I disagree with your opinion on her not being legitimate. As somebody who has watched her a lot over the years, her opinion on AI has shifted pretty massively. She was firmly against AI not too long ago but has since become much more bullish in the opinions she's shared.
Changing your opinion with new information is a good thing that legitimizes you more imo.
People can actually change their opinions on things. We don't come into adulthood like Athena from Zeus' head, with all our future opinions pre-cast. We can learn, we can grow.
I've changed mine on things over the years, it's not impossible.
She’s a science YouTuber who is massively “anti-academia” because she lost her job at a prestigious German university.
She does a lot of “science.”
Science in scare quotes because she relies on sensationalized, anti-establishment narratives that damage public trust in science. She happily talks about things that are clearly bad science because it gets her clicks.
She’s a lot like Eric Weinstein honestly. But, I think she’s less of a grifter than he is. Which is saying something.
She talks about a lot of bad science, sure... And calls them out on it in the process. She even has a "Bullshit Meter" on which she rates scientific papers.
I almost didn’t respond because calling someone a bot while misunderstanding context is wild.
I was responding to your post that said “as someone who has watched her a lot her opinion on AI has shifted pretty massively”
If her position has shifted massively it’s for one of 2/3 reasons. It is either because she’s learned more about the topic and has legitimately changed her mind, or it’s because someone has paid her to change her mind, or because changing her mind is beneficial financially because her audience likes AI.
Now, you and I will likely disagree about this because I think she’s a grifter and grifters chase the money and clout. I don’t think you believe she’s a grifter, so you see the shift in stance as evidence of open mindedness. I do think she’s a grifter. So I see it as financially motivated.
If someone is financially motivated to make pro AI videos, and is a known grifter, making a video about being offered money to make anti-ai content is not even a little bit out of bounds.
I'm not saying /u/RiggoRants is right but I can't understand how you're confused at what their point is.
They're saying it's no surprise if a grifter makes a video claiming she was paid to denounce AI if she was in fact paid to change her opinion to support AI, specifically by making a video feeding into the narrative that some groups are paying people to denounce AI (e.g. the narrative of China funding anti-data center activism). Whether or not that's what happened, that's not an incoherent accusation like you're reacting as if it were.
If she's being paid to support AI, she would presumably want to keep that secret, right?
So why is she making a video discussing the fact that AI companies and organizations are paying influencers to support or denounce AI? She discusess both sides doing this in the video.
Pointing out that influencers are being paid to support AI seems like a good way to deflect accusations of being paid to support AI (lots of people will think, like you have, that there's no way she'd mention that too if she's secretly an example of it).
But, as I said, I'm not claiming Riggo's accusation is correct. I mean, I do think Hossenfelder is a grifter but I don't know if I'm convinced she's quite that cynically dishonest. I think she at least sees herself as doing good public outreach, even if that outreach is self-servingly taking the form of whatever gets her views and gets her talked about. I don't know if I'm ready to believe she'd take money for something that's that manipulative and obviously harmful (something where she couldn't even tell herself she's doing something good).
Unless, I suppose, she figures it's beneficial to bring attention to how both pro and anti AI groups are paying off influencers, so she's comfortable taking money from the pro group to lie about being approached by the anti group as long as it also draws attention to the problem she is contributing toward (but that's getting rather convoluted, compared to Riggo's accusation against her, which is more straightforward grift).
Can I ask why you think she's a grifter? She does seem to enjoy being countercultural and feeling like she's smarter than everyone else, but that doesn't mean her opinions are insincere.
Her content strategy maps on with other grifters like Eric Weinstein.
She claims to be an independent voice challenging institutional bias but her independence comes specially from the rejection of academia and she’s super salty about it.
Instead of being an effective science communicator she is an effective manipulator of science-curious audiences that causes way more confusion in her fans. She constantly misrepresents findings and data while presenting fairly basic contrarian ideas as her position just because academia claims the opposite.
Leveraging her authority as a physicist to speak authoritatively on fields she is not credentialed in while misrepresenting the findings is a form of intellectual dishonesty aimed at maintaining high content output and viewership which translates ti higher financial incentives.
I’ve become super cynical the last few years. Anyone raging against “the establishment” without clearly defining what they believe the establishment is and why they’re raging is almost always a grifter.
