Відео

Choice is a bad idea but chance would be a fine thing.

3:03 Wow, I remember how terrible printers used to be and they have somehow gotten unimaginably worse

This American would also like people to stop saying "COULD care less" when they mean "couldn't."

I'm perfectly happy to judge people who spell like sh*t. At bottom, what it means is that this person doesn't read. How the hell else could you start getting gray hair without realizing that it's "would HAVE?" OPEN A BOOK, jeez.

I remember that on this day in the crowds a middle eastern man was arrested because he had inserted a toucan into his rectum with only the head sticking out, as I realised what it was I was in shock to see that the bird was still alive and screeching, clearly in distress. He was bending it towards people when one man snapped in anger and attacked him, punching him to the floor, As the man lay semi conscious on the floor the bird continued to screech and panic and police passing saw the shocking scene, as that happened the balloons were released and the police dragged him off in the chaos with the bird still inserted.

The world needs more of these

"The whole is comprised of parts" doesn't make much sense, either. If the parts compose the whole, then consider this sentence: "The bricks compose the house." (That's an oversimplification of modern architecture, but please bear with my analogy). Let's denote this as "sentence A." Also consider this alternative phrasing: "The house is composed of/with bricks." -- Sentence A* Now what would I mean if the following sentence was ALSO valid (which it apparently is)? "The house is comprised of bricks." -- sentence B Are we saying that A = A* = B? That implies: (1) Order of subject and objects doesn't matter for these verbs. In these examples, "house" and "bricks" have alternated between object/subject, but only depending on the verb choice. The order matters for many verbs, if not all. Do I seriously need to bring up other examples? (2) These contexts of "comprise" and "compose" really mean the same thing. Well, why not just use the one word, whichever we pick, and be done with it? Why do we still bother to have so many words and synonyms and non-synonyms? Why? Why not? If the word is still seeing widespread usage, don't confuse them. If a word is archaic, who gives a shit -- it's dead anyway. And, do we not want to distinguish the nuance between analyzing (breaking down) a whole or building up the parts? Is there not often a meaningful difference between the whole and the sum of its parts? Then we should use verbs, adverbs and obviously adjectives associated with either the wholes or their parts. Thus, let me introduce sentence B*: "The parts are comprised of the house." I would never say that, but it should be logically correct. Logically. That matters for semantics too (and syntax to a lesser extent). So when people say the "whole is comprised of the parts," you're trying to say "the whole comprises parts" but what you end up implying is "the whole composes the parts," and that doesn't make sense.

As a Canadian, LEMME ask you this: Why would you take a French word, and then only translate half of it? Leftenant? And what's the term for one's "right-hand man" again? First Officer? Lol

It's not that exciting discovering Albert John Pennyshaw where there's a gravestone called Albert John Pennyshaw. But, who knew before where Richard III was buried. He might have buried at Bosworth Field. He might have been below any place in Leicester. He was given a Christian burial in a churchyard where people in the 21st century didn't know where the churchyard was. Is Mitchell saying Richard III should now be re-buried in the car park he was found in? Sorry, not just this 'David Mitchell rant' condemns the whole series, but the whole series of these childish rants, wrapped up in the mantle of 'that bore from Peep Show' and 'that bloke who was at Cambridge' (and got a 2:2 - hence becoming the heir to Stephen Fry's mantle of the bloke stupid people think is a clever bloke). Mitchell's rants are neither clever nor funny but are designed to appeal to stupid people as 'the educated bloke putting middle-class phenomena in their place'.

No, I don't want to name my child David Mitchell.

The secret is bread with low carbs. Enjoy all the butter you want.

I don't like bacon; it's too fat and I don't like the taste and texture of fat. With that said, I don't like rubarb either. In fact, there's very little food I do like.

ReformUK's strategy

so here i am, going to air force basic training in 1982 with a lot of other late-teenagers born in mid 60s - one of my fellow trainees, i kid you not, had a nice, normal, common name: JAMES T KIRK. where oh where did his parents come up with THAT one? BTW he didnt graduate - got booted out in less than 48 hours for back-talking the drill sergeant - physically, the guy looked like the comic-book-store guy on the simpsons, so...

