Waching daily Apr 24 2018

Vsauce! Kevin here. And you have a dilemma. I have two envelopes and you can only choose

one. There's door number one. And there's door number two. Uhh.. Oh.There's actually

three envelopes here. Uhh great. Now we no longer have a dilemma.

Here's why.

Di comes from the Greek for "twice" and lemma means "premise". So a di-lemma involves

two premises from which you have to choose.

Adding a third envelope means this choice isn't technically a dilemma -- but it does

setup a very famous paradox. Wait. Let's dissect the word paradox like we just did

with dilemma to find out exactly what a paradox is.

Okay, Para comes from the latin "distinct from" and dox comes from doxa, meaning "our

opinion."

"Paradox" translates literally as 'distinct from our opinion.' So there ya go. Now.

Distinct from our opinion? That didn't really help at all. I thought a paradox was like

an unsolvable brain teaser? So how do three envelopes setup a paradox?

What is a paradox?

In 1961, Logician and philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine outlined the three categories

of paradoxes and I have them each hidden inside these three envelopes. One represents the

kind of paradox that you're most familiar with. Those that defy logic like the impossible

waterfall from this video's intro. The other two are… what?

Well. Let's crack one of 'em open and find out.

Falsidical.

This is why Achilles can never catch a tortoise.

We'll use this bootleg Rambo to represent Achilles and a Ninja Turtle PEZ will be our

tortoise. If the tortoise gets a 100 meter head start, then Achilles starts running,

by the time he gets to the 100-meter mark, the tortoise will have moved another meter.

It takes Achilles some more time to get to that 101-meter mark and in that time, the

tortoise has moved forward even further.

Achilles will always be catching up to the place the tortoise was as the tortoise inches

forward. The gap gets smaller, but the tortoise is always slightly ahead. According to Greek

philosopher Zeno of Elea, who dreamed up this paradox 2,500 years ago, the fastest runner

in the world can never overtake a tortoise in a race because you can infinitely divide

the distance between them as the tortoise advances.

But that's ridiculous. We know it's not true. Even with a head start I could outrun

a tortoise. And I'm no Achilles. So how can this be a paradox?

Zeno knew Achilles could catch up to the tortoise in real life, but he couldn't prove it mathematically.

He thought there would be an infinite number of new points for the tortoise to reach that

Achilles had to reach… because he didn't know that an infinite series of numbers could

add up to a finite value -- no one knew that for another 2,000 years. What we now call

a convergent series. ½ + ¼ + ⅛ + 1/16 + 1/32 goes on forever, but it eventually

adds up to 1. And at that 1 is where, mathematically, Achilles finally reaches the tortoise.

We knew that Achilles could catch up to the tortoise, but it took inventing calculus for

us to prove why. Which is why this paradox that confounded great minds for thousands

of years is falsidical. Described by Quine like this:

"A falsidical paradox packs a surprise, but it is seen as a false alarm when we solve

the underlying fallacy."

Okay, that's one paradox envelope downand- two to go. And behind envelope number two

we have: Veridical.

For this, we need a game show.

Okay I'm gonna replace the two envelopes we've already opened with some prizes. How

about we put a million dollars in one of them and the globglogabgalab in the other. It's

a good enough prize as any. The third envelope still contains the term for the final type

of paradox. Which we'll get to later.

Alright, I'll shuffle these up. So you don't know which is which. Now you've got three

envelopes. X, Y and Z. Pick the correct one and you win the grand prize.

After you make your selection, let's say envelope X, the game show host reveals what's

inside one of the two remaining envelopes. It's the glob. Now there are only two envelopes

left: the one that you chose and the remaining mystery envelope. He gives you the option

to switch your envelope. Should you do it? Does it even matter? I mean, your odds of

winning at this point are clearly 50/50, right?

No.

You should always switch. And here's why. The odds of winning with your first chosen

envelope are 1 in 3. So you have a 33.33%  repeating chance of being right and a 66.66%

repeating chance of being wrong. When the game show host revealed the glob it didn't

suddenly improve your odds to 50/50. The proof is in the options. After first choosing an

envelope, the thing revealed by the host will never be the money because well that would

ruin the tension of the game show. So if your initial 1 out of 3 pick wasn't the money

and the money is Y, then the host will reveal Z. If you chose wrong and the money is Z,

then the host reveals Y. If you luckily chose the money the first time, then the host can

reveal either Z or Y. It doesn't matter. No matter what you're still stuck in that initial

33% chance that you chose right the very first time. But if you switch, regardless of the

prize revealed, you now leap into the 66% zone. You've doubled your chances of getting

the money.