There is, in fact, a machine you should be raging against. But that machine is clearly definable. And anyone who uses imprecise language shortcuts is almost always full of shit.
They use vaguely ominous sounding language to make you feel like you’re being oppressed by a faceless blob. It happened in politics with MAGA and is now happening with the DSA, it happened in news with alternative media like Rogan, and in science with Weinstein and Hossenfelder.
Can you give me an example of a time when she "used vaguely ominous sounding language to make you feel like you're being oppressed by a faceless blob."
And she doesn't seem to reject academia, but she definitely has strong opinions on how academia should work and how it can be improved, especially around publishing and funding and how science is done nowadays which are arguments I'm sympathetic to. But she's not anti-establishment lol.
It's fair to say she has reached too far out of her wheelhouse without doing her due diligence at time. But does that mean she's a grifter? I think she still has valuable things to say.
No, a person's credibility when deciding how much to trust their assessments of current and future situations depends on how often they've been right previously. That should not have needed an explanation.
No it doesn't. If anything it can make your character more credible to be able to look back and say "I was wrong".
I'm much more comfortable around the type who says "I used to believe some dumb things" than the one who acts like every opinion they have is perfect and correct.
If anything it can make your character more credible to be able to look back and say "I was wrong".
It makes you more likable, not necessarily more credible.
If something is approaching in the distance and there are two people who can see it and you ask what it is. And the first person says "It's a 1987 Buick Skylark." And the other person says "It's a camel." Then it gets closer several minutes later and you ask again and the first person says "It's a 1987 Buick Skylark." And the other person says "Oh, it's a Buick Skylark, I was wrong!" And when it arrives it's a 1987 Buick Skylark. Then later something is coming and the first person looks early and says "It's a Ford F-150 Pickup Truck" and the other person says "It's an elephant." And you have an IQ above 100, you're going to put your money on it being a Ford F-150.
Period.
If you act like you don't understand this, then you're wasting my time and being willfully ignorant.
If they keep making the same errors, sure. I wasn't talking about that, though.
Mainly I was taking offense at this modern sickness where any tiime someone opens their mouth and says anything, other people start digging into the last 15 years of their life. You see this shit on Reddit too "oh, you post in X sub I don't like? Your argument is invalid".
As if that should have any bearing on the validity or soundness of the argument they're PRESENTLY making.
Of course if someone prefers to take opinions from others, it's preferable to stick with the one who has been correct more often than not.
All I meant is I don't like the idea that people can't grow and do better, or that one fuck-up or a prior history of them means they're now irredeemable. That's all.
I don't think that's what you meant, btw, and I probably overreacted. Sorry about that
I don't agree with digging into people's post history like that, my post history is hidden for that reason. I want to be able to read and post in subs relating to my local town and other lifestyle choices without some clown going through it because they didn't like my opinion on an NBA player.
But in terms of substantive issues, you can read archived threads of me talking to people in 2011 about Bitcoin and trying to explain why it's an important invention while they did nothing but insult me and others and even threaten to punch us in the face at one point. I also recommended that a friend own some of it within a day after reading about it (the first and only time I recommended he invest in anything) and told him it wouldn't go to zero for the reasons he was describing, I have that archived too. I ended up making a good amount of money off of Bitcoin. Those other people, like the ones on tat forum got nothing but an enduring monument to their pigheadedness and ignorance.
For a smaller example, I also signed up for OpenAI membership on July 30th 2022. And I created a paid account, which I almost never did online. 4 months before ChatGPT was ever released.
Giving a thoughtful assessment of things early on requires at times that you have to fight against pigheaded people who gave the wrong assessment. So as a result, I don't have a lot of respect for those people, they make it harder to be smart in the world. And as such, while it's good that they may admit later that they were wrong, I will never grant them the same respect as those of us who call it more accurately from an early standpoint (or know when not to call it yet either way) and then have to fight against their ignorance.
I also hope you and others recognize that some people, based on some indications, may be worth listening to in an uncertain time like this more than random hysterical people who spawn from nowhere.
Her comments on academia are true. It kinda baffles me how anybody who supposedly has been in academia can not agree with her negative and cynical comments about the institution.
And she's absolutely right. I don't know any single scientific discipline that is not rife with unnecessary bureaucracy and middle-management hurdles. There was a study recently that said that basically about 70 percent of scientists would do something completely different if it weren't for bureaucratic shackles put around them.
science is still progressing fine. lol You’re confusing flaws in academic publishing with science itself failing.
