>>25799

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By7hsuJeGIY

>>25801

I was genuinely sweating for the sake of this guy's fucking ankles.

>>25801

I've watched probably close to a dozen of this guy's videos now, and it's enough to be almost certain he has a crossdressing kink. Good old fashioned crossdressing though, not the stupid modern kind where everyone will try and tell you you must be trans within five minutes.

Anyway I'd definitely fuck him, and indeed let him fuck me, especially if he wore a skirt and some fluffy ears. He's got the kind of physique furries have in gay furry porn, but only about 0.0035% of real life lads have.

[yt]dNCyC4gV_34[yt]

>>25801
This guy is such a fag, I love it. Led me to the above video, cheers.

>>25803
>it's enough to be almost certain he has a crossdressing kink
>Shaved body
>experience walking in heels
>owns a clearly practices on a fucking portable stripper pole
Lol, you think?

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>25803

>but only about 0.0035% of real life lads have

I wouldn't say it is that uncommon. The most notable things about him is that he has a low body fat. Otherwise it is a quite normal body shape. He is obviously muscular, but not wildly so.

This is within the rage of most young men to achieve. Of course most men aren't doing the level of effort required to reach and maintain that shape so I can see why you would in practical terms consider it rare.

>>25806

The difference is he's very slender, almost effeminate, but still masculine-ly proportioned. Most lads are only like this if they are skinny, and as soon as they put in any effort to tone the muscle, they become bulky and inelegant.

Like when you toggle between body type 1 and body type 2 in a videogame with a character creator. You can pick buff or slinky, but this guy is buff and slinky.

>>25807

>as soon as they put in any effort to tone the muscle, they become bulky and inelegant


you are misusing the term tone when you mean putting on muscle and getting fat.

His body is perfectly normal in an athlete or in a squady. it's just most guys you are describing hit the weights in gym and pour more junk food then before down their gullet. The difference here is this guy is actually doing cardio and balancing their diet.

>>25809

I'm not sure why you are so intent on arguing with this statement but I've had 35 years of experience in knowing what men look like, and all I am saying is very few of them look like this. Even athletes and people who should have that body shape for the reasons you state, frequently don't. It's very uncommon to see.

>>25803
I think I prefer this guy. Stretching with him would be erotic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrUnb8y9VMg. He even wears a cute flashing hair piece (?).

Should have known if I posted a video of a scantily clad man you lot would turn into a bunch of ruddy perverts.

>>25810

If your exposure to men is anything like the average britfa.gs user's exposure to women you're hanging out with whales.

Personally I don't know why you are pretending runners, cyclists, and montain trekkers, rock climbers, soilders and swimmers don't exist.

Are you a northerner or scottish? It's my only explaination I have left for why you've never seen a man with a healthy build.

>>25813
Why are you arguing with gaylad as to whether or not you or he have seen more blokes in the buff? The fucking wood elf in that video is moving around like Spiderman, he's not just skinny with good cardio. He's built more like a ballet dancer than anything you just listed, which is a very particular kind of physique, and not one you get from going on hikes or being shouted at by an serjeant in a bearskin hat.

>>25813

>Personally I don't know why you are pretending runners, cyclists, and montain trekkers, rock climbers, soilders and swimmers don't exist.

I'm not pretending they don't exist, in my experience they just don't look like that.

>>25814

>Why are you arguing with gaylad

The funny thing about it is that this is why I'm not gay. I'd be into guys if more guys had this kind of build, but as it is I only ever see it in the extremely idealised forms of fetishised anthropomorphic canines.

But this is one of those internet things isn't it. Where you say "I like thing" and people go "no you don't, you like other thing." and you go "... What?"

>>25815
I wasn't even trying to make fun of you by calling you gaylad. When you said you had "35 years of experience", I legitimately thought you were making an oblique reference to having been shagging other men for that long.

>>25816

No I wasn't offended, don't worry. I suppose you could call me bisexual in theory but not in practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zV7w3ZDGMg

I recently learned of this guy from some breadtuber shitting on him running for congress a second time, after losing the first time by 650 votes. He does gun stuff, including building guns. But he's also someone who obviously grew up with 4chan /k/, because he's very shitposty. 4.05M subscribers so he's pretty big.

He's charismatic and quite funny, and I think overall he's likeable. I'm not a huge gun autist, but I find a lot of his stuff interesting even. He's also very palatable as far as right wingers go.

>>25819
As much as I'd love to cosplay that Fallout looking masterpiece in the thumbnail, having saved images and embedded link trails is probably enough to get you on a list, this day and age.
I can't watch that m8, not without 7 proxxies - and then it'd invite trouble.

>>25819
Speaking of guntubers:

> Forgotten Weapons
No nonsense videos dissecting specific guns from throughout history leaning towards lesser known guns or lesser known versions of otherwise well known ones. A more abt channel name would be "History of Guns".

