built into YouTube, since it (machine) translates the actual words Alec is saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Alec is awesome. The content he makes isn't really my cup of tea, but I recognize that that man has some serious game.

    I don't find his videos to be entertaining, but they're so educational that I watch them anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    The political discussion taboo only serves 2 purposes. 1, keep the stupid comfortable. To them, politics isn’t about ideas but about identity and is treated like a religion. You aren’t challenging an idea, you are threatening their identity. 2, Don’t upset rich people. Everyone discussion politics openly is a threat to the rich. So if you make it taboo to discuss those things you make it so that only those not bound by that taboo may participate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 9 months ago

    That rant at the end really sums up my feelings as a Midwestern leftist. Hell the whole thing does honestly. But you treat people right, you make prudent decisions, and you treat labor with dignity and respect.

    I also really respect him for accepting when something that had been obvious to him (the value proposition of solar and electrification) turned out to have not been obvious to others so he cut the snark and explained his reasoning. It's an admirable display of character. But also, yeah it had been obvious to me as well.

    Probably not my favorite video of his, but definitely rhe one I respect the most

  • source
  • [–] 108 points 9 months ago (28 children)

    Great video. Completely breaks down the argument. You already knew this of you had been paying attention. Oil/gas for electricity generation in any form is DOA. It is insanely more expensive than solar + battery.

    Not to mention destructive to the environment and politically fraught with issues.

    To think if our government went all in it could provide dirt cheap limitless energy that would not cause lung disease or wars is staggering.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 9 months ago (27 children)

    But the rich would be only 0.987 as wealthy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (23 children)

    they'd probably be more wealthy from their heavy investments in renewable energy, which is more profitable than fossil fuels btw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Wondering now if paradoxically accelerating global warming increases stock ROI in renewables as the perceived value of renewable energy increases with the perceived/predicted level of global warming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    No, they are just after power, not money. They have a darwinist ideology to push.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago* (17 children)

    It's capitalism, power is wealth by definition. These are compatible concepts.

    By perceived value i mean speculation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    They use the aesthetics of capitalism to intellectualize and explain why we should not question their supremacy.

    In reality, capitalism does not in any way justify monopolization of natural resources, or the large-scale destruction of the environment.

    Capitalism is the ideology of thr petit-bourgeoisie, not the actual bourgeoisie. They are just social-darwinists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (10 children)

    I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term "social darwinism".

    There is no difference between "the aesthetics" of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist's actions in regard to benefitting society beyond "the market". Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (7 children)

    Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I'm trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they're two different things but with aesthetic overlap.

    Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It's about things and processes, not about people directly.

    Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can't support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    I see no point in making a differentiation between mechanism and the methodology to which that mechanism enables the most exploit.

    I disagree with your thought that capitalism optimizes work. It either ensures work is done many times over in parallel (competition) or arbitrarily based on the whims of the owner class (olig/monopoly), and that alternative/more efficient means are snuffed out where a more profitable option exists. It's an unstable and inefficient system that relies on civil expenditure (bail outs, infrastructure, etc) to function.

    The capitalist system that requires you labor to for food and shelter is exactly the same mechanism that rejects people, pushes them out, exposes them, and props up the wealthy class. Your "Social Darwinism" is a fundamental consequence capitalism, not an unrelated ideology that just happens to exist simultaneously. Capitalism drives people to do [more] evil. Then they rationalize their behavior to protect their ego and power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    I'm not making the claim that capitalism optimizes work, it's the claim that liberals make. I think it's important to actually study and understand what other people believe, and as I stated before the idea of capitalism does not allow destruction or monopolization of natural resources, or to block others from using natural resources in a responsible manner (which was the core problem with feudalism).

    The point is that billionaires are not liberals, and they don't believe in capitalism.

    I'm not arguing whether capitalism is a flawed theory of economics which naturally leads to either fascism, social darwinism, or some third thing. I'm arguing that billionaires actually do believe in social darwinism, which is a different thing than liberalism or capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (4 children)

    I think you're conflating liberalism with capitalism, which isn't really accurate.

    Capitalism can exist without liberalism, and this does lead into fascism, but that's still capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    No, I'm literally giving examples of how Adam Smith defined the foundations of capitalism, which both liberals and so-called conservatives normally favor as their preferred economic theory, and how these foundations contrast with a different philosophy favored by different people.