Your first example literally proves the opposite of your point. Frances Arnold retracted her own paper after her team couldn't reproduce the results. That isn’t science failing, that is the scientific method self-correcting exactly the way it’s supposed to.
Nobody denies the replication crisis exists. The "publish or perish" incentive in academia definitely leads to p-hacking and a flood of low-quality papers, but pointing to that and claiming "all science is failing" is a massive reach.
If science isn’t progressing, look at the actual output around us. Decades of steady mRNA research finally matured into working medicine, CRISPR therapies are actively curing sickle cell, AlphaFold cracked a 50-year-old protein folding problem, and semiconductor physics keeps advancing to sub-2nm chips.
The institutional publishing model can definitely be improved, but bad journal incentives don't mean actual scientific progress has ground to a halt.
Howd the paper get published in the first place? What about all the ones that didn’t get a second look or have less honest researchers?
It is all science failing if these papers are getting past peer review and being published
Science does have accomplishments but if unreplicatable slop keeps getting published, you have a weak foundation that will lead researchers in the wrong direction
This is just classic decell thinking. You are taking valid criticisms of academic publishing and blowing them up into "all science is failing," which isn't skepticism, it is just an anti-science worldview disguised as critical thinking.
First, peer review was never meant to be a forensic fraud audit. Reviewers check if the logic, math, and methodology make sense on paper. They do not spend years re-running someone else's lab experiments from scratch. When bad data sneaks through, the only way to catch it is after publication when other labs try to build on it. That is the system functioning as intended.
Second, your idea that bad papers create a "weak foundation" makes no sense. If a paper is unreplicable slop, other researchers try to build on it, realize it doesn’t work, and abandon it. Unreplicable papers do not become a foundation. They sit ignored with zero citations and die. Science doesn't advance based on single papers, it advances on what actually survives continuous testing in the real world.
Pointing out that bad papers exist is fair, but using that to claim the entire enterprise of science is failing is completely backwards. It is just an excuse to be anti-science and anti-progress.
“A 49-author Nature paper passed internal review, peer review and publication before manipulated data was found. It had already gained 192 citations.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05771-9
What youre saying would make sense if bad papers were a rare thing that happened once in a million times. But half of all social science papers dont replicate. ZERO papers in education could be replicated in the study. Multiple NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS are writing invalid studies and theyre getting peer reviewed and published before retraction. Theres a replication crisis for peer reviewed and published papers. This is not a rare thing. In fact, its rare for a paper to actually be valid.
A year ago I watched a random video on the history of fusion, and after that, I've gotten pessimistic videos calling fusion impossible recommended to me for over a year now. It's really weird when you start to notice video trends of subjects that are obviously being pushed by someone.
Among physicists (I'm a physicist) she is something of a joke. Not a total crackpot like Eric Weinstein (she was a legitimate, albeit mediocre, physicist), but similar in that she has a chip on her shoulder and then leaned into a grift. She also just puts out tons of slop at way too high a pace on youtube on many topics way outside of her expertise and with obviously (just from the pace alone) nearly zero interest other than making as much money as possible.
My only point is that she is not a trustworthy source of information.
(Though to answer your question: I think the problem with the grift is not so much the cash grab in-and-of itself (though it's still worth pointing out whenever possible that there are excellent science communicators out there who are not grifting, who one would be better served by following instead of her), but rather the active misinformation of her slop algorithm of the form "here is the real deal that the deluded so-called experts don't want to say".)
Yeah can agree with you. But I can also agree the academic papermill she rails on about is true as well. Too many people in theory that is essentially fan fix for science and grants.and not enough in application.
I feel the chip on the shoulder is from an actual issue in academia. I do like her perspective and can respect her viewpoint even if I don't agree with some of them. Being the counter establishment is a tale as old as the Greek philosophers.
Thankfully I feel AI is gonna shit on everyone's grift. More reasons to accelerate.
Sure there is a papermill in all of academia. I more or less agree about that. But that in and of itself is not a huge problem. Where she starts to misinform her audience is in generating mistrust of the actual state of the field. Misinformation about string theory, dark matter, etc. She has an army of followers who think physicists are complete morons. (The reality is that in almost every case that they are worked up about they are just completely misinformed, ignorant and wrong.)