To put it another way, when you're asked if you want to switch, you're actually being

given a dilemma: Do you want to keep your single envelope, or do you want both of the

other two? It just so happens that you already know what's inside one of them. But since

the one revealed will never contain the money, the chances that the other unopened envelope

has the money are twice as high as the first one that you chose.

The 'Monty Hall Problem' blew up after a 1990 Parade magazine columnist advocated

switching doors in this same scenario from the game show "Let's Make a Deal." When

she told readers they should always switch to improve their odds of winning, nearly 1,000

people with PhDs wrote in to tell her that she was wrong. She wasn't wrong. They were.

So the Monty Hall Paradox, like the Potato Paradox we recently covered, is an example

of one that is a Veridical Paradox -- one that initially seems wrong, but is proven

to be true.

Quine said: "A veridical paradox packs a surprise, but the surprise quickly dissipates

itself as we ponder the proof."

Okay. There are paradoxes that seem absurd but have a perfectly good explanation, and

ones that seem false and actually are false because of an underlying fallacy… even if

it takes a major advance in math to prove it. This last envelope contains the kind we

all think of when we all think of paradoxes.

Antinomy.

The grandfather paradox where you go back in time to kill your grandfather when he was

a child but that means your father was never born so you weren't born so how could you

go back in time to kill your grandfather? It's ridiculous. MinutePhysics proposed a

solution to this but these types of paradoxes are not true or false. Actually, they can't

be true and they can't be false. As Quine put it, they create a "crisis in thought."

I am lying.

If I'm lying when I say that, then I must actually be telling the truth. But how can

I be telling the truth if I'm lying? The Liar's Paradox is an example of Antinomy,

which literally means 'against laws' and highlights a serious logical incompatibility.

Quine said. Quine said this tape thing was a good idea in theory but in practice not

so much.

Quine said: "An antinomy packs a surprise that can be accommodated by nothing less than

a repudiation of part of our conceptual heritage."

Here's the thing. Antinomies are paradoxes to us ALL. Falsidical and veridical paradoxes

are only paradoxes to those who don't know the 'solution', but they still have value.

Every time we resolve a scenario that runs counter to our or someone else's initial expectations,

every time we learn the how and why and share that information.... we're refining and clarifying

knowledge. Which makes all three types of paradoxes excellent tools for reasoning.

Whether or not something is paradoxical to an individual depends on the accuracy of THEIR

expectations. Today, modern mathematics has given us the ability to show that Zeno's

paradoxes are falsidical. But they were pure antinomy, unresolved to EVERYONE, for millennia.

Quine himself said, "One man's antinomy is another man's falsidical paradox, give

or take a couple of thousand years."

Who knows which antinomies of today will be solved in the future? Right now we struggle

with the paradox of the Faint Young Sun: our current knowledge of stars says that billions

of years ago, our sun wasn't hot enough to keep the Earth from being a ball of ice.

But our geological evidence shows an ancient Earth with liquid oceans and budding life

when everything should've been frozen.

How could the Earth have liquid water without a sun hot enough to melt ice? It's antinomy

until we fully comprehend the situation. Maybe our current understanding of the sun isn't

perfect. Or maybe our knowledge of early Earth is missing some pieces.

A paradox is a problem where the solution is, or is made to seem, impossible. Sometimes

they're purposely designed for fun because our minds like puzzles. Sometimes we just

stumble on a gap between what we know and how we talk about what we know, and what is

actually true. When we solve an impossible antinomy, it becomes falsidical or veridical.

Someone who knows the answer can see what the problem was all along: we tricked ourselves...

by knowing too little or by asking the wrong question. In one way or another, all paradoxes

come from people.

By challenging us to find the flaw or fill the gap in our knowledge, paradoxes help us

define and push our intellectual boundaries. There's always more for us to know. Whether

we know it or not.

And as always - thanks for watching.

Hey! If you want to play the Monty Hall Game yourself you can do that right now over at

Brilliant. But the best part about it and why I'm happy to work with them is that

Brilliant helps you learn and refine your own knowledge. So after you work through the

initial problem you can take it to the next level with variants that make sure you really

understand what's happening. So to support Vsauce2 and your brain go to brilliant.org/vsauce2/

and sign up for free. The first 500 people that click the link will get 20% off the annual

Premium subscription. Which is an excellent deal. For everyone.

For more infomation >> What Is A Paradox? - Duration: 14:32.