&t

> C&Rsenal
Very interesting long form videos explainng the complete history of particular guns explaining the complete history, from initial design to eventual production, with a heavy focus on guns at least 100 years old, and a more or less strict cutoff of 1945. Best enjoyed via their curated playlists ("Primer: Small Arms History" is excellent, and at 215 usually 1h+ videos will last you a while).

&list=PLJvsSlrbdhn5v8AuvAZuOYJ5BgEEoDdqm

The problem with GunTube is every time I watch even one video on some unique and interesting weapon, The Algorithm it instantly assumes I'm one of those full /k/ autists and fills my feed with Hickock45 and Paul Harrell. I don't mind either of those, and as far as Yank gun nuts go, they are pretty good examples. But I'm not that into guns. I like a bit of gun knowledge, but I have no interest in just watching somebody shoot stuff.

VR is the place to go for gun fun. I bet every Brit who bought H3VR on Steam is on a watch list (or recruitment list, knowing the GCHQ lot).

>>25823

As a general moan, YouTube has been hard at work for years now to make removing recommendations a right ball ache.

I've been subbed to those (>>25822) two channels long enough and steadfastly ignoring recommendations so that the algorithm has given up recommending other gun related channels, fortunately. It still tries from time to time with hunting channels which I have absolutely no interest in.

Probably well known (pure conjecture on my part), but the default(1) algorithm latches on to "high value" category views and as soon as it notices you dipping your toe into one of those categories it will bombard you with more of that category until it notices a new category you might like or until it eventually cools off and either tries HV categories you've watched before, picks one related to previous views, or tries a random one to see if it can draw you in.

1) You can still switch the recommendations column to "Related", which is close to the (very) old behaviour of showing actually related content.

There's a new Mr Plinkett video!

>>25825
Is that an airsoft channel or what?

>>25825
I watched it last night only because I wanted something on while I was exercising. Not because I don't like RLM, but I couldn't give a toss about Star Wars. Now it would seem Mr Plinkett agrees with me. No idea what took him so long.

>>>/pol/102733
Thank you for posting that link in that thread. The channel contains other videos which also analyse why YouTube is getting so shit, and indeed even has videos about why other things are shit too. Given how much shitness I consistently witness everywhere I look, it's nice to see it addressed and explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY9ccvv7Nlg

>>25835
I don't know why but this was funny. The weakest bit was flattening out the soaked card. The smoking water was quite funny.

The channel is also quite good - EverythingNowShow! It's mostly improv comedy with a lot of filler, but there's some really good skits in there. Check the very first joke from this stream -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqwn0H8CpI - I'd love to try something like this myself, looks great fun.

Where was that recent YT tag explaination, one of the weekday threads?

Zoe Hong, she's in the fashion crowd and talks about the fabrics industry from top to bottom (at least in 1 vid I watched). She's leading class and it's pretty good.

Here's her explaining the cost of clothing. Apparently the sandard markup in the USA is x2.2. She even talks about the breakdown of profit and costs of sale - I don't see that very often.

>>When you buy that $12 dress, is anybody making a fair wage at that point?
Her comments on the low end market are brief, but telling. Motive more than ever to stich your own trousers.

>Plus sized items should be sold at the same price
>People think plus size should be more expensive because of materials, but materials make up only a small segment of total post
Quality content.

21 minutes, what else you gonna do?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myqCvfwiiMo

>>25854
For fuck sake how many times do I have to delete/repost to get the link to work.
Av it bish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7QFDnUrIH4

>>25855
It's not you, it's her.

>>25718
>Art Chad

Turning middle aged scared me initially but I'm so fucking glad I don't have to deal with modern masculinity nonsense.

>>25857

He missed one:

>>25857

I like how for thesesorts of guys, it's imperative to toe the line and despite the crux of his first argument being "why are you surprised men turn away from liberalism, just fucking look at the world", he still has to go out of his way to go "yeah but those dudes are still losers lol".

To me the point would be more effective if you left it at the initial statement. The liberals/leftists/wokerati/lizard people, whoever your perception of the enemy is, just need to get it through their heads, and the bluntness of the initial "just fucking look at it" type of statement is far more succinct.

Anyway as the chap who first posted this channel here with the Sonic porn avant garde video I am glad that you have all taken a shining to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M_hmwBBPnc

To me this is a big part of enshittification of pretty much everything nowadays. That everything has to somehow be connected to the Internet. Why. What can a machine like a dishwasher genuinely not do on its own and needs a remote server or cloud for.

At the risk of repeating the obvious, it's just another way to establish subscription models, and bricking your device when you are expected to buy a new one.

My Miele dishwasher is from 2007, it's already got a 32-bit Motorola chip inside it controlling everything, and it still cleans all my dishes perfectly like the day it was new. Again, what does it need the Internet for.

>>25860

You answered your own question, as I am sure you are aware. But that's the really galling thing about it, to me. Like, it's just blatantly "hey, we made this thing worse for no reason other than we want to screw you more, and we can. Deal with it." The veneer of pretending it's a feature that benefits you as a consumer is so paper thin it's insulting.