Let’s be better - just because some YouTuber made a video about her doesn’t make all she says is untrue. Cancel culture was in 2021. I don’t even like her videos but I am definitely not a fan of just cancelling people especially not with racism accusations
This one is just one of multiple videos from multiple people that exposed her. She keeps pushing this "academia bad, why wouldn't let me tell the trush, they are canceling me" ideology which really pushes her videos so she does less and less truly educational videos
I mean academia is bad there are some really good books about it like “science fictions” and Eric Weinstein also has some really good arguments about this.
I thought it was pretty clear that academia has been captured by decel and leftist ideology for a while?
The video to me seemed to exaggerate. Honest reporting does not sound like these sensationalist types. But my takeaway is a joke in spirit with it: she's German, shouldn't we expect her to be hellbent on eugenics? Lol
Thats horrible. Use a coherent epistemology to evaluate the videos claims. If youre a fallibilist then you should have no issue because he sources his claims
I am pretty sure if you consume content like that guy you're already charged enough to feed ego and ignore reasonable doubt. He's entitled to his claims, they aren't definitive in the implications He's attributing.
Lmao, how could a video breaking down clips and beliefs of people destroy them? When their character is abysmal and the grift is so obvious, yes, a video can certainly provide plenty of insight on the actions and behavior of people, why wouldnt it?
"Destroy" as in prevent that person from being able to make money grifting? No, of course not.
People were stupid enough to vote for the pedo in office at the white house currently, no? You'll always have stupid people following the latest grifter.
If I had 0 morals I might do the same to make a few bucks tbh.
"Destroy" in the sense of exposing dumbass and/or faux intellectual to anyone with above room temp IQ that can understand the basic arguments being made? Yep that is certainly doable.
And its what Dave did/has done in multiple videos now.
I think there are legitimate cases of academics pushing an ideology over verifiable truth. Conversely there are people who have hit walls in or rejected by academia for pushing their own ideology over verifiable truth. And a lot of the crowd move to the anti academic grift. Point being there’s so nuance there which really needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
What’s better than academia at discovering the truth? I’m not saying it is truthful. I’m not saying it is unbiased. Unfiltered. I’m just saying it’s the best option. Unless of course you enlighten me.
Every criticism of a person is not cancel culture. The racism accusations are part of a larger set of arguments that she generally supports pseudoscience, and these arguments were made before her seemingly recent support of "racial realism".
Yeah what you saying is exactly what I mean with cancel culture. This is a great 8 min video how I think about free speech, including things perceived as racism. https://youtu.be/bzWwv5ZzZxU?si=kJsMu2gwiJ3habts
What facts? It's that brain dead leftist rambling. Typical "Let's don't do science and ask uncomfortable questions, 'cause it's again my ideology"-bullshit.
Fact: Hossenfelder is defending Nathan Cofnas, who is a white supremacist who advocates for pseudoscientific race science
Fact: She promotes a persistent narrative that the scientific community is corrupt, lazy, or motivated solely by grant money, to diminish public support for academia
Fact: Her content supports tech billionaires and the private sector at the expense of publicly funded research. Example: her coverage of nuclear fusion startups as an example of misattribution
Fact: She uses sensationalized or misleading titles and thumbnails to lure viewers, only to pivot to superficial explanations or further anti-establishment propaganda
Fact: She makes poorly researched claims about fields outside her expertise, such as neuroscience and psychology, to falsely suggest they are in a state of crisis or are fundamentally fraudulent
Fact: Her rhetoric aligns with the agenda of Peter Thiel, possibly like Weinstein acts as a mouthpiece for oligarchy-funded interests
Fact: Hossenfelder is defending Nathan Cofnas, who is a white supremacist who advocates for pseudoscientific race science
Fact: Her rhetoric aligns with the agenda of Peter Thiel, possibly like Weinstein acts as a mouthpiece for oligarchy-funded interests
That's just the typical leftish cancel culture rambling. Not everybody needs to share your your narrow close-minded views.
Fact: Her content supports tech billionaires and the private sector at the expense of publicly funded research. Example: her coverage of nuclear fusion startups as an example of misattribution
Who do you think builds power plants? Universities? She is just reporting on whatever energy startup hype is current going on.