Well... surely in the... I mean... you just...

Well, there was "The Sting II", some ten years later, but the less said about it the better. Just, "trade out Redford and Newman for Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis". Sorry.

Let me remind you that a lot of kids in school are cruel and will spend entire school terms making fun of your kids names. Unless they have the will power to ignore these rants against them. then I suggest you keep the first name at least pronounceable.

Am I the only one who was distracted that the red bar was visible even though it was supposed to have zero height

Mensa is so weird

0:42 There *is* no country called Great Britain. It's the name of an island, which happens to contain most, but not all, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain *and Northern Ireland*. I wouldn't normally be pedantic enough to complain about this, but this *is* David Mitchell's channel.

this is very Douglas Adams, I think David Mitchell might be Arthur Dent. especially that last bit, poor Marvin will be so depressed

But how much of this great stuff would we have to lose?

Fanjambo

When ppl could care less, they're not lying

So elected scumbags would rape, pillage for the term 😮

@1:45 uMkhonto we Sizwe has entered the chat

Be thankful you’re not speaking German. Sorry, had to do it.

I think David is wrong because he misunderstands the difference in intentionality between the two phrases. They sound similar but are actually built on different linguistic structures.Try putting the word "like" before "I could care less" and a question mark after it: Like I could care less? That is the correct intentionality and makes perfect sense. It's the same with: "Like I give a shit?" and "I don't give a shit." Both sentences mean the same thing even though they are structured different. A person shortens "Like I give a shit?" to "I give a shit" in the same way they shorten "Like I could care less?" to "I could care less." It means the exact same thing as "I couldN'T care less" due to a slightly different syntactical structure.

This is perhaps the best and tru-est of Mr Mitchell's fine rants.

Lenny Henry promotes Premier Inn.

I love how UA-cam starts recommending me one of these every few months and I end up binge-watching all of them.

An Americanism that winds me up is 'oftentimes'. Often...times. Just to clarify that one isn't speaking about often where, or often who, presumably! Oh, and a similar one - tuna fish. There is only one flipping tuna, and it is the fish! The clarification is completely redundant! "Gimme a toona fish sahhndwidge" :)

Still funny

The first name should be normie, but you can go wild with the middle name.

2024 and no silver jumpsuits yet :(

david mitchell should watch formula 1

not sure digging up graves is called archeology. tbh not sure what the argument here was.

interesting that that Gaelic video has been removed from UA-cam. Suspect the Scots weren't pleased (and fair play to them. David should really have considered the role the British state played in making Gaelic endangered in the first place. Spending public money on its revival is just redressing a wrong)

"I could care less" has two ways of usage that make it perfectly acceptable. 1. It's literal. I could, indeed care less. There are many things I care very little about but, theoretically, I could care less about. Saying "I couldn't care less" is massive hyperbole because everyone cares about everything at least a little. 2. It's sarcasm. I am saying "I could care less" as a shortening of "Oh yeah, as if I could care less."

Oof, I don't think I've once heard him so genuinely pissed. It's absolutely fucked that a literal private monopoly also leeches money from our taxes. I would be more than glad to pay more tax if it meant the trains were public and well run but we get the worst of all worlds.

Spelling being meaningless is the hill I will always stand on. If you can understand it, who gives a fuck. Language is meant to make communication easier, not make people have to google every five minutes.

Islam hardly approves of Christmas trees, and especially not with the added shirk of a fairy

Intelligence is a worthy trait in children, as it shows they have potential, but less so in adults, as they will have either fulfilled that potential or not, and intelligence is less important

In Willy Wonka's alphabet soup factory?

Even if politician A is lying, the true information that A made statement S is still worth renembering

Get each other a bottle of fancy booze or similar.

Millers Crossing is good though

Running too much f*cks your knees, and especially on pavement: people should take up swimming or cycling instead

The question of whether to try to preserve a language should factor in how much decent literature there is in that language, more than anything. Losing the ability to apprehend the subtleties of a text is no small matter.

All humans look ridiculous, wobbling about on their stupid legs, flapping their mouths up and down and waving their arms about.