>>25860
I am reminded of this recent XKCD comic strip. My favourite part is the hidden mouseover text that XKCD always has:
>It's important for devices to have internet connectivity so the manufacturer can patch remote exploits.
The joke, of course, being that there wouldn't be any remote exploits if you didn't have to connect it to the Internet. I laughed at this for ages. Anyway, I'm afraid I can't help you, but please know you are not alone in this gripe.

And why is the online dishwasher so expensive? Smart TVs sell your data and that's why they're so cheap. Surely a smart dishwasher should also be cheaper than other dishwashers, rather than more expensive, but it's clear from his chart that he bought the most expensive one.

>>25860

The cheapest wifi chip costs about 65p, plus about 3p of passives and circuit board area. That's about the same price as a good-quality button, which explains why everything has capacitive touch-sensitive controls these days - you can screen-print the sensing matrix for an entire control panel for a few pence and the controller for the capacitive matrix comes for free with your microcontroller.

Making an appliance "smart" is basically a gimmick, but it's a very cheap gimmick for the manufacturer. There's a certain kind of Techmoanish middle-aged bloke who is absolutely obsessed with the idea of controlling every single thing in his house via an app; he will pay a considerable premium for the feature that cost you 68p, or will simply refuse to buy your product if it doesn't have it.

Domestic appliance manufacturers are not in a position to recruit good software developers, which is why the apps are always crap.

>>25861

>The veneer of pretending it's a feature that benefits you as a consumer is so paper thin it's insulting.

You could half understand it if your subscription included some true added value, like some kind of super clean or express cycle that it doesn't come with out of the box. But the lad in this video says that he needed to create an account and download the app to be able to use the rinse cycle. He then doesn't say that the rinse cycle costs a monthly fee, but it's bad enough that it needs a smartphone amd an app to fucking rinse your plates after a wash. That's like somebody turning off your shower right in the middle of it and asking a fiver so you can rinse off the soap.

Something more light hearted and short form. Good for those bits like before you are about to go to work but you don't want to set off for another five or ten minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKOIf9kheJw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUncEiyXIT4

>>25863

>There's a certain kind of Techmoanish middle-aged bloke who is absolutely obsessed with the idea of controlling every single thing in his house via an app;

If there was one single program that controlled everything and was a closed system rather than a corporate surveillance system that I could set up in a way that might make my life more convenient... like being able to schedule certain processes, and detecting when my phone connected to the WiFi to turn all the lights on or off I would happily live in a future house.

>>25866

There is now an interoperable standard called Matter, which allows you to mix-and-match devices from different manufacturers and control them all from an app of your choice. It's a completely local protocol, so it works without an internet connection. There's also an open-source controller called Home Assistant that allows you to orchestrate the whole thing from a Raspberry Pi or a home server or whatever.

Amazon, Google, Apple and Samsung are all signed up and support it across their smart home gubbins. Bosch, LG and Siemens have said they plan on using the standard in future, but they haven't actually launched any appliances with Matter compatibility yet AFAIK.

Sorry for the nerdery, but I deal with this stuff for a living.

https://matter-smarthome.de/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Assistant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOLg4BRjAo

These kinds of videos are far more entertaining than they should be.

I looked up some of the other cast from the new Mitchell & Webb sketch series, because I fancy them I wanted to know how they got the job, when I know them entirely as panel-show seatfillers. The utterly stunning Lara Ricote isn't funny on her own at all; she does stand-up comedy routines about sexual liberation. Stevie Martin, however, seems to be fantastic at YouTube and I was very impressed:

>>25873
Real RHLSTPheads knew about Martin already.

>>25873

"Fetch me my rag, it be moon time" is an excellent line.

>>25875
My personal highlight was, "No, I've only got soil as well".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kohoA918qGg

>>25777
I'm sure this dude mentions a unisex shoe sold mainly in womens clothing sections, but cant find it. Can anyone remember what they are called?

I'm glad someone is challenging the role of nationalism in the destruction of Austria-Hungary:

>>25898

Sure it wasn't all about ethnicity; but Austria-Hungaria was a true hodgepodge of very distinct regional identities, and was hard to all keep in line during the best of times. Add to that the fact that Russia was meddling as well, under the idea of panslavism that sought to unite Slavic countries which at the time wete dispersed between different empires and spheres of influence.

As a construct, in the long run, Austria-Hungaria made as much sense as something like a British-Spanish empire. As even the main namesakes of (German) Austria and indeed Hungaria could not have been more different.

There is a reason why the German Holy Roman Empire, on the other hand, lasted almost a millennium, with varying borders and constituents during its lifespan. The German states encompassing it were far more homogenous in ethnicity than Austria-Hungaria. But of course, the Holy Roman Empire was also a much more loose alliance, which granted the myriad of German states far more autonomy.