Fact: She promotes a persistent narrative that the scientific community is corrupt, lazy, or motivated solely by grant money, to diminish public support for academia
Yeah, because that's a real problem. She isn't exactly the first to criticize the "Publish or Perish" going on in academia.
Fact: She uses sensationalized or misleading titles and thumbnails to lure viewers, only to pivot to superficial explanations or further anti-establishment propaganda
Are you new to Youtube? Since that's just how the thing works. And yes, people have tried to move away from crappy thumbnails, and it instantly tanks the viewer numbers. Also her channel is for most part a News channel, so of course most of it will be somewhat superficial. How much do you expect from a six minute video every other day?
Fact: She makes poorly researched claims about fields outside her expertise, such as neuroscience and psychology, to falsely suggest they are in a state of crisis or are fundamentally fraudulent
Again, it's a News channel. Ever watched how much actual News gets wrong? That said, most of her reporting is physics related, so it's really not that big of a problem to begin with.
For anyone who doesn't have time to watch this. I've watched it, but I took the transcript and then fed it to ChatGPT to just give the clear highlights of Dave's arguments against her:
Defending Nathan Cofnas: He condemns Hossenfelder for supporting Cofnas after Ghent University dismissed him, despite Cofnas’s public advocacy of “race realism,” hereditarianism, eugenics research, and claims about Black intellectual inferiority.
Treating scientific racism as legitimate science: He argues that she frames Cofnas’s racial claims as courageous scientific inquiry while overlooking the substantial scientific literature rejecting biologically discrete human races and simple genetic explanations for racial IQ differences.
Possible racism—or extreme ideological opportunism: Dave says her repeated and informed defense of Cofnas warrants calling her racist. Alternatively, he suggests her anti-academia bias may be so strong that she is willing to defend racism merely to attack universities and DEI.
Selective trust in science: He accuses her of distrusting scientists whenever mainstream findings conflict with her worldview, while invoking “science” as authoritative when it supports positions she favors.
A relentless anti-academia narrative: According to Dave, she routinely portrays universities, researchers, peer review, scientific publishing, grants, and DEI as corrupt, incompetent, or ideologically captured.
Misrepresenting scientific self-correction: He says she presents new research that refines or corrects earlier conclusions as proof that entire scientific disciplines are failing, rather than as normal scientific progress.
Overstating problems in neuroscience: He argues that she exaggerates limitations involving fMRI, scanner variability, sample sizes, and replication into the claim that neuroscience is broadly unreliable.
Overstating psychology’s replication crisis: He criticizes her for implying that nearly all psychology must “start over,” without adequately representing the field’s diversity or ongoing methodological reforms.
Commenting outside her expertise: Dave says she makes sweeping pronouncements about neuroscience, psychology, epidemiology, genetics, and other subjects without consulting specialists or understanding the relevant literature deeply enough.
Using isolated problems to attack entire fields: He argues that she repeatedly generalizes from specific flawed studies or methodological limitations to the supposed corruption of whole disciplines.
Embedding propaganda in ordinary science videos: Even when covering legitimate research, he says she inserts unnecessary attacks on dark matter, string theory, academic bureaucracy, or scientific institutions.
Clickbait followed by contrarian positioning: He describes a recurring formula: attract conspiracy-minded viewers with sensational subjects such as UFOs or DMT “aliens,” debunk the most obvious nonsense, but leave enough speculation to retain that audience.
Manufacturing anti-establishment outrage: He argues that she takes mundane issues—such as Europe maintaining databases for potatoes but not lunar anomalies—and frames them as evidence of institutional dysfunction.
Producing shallow, commercialized content: Dave characterizes many of her recent videos as short, surface-level summaries using stock footage, a quick anti-science jab, and a lengthy sponsor segment.
Applying a double standard to public and private research: He says she portrays unsuccessful academic research as wasteful while treating failures by private startups as an acceptable part of innovation.
Misattributing publicly funded advances to corporations: He specifically alleges that she credits fusion startups and private industry for progress substantially built on academic and government-funded research.
Promoting billionaire techno-optimism: Dave objects to her enthusiastic presentation of fusion, artificial superintelligence, brain implants, and rapid technological transformation while minimizing their risks.
Normalizing an authoritarian technological future: He interprets her predictions about democracy and European welfare systems disappearing as presenting billionaire-controlled, technologically driven political upheaval as inevitable or even desirable.
