Honestly 6 and 7 are pretty fire to

Just realized that my fave is 2

@@dustinleask4252are you regarded? 💀

@@HughMungzthey are good

​​​@@HughMungzare you a little kid who believes that no one can like what you don't?yea, I don't need your answer to know it.

Oof

😂

Not*

It is a great show

"Yeah, welcome to the club, pal" is probably one of my favorite jokes in the entire show.

It was always a dwarf planet after 2006. I'm pretty sure that was a classification made exclusively for Pluto and many of the other bodies we now call dwarf planets like Eris, Ceres, etc. But, actually, Pluto's status as a planet is being revived by many astronomers and astrophysicists, who claim that the criteria for planethood created by the International Astronomical Union in 2006 being entirely based in cultural delusion and not grounded in science. The main rationale is, "What does Pluto not having a clear orbit make the other planets so special?" There is currently a push to redefine the word planet as "a celestial body that contains geological activity."

@@taiwandxt6493 Which would make thousands of celestial objects into planets as well. Like Eris and Ceres you mentioned. There's nothing special about Pluto that doesn't apply to many other trans-Neptunian objects. Either we keep the definition of planet as is, and there are 8, or we change it to include incomptably more. And, no, there isn't a push to reinstate it. I found what you're referring to. One team in Florida made a bibliographic study. That's not a push, that's not even really an argument. No, the consensus in the scientific community is that it's a done deal. Sure, there are always people who are going to disagree.

@Djorgal In all fairness, I didn't say it was a push that had any mainstream appeal, but it is one in which that study has kind of awoken in a minority of astrophysicists and astronomers. The consensus is a done deal, you're right, and tbh to me it doesn't really matter either way because it's just a label, doesn't change the properties of said celestial bodies. But, at the same time, what's wrong with things like dwarf planets and even moons being planets? I mean, I understand what you're saying in the fact that the term would lose all meaning if literally almost every celestial body that has geological activity was classed as a planet. Obviously comets shouldn't be considered planets, but why not dwarf planets and even many moons? What is the harm with these bodies also being planets? I mean, moons like Triton, Titan, Europa, and Ganymede being satellites as well as planets would be pretty cool and not break the fabric of reality. Not everything has to be a rigid category for it to be factually correct.

Every Sunday

@@ItsAPrimateenot enough😤👿

@@ItsAPrimateeYou might need to do 2 at a time

@@ItsAPrimatee 2 ep Every sunday🙏🏻

Patience is key

Ahh a fellow Shield K9 supporter 🫡

💪

Thanks!

is that a yes! 🤞

What’s a PNW accent sound like 😂

@@ItsAPrimatee I’m from portland but you sound exactly like my friend from van wa

we elongate vowels like in beg and bag which sound the same and both sound like beyg and bayg. we say the vowels in cot and caught the same. we say things like "spendy" we tend to have an intonation and tone that goes up and down over and over again

Gang

Bruh it's a reaction video. I like to see his facial reactions and here his thoughts during the episode. Go stream it free online on a website bro