    Anyway, I'm done beating a dead horse here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Adam Smith didn't invent capitalism. It's not a philosophy, it was an economic system that emerged from certain material relations. Liberalism, and fascism, are just two of the ideological frameworks that can reproduce capitalism's material base and both of which emerge from the material base of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, I see, I guess we don't have to consider what liberals think and how they view the world, because after all we possess the objective truth and their opinions don't matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    How the hell did you read that from my comment?

    I'm saying we don't have to consider capitalism to have some kind of doctrine Orthodoxy, as if Adam Smith was a prophet and that deviations from liberalism aren't capitalist. It's still capitalism even if it isn't what Adam Smith envisioned.

    Billionaires believe in capitalism, even if they don't believe in liberalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You have less power but more wealth than a Mycenean king. You have a more steady diet that is healthier for you, with better healthcare, better housing, more time for leisure, less chance of being robbed or murdered or killed in battle, etc. etc. But the king could have people killed or tortured; he could send people to their deaths; pass judgment in any moral dispute between hundreds of his subjects; etc.

    The capitalist elite gladly loses wealth to gain power. And the power a rich person has over someone who must work for them to eat is incomprehensibly greater than the power a rich person has over someone who can eat regardless of whether they work for them. Thanks to ICE and other anti-immigration laws, rich people can effectively keep undocumented migrants as slaves again. What are they going to do? Complain and get themselves sent to a concentration camp?

    What do you think a billionaire would rather have? A hundred mansions, ten private jets, twenty yachts, and a thousand unionized employees; or ten mansions, one private jet, two yachts, and a hundred slaves?

    Wealth truly is not equivalent to power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I agree that wealth is not equivalent to power but I continue to assert that it is the fundamental concept of capitalism. It's rule by those who can exploit a market most effectively amassing the greatest amount of capital (by money/property value).

    I find wealth in having hobbies and relationships that don't return monetarily on my energy investment. This is incompatible with capitalism. While living under capitalism, i could have the highest quantity of relationships of the highest quality with other humans and it would still be worthless compared to someone with more capacity than me for taking on debt.

    I wonder if I'm being misinterpreted here so if it's unclear at this point; i see capitalism as a direct assault on our very humanity and a psychological disease that tears from us our empathy and feeling for one another through the pursuit of "wealth". I despise it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Except capitalists install Trump, who destroys wealth both for himself and for others. And they put incompetent nepo babies in positions of power where they waste multiple percent of profit. And they give golden parachutes to incompetent CEOs they hired. And they fire personnel only to replace them with consultants that are many times more expensive. And they run their own businesses rather than putting their money in an index fund for hired investors to play with. And they give millions to charities (derogatory) that have no realistic return on investment.

    Capitalists burn wealth constantly. Wealth accumulation is not the goal of capitalism, it's the score counter of a game they're playing for the sake of the game, and they will pay anything to keep playing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Those are just the games they play when they have wealth beyond an imagination of that number being consequential. They don't lose enough to change their status or power. Even when they spend it they just turn it into debt. The bank is happy at 3-5% interest and if you make 7-10% on that borrowed money then blowing the difference doesn't impact you at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Except they also play those games when they're the owner of a small company that can easily go bankrupt because of those games, or when they're middle managers engaging in office politics that threatens their steady paycheck, or when they're YUPpies working themselves into an early grave through the grindset, or when they're working class and vote to dismantle working class safety nets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    i don't think they're that far-sighted though it's probably a neat side-effect to them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Mmm... Well i think there are enough of them that think long term to maintain their institutions. The oil industry has been suppressing concerns about climate change and disaster for well over a century now

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    But what about the coal miners? 🥺 More importantly the coal mine owners, won't somebody please think of them? 🥺

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    A technology connections video with a 30 minite rant??
    watches video
    oh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago

    That last 30 minutes earned a new Patreon subscription. I hope this starts a trend.

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago

    Sometimes I've been feeling like I'm the weird one for caring about other people and the shit that's been going on. It's really nice to see someone as angry as I am.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago

    I have been watching his videos for years with great enthusiasm.

    If I ever meat him, it won’t be a handshake. That rant at the end deserves a hug. I love that antifascist energy that came pouring off him.