-------------------------------------------

Why XANTARES is HLTV's highest rated player - Duration: 4:07.

XANTARES is infamous in the CS:GO community for holding the highest HLTV rating across

all recorded matches, standing in front of coldzera and s1mple.

What makes XANTARES stand out even more is that he's exclusivly a rifler with a hyper-aggressive

playing style, leveraging his incredible first-bullet aim and mid-range spray control in straight

duels.

Sure, his 1.25 rating across 715 maps might largely be due to dominating fields of weak

online qualifiers, but it's not a signifier of a 'boosted' player.

XANTARES is one of the most talented players in CS:GO not on a top line-up, and following

his second place at WESG 2018 with Space Soldiers, it's worth taking a look at how his team

utilizes this Turkish God.

Let's take a look at Round 23 of Space Soldier's game against Fnatic in the Grand Finals on

Cobble, a round that really showcases XANTARES's skill.

Here, we see that Space Soldiers are on a really poor force buy, with XANTARES having

the only rifle on the team.

Fnatic spread out in a pressuring default, with JW and Lekr0 working B plat, Krimz holding

DropDown and Flusha and Golden working Middle.

JW is able to find an entry onto MAJ3R who's out of position on B. Calyx then moves in,

baiting for XANTARES to push forward and trade-out lekr0.

On the other side of the map, ngiN is using some GREAT shoulder-peeking in a cross-fire

with paz's nova to delay for XANTARES to rotate.

Arriving just in time, XANTARES perfectly uses the pressure of his teammates to burst

down the remaining fnatic players with some great aim, winning the round for Space Soldiers.

While XANTARES's individual skill is among some of the best, the success Space Soldiers

have found comes from how they allow XANTARES to play how he wants, giving him both the

freedom and support to facilitate his style.

To see how Space Soldiers uses the massive carrying potential of XANTARES, let's look

at a couple of rounds from their Bo3 against GODSENT in the round-of-eight at WESG.

Throughout the initial rounds of Space Soldier's CT-side, XANTARES has been terrorizing Godsent,

regularly pushing Top Mid and peeking aggressively from Window.

In this key gun-round, XANTARES looks to push mid, but GODSENT preempt it based his previous

pressure.

GODSENT invest tons of resources into securing initial top mid control having four men hit

the location, throwing nades, and triple-peeking XANTARES.

Space Soldiers though, structuring their CT-side around this play, double down on their positioning.

As XANTARES goes down, paz immediately looks to push into conn aggressively with the AWP,

as MAJ3R takes forward ladder control from XANTARES pressure.

Paz is able punish the poor teamplay and flash-timing from Brollan and freddieb, peeking as the

T-conn flash pops and picking Brollan.

He then remains confident, holding conn and picking freddieb going for the trade with

no support.

Space Soldiers are then able to punish the sloppy mid-round calls from GODSENT and win

the round, in-spite of XANTARES aggressive play not working out.

Rounds like this shows that the entire system of Space Soldiers is made more dynamic, aggressive,

and confident when spearheaded by such a powerful player like XANTARES.

XANTARES is the longest running member of Space Soldiers, and his team's structure is

crucial to both his individual and the team's success.

That said, with the continued rise in popularity of international mix-teams, and the heavy

demand for players of his skill, he could easily find himself playing abroad in the

near future.

And given that Space Soldiers will be at the ESL Pro League Season 7 Finals in Dallas and

IEM Sydney XANTARES will have some great opportunities to shine on the international stage.

For more infomation >> Why XANTARES is HLTV's highest rated player - Duration: 4:07.

-------------------------------------------

Bong Joon-ho: Everything is Extreme in Korean Cinema | TIFF 2018 - Duration: 3:01.

For more infomation >> Bong Joon-ho: Everything is Extreme in Korean Cinema | TIFF 2018 - Duration: 3:01.

-------------------------------------------

The Truth About "Recomping" (Is It REALLY Possible?) - Duration: 11:40.

What's going on, guys?

Sean Nalewanyj on www.SeanNal.com.

And in this video today we're talking about the subject of body re-composition or recomping

for short.

Which, basically just means building muscle and losing fat at the same time.

Is it possible?

Who can do it?

And is it more efficient to go that route in comparison to standard bulking and cutting

cycles.

So the first question is: is it actually possible to build muscle and lose fat at the same time?

The short answer here is: yes, it is possible.

However, it's going to vary quite a bit from person to person in terms of just how far

in both directions they can travel at once.

And the three most important factors to take into account