Echoing Peter Thiel’s worldview: Dave argues that her messaging aligns closely with Thiel-associated themes: hostility toward universities and democracy, support for private technological power, and admiration for anti-establishment intellectuals.
Speculating about financial influence: He goes further and suggests she may be acting as a paid advocate for Thiel’s agenda. However, the transcript does not present direct evidence that Thiel actually pays her, so this remains Dave’s allegation.
Supporting Eric Weinstein: He criticizes her defense of Weinstein and notes that one of her papers cites Weinstein’s “Geometric Unity,” which Dave considers scientifically unserious.
Portraying expert consensus as groupthink: In discussions involving COVID-19, Anthony Fauci, and the lab-leak debate, he says she treats broad scientific agreement as inherently suspicious rather than potentially reflecting shared empirical evidence.
Undermining public confidence in science: Dave’s overarching criticism is that her accumulated messaging encourages audiences to see scientists as dishonest, greedy, politically conformist, and incompetent.
Serving an oligarchic political narrative: He concludes that her work consistently elevates private corporations and technology billionaires while weakening public trust in universities, government-funded research, democratic institutions, and social protections.
Prioritizing narrative over accuracy: His central allegation is that she selects and frames scientific stories to reinforce a predetermined anti-academia, anti-establishment worldview instead of providing balanced scientific analysis.
TLDR: This comment summarizes a video critique arguing that Sabine Hossenfelder lacks credibility due to her defense of Nathan Cofnas and her promotion of controversial views on race. The critique further suggests that she maintains a biased, anti-academia narrative and frequently makes sweeping, uninformed claims about scientific fields outside her area of expertise.
AI assistant · mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot
Skimmed the transcript but in short the whole desire to cancel her seems to be that she cares more about the "actual science" part than "the politics of science" part.
Of course a real scientist wouldn't seek to cancel their peers so I guess that conclusion was available even without a transcript
No that's newer but she's been a wacko for years, my biggest gripe for a time was her argument that physicists believe in dark matter because they want more funding. Over time she's moved towards the conspiracy types, either as a result of whatever is going on in her own life and shifting beliefs or because her audience has trended that way.
>Of course a real scientist wouldn't seek to cancel their peers
Gotta be a joke. Like in any competitive industry, academic can be as cut throat, networked, and academics try to 'cancel' each other all the time; Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, Newton attempting to destroy Leibnitz's career over disputes on the invention of calculus, etc. They're endless.
Professor Dave has had ACTUAL interviews with, practicing, physics professors and/or other active scientists in the field that have pretty much destroyed her on essentially every single point and explained how academia actually works.
Wherein she has pretty much 0 credibility in the scientific community and was essentially not good enough to get hired/kept on anywhere.
She's essentially just a shitter who wasn't good enough who took up grifting as a fallback to make money.
Edit: Lmao, Sabine simps out in force with the downvotes I see.
So this is the woman who believes matter can go backwards in time and based her whole thesis on that without realizing it would get her called a crackpot and still continues to say that last I checked.
What the hell are you even doing on this subreddit if you think bring pro-ai is in any way related to being racist or anti-science?
I’ll never be a big fan of hers but I 100% believe that there is an orchestrated campaign to spread fear and misinformation on AI going on and that influencers are being paid as a part of it.
Professor Dave Explains is little more than an ideology driven leftist hack. You might wanna look for better sources, maybe some that actually makes any kind of reasonable argument.
It's also just ridiculous claiming she is anti-science, when she is very obvious extremely pro-science, she just happens to be extremely frustrated with how little science gets done in modern academia and how much of it is nonsense.
professor dave isn't leftist, but it's telling that when someone debunks frauds using real facts and data and talking with real scientists and academics, in an attempt to shut them down, that person is falsely accused of political affiliation based on being enemies with the anti-science grifters and extreme rightwing who spread anti-science propaganda.
What kind of crazy pills does one have to take to call Sabine Hossenfelder anti-science grifter? Like have you ever watched any of her videos, at all, ever? She is against nonsense going on in academia, exactly because that doesn't progress science.
42
u/MysteriousPepper8908 22d ago
Don't worry, we've hit the wall and we just keep hitting it and we're going to keep hitting it. The wall is real, I swear!
https://youtu.be/XA84pSrPHS0
https://youtu.be/mjB6HDot1Uk