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    "A wind turbine is like an oil derrick that generates eq. 3 gallons of gasoline evry single minute."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Tbh I thought it would be more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Except the wind never runs out. Also we can use the energy from wind turbines 3x as efficiently as we can the energy from a barrel of oil. Carnot is a bitch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Wind sometimes runs out (as in, calm weather) and wind turbines do eventually run out after a few decades. But, 3 gallons of gasoline-equivalent per minute seemed a bit small for my intuition, so I did some back of the envelope calculations to compare it to pumpjacks for oil.

    I'm doing these calculations in metric, because the US traditional units are insane, and nobody should subject themselves to that.

    3 gallons is about 11.3L, so 11.3L per minute is 678 L per hour, or about 16 kL of "gasoline-equivalent" per day.

    Apparently a pumpjack pumps about 5 to 40 "barrels" of crude oil per day. A barrel is 159 L so that's 795 L to 6360 L per day.

    So, the back of the envelope "how much 'energy' does this big mechanical thing produce" seems fairly similar, ignoring a whole lot of complexity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (19 children)

    Anyone willing to share a tl;dw?

    EDIT: Okay so I watched the video and here's a tl;dw which by necessity will lack a lot of detail and nuance. The video is in two parts.

    The first part, an hour long, is about the slam dunk viability of solar panels as an energy source. In general, but most particularly in comparison to fossil fuel. The presenter underscores the real, deeper meaning of renewable energy sources and addresses many arguments made against solar power especially when it comes to scaling it up and in regards to its ecological impact. ngl, it's pretty jaw dropping, even if I already knew most of this.

    I was increasingly frustrated in the first part because I wanted to shout Do You Get Why This Is Not Happening? Do You Get Why This Renewable Energy Future Is Not Happening. So I was relieved to see that he does get it.

    The second part, about 30 minutes long, comes after a quick faux end credits. In this portion, he "goes there" and lays out not only why we are not moving into this future we could have, that is already here for us to have (to wit, money interests) but broadens into a reflection and indictment about the overall situation currently in the U.S.A. While dipping into partisan politics, he elucidates his personal operating principle and shows how it is a throughline into that topic. He did it in a way that pulled no punches while remaining, at least IMO, respectful

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 127 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    First hour: Developing a detailed intuition for exactly how solar and wind energy work and what makes them so much better than oil (without mentioning climate change or pollution)

    Last 30 min: Establishing a baseline moral framework that everyone can get behind, and explaining that under this framework a revolution against the Trump regime would be entirely justified but at a minimum we absolutely must vote against Republicans in the 2026 and 2028 elections.

    As someone in the comments put it: he explains solar and then goes nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Damn, I love his stuff anyway, but this time I'm looking forward to watching it just to see how he incorporates a call for revolution against his government into a video about solar panels, haha

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 90 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    I think all the information is pretty well-known in this community, but here's a summary:

    • Renewables (specifically solar + batteries) are an inevitable future of energy production due to technological advancements and economies of scale improvements; you should not oppose them but welcome them
      • We are at a tipping point where solar + batteries is now the cheapest energy source available
      • Land use for solar farms is not a big issue, they are much more energy efficient per unit area than the ethanol corn that currently plagues the US
      • Replacing all ethanol corn fields with solar farms would make almost twice as much energy as the US grid is currently producing
    • Renewables are better than fossil fuels because they do not require continuous extraction; when a solar panel or battery has been "used up" and is degraded, it can be recycled, whereas fossil fuels can only be burned once after extraction
      • The end goal is an almost-closed-loop system for all energy production, similar to what we have with lead-acid batteries already
      • Recycling solar panels is relatively easy because they are mostly glass and aluminum, which we know how to recycle well, and we could probably figure out silicon too
      • Recycling batteries is a harder problem but possible too if we put some effort in; currently the recycling capacity is lacking because there's not enough batteries being recycled, since most of them are still working fine in EVs sold since the start of EV boom
      • Worst-case, we can literally just grind up batteries into battery mush and refine it, same as we do with ores from which the raw materials come in the first place, but likely something better is possible
    • Alec describes his personal politics, how he values labor and working-class people, and how he thinks immigrants are hard-working people who need to be welcomed and cared for
      • Trump and Republicans as a whole are fascists and lie constantly, which needs to be called out and stopped
      • ICE must be abolished and its thugs tried for their crimes
      • Democrats are not doing enough, and in fact are pretty bad on some points, but it's still better to vote for them
      • People need to organize with their neighbors, care for each other first and foremost, and defend themselves against the government

    Alec's personal views are a relief, I think it's a shame he didn't go deeper into them before (IIRC he had a video where he called out right-wing misinfo but stopped short of any direct calls for action). I suppose the contrast between his usual "tech presenter/science explainer" and this clearly righteous political call for action might get through to some people better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    His social media is very political, he's on bluesky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Hell his YouTube is quite political if you understand the little p politics he expresses. When he talked about elevators and captioning he's been vocally in support of resources going to making the world more accessible to disabled people (and he puts his money where his mouth is, hand captioning all of his own videos). He's mostly been vocal about the need for doing something about climate change. Then there's also the video about algorithms that clearly originates from him being pissed about people wanting to invade Canada.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Any mention of nuclear energy and the difference of land and resources required in comparison?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Not directly, but a key point of his thesis is that solar by itself (with batteries) can provide 85% more power than we currently use by only using the land that currently grows corn for biofuel on. He mentions wind as well.

    Nuclear has its own lies spread about it that are completely independent of what renewables get and it has its own caveats, so, it does kind of make sense to not really bring it up since that could warrant its own video. Illinois has nuclear power, so, I can't imagine it was an accidental oversight.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -33 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] -33 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Gotta watch the video to find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Thanks for the detailed and thorough response

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Hahahahaha, funny interwebs person being a sarcastic edge! Such fresh comedic material, I've never encountered before

    Or maybe for some things, you just shouldn't... you're only hurting yourself in the end

    There's a time and place for things, and garnering the wisdom to find the subtleties of that is something you should probably work on

    Or continue forth being destructive for the lols and self-gratification, you're hilarious — truly. Enjoy the dopamine hit while it lasts!

    Big edit: sorry @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble ... I got whooshed hard. I now see that yes, the tldw is indeed "They're lying". I feel a little dumb now, as I thought you meant the youtuber was lying; not that you had (super) summarized the subject. Very concise tldw, technically lol

    Guess the video triggered me into also being tired of people lying, and thought you were being disinformative. My bad friend

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Oh fuck they broke Alec shit's bad

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Went from "ehh, its a long video. I'll watch it tomorrow" to "holy fuck..."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I actually stopped watching it at the hour mark because I had to make dinner but then I let it play while I worked and holy shit! This dude for president!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    This dude for president!

    Can you imagine what he could do? I mean, if he could focus on the President thing and not use his time in office to take apart washing machines and heat pumps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Technology Connections video in 2020: "This is a Sunbeam Radiant toaster"

    Technology Connections video in 2034: "This is an AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missile"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Just when I thought I couldn't like him more, he goes and drops this gigabased rant.

    TC for U.S president honestly

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Or even a governor or senator, he has the right ideas and ability to explain what is happening and what needs to be done

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    I like the guy. Really. But haven’t you seen what happens when people from entertainment become president?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Now that I've seen the type of people that seek political positions over a few decades, I would push Alec to run for some sort of local office. He's the exact opposite of the majority of assholes who enter politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Not finished it yet but it annoys me so much that for some reason it is VASTLY cheaper for me to buy a briefcase or two full of batteries for my house than it is for the same to be done in bulk at the scale of the grid.

    Just batteries would cut my energy costs to about a third of their current rate by charging them at cheaper off peak prices. Isn't it insane that this is a feature of the current energy market?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    It is in some markets. California PG&e has it, Texas is offering subsidies in some cities for it, and I've heard that it's becoming popular in the UK too (octopus iirc).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Only now do you start feeling the urgency of the situation, when usually apolitical channels have started discussing politics.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 86 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    "If you've been watching my channel for any length of time, then you should already have a pretty clear understanding of what my personal politics are. If you've been under the impression that I've not been political, you simply don't understand what politics means. I have indeed stayed out of partisan politics and electoral politics, but I've been wearing my personal politics on my sleeve this whole time, and they've not been that subtle."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    42 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    34 comments in c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world view that post
    22 comments in c/videos@lemmy.world view that post
    11 comments in c/videos@lemmy.world view that post
    8 comments in c/politicalvideos@lemmy.world view that post
    8 comments in c/videos view that post
    7 comments in c/mealtimevideos@lemmy.cafe view that post
    2 comments in c/politicalvideos@lemmy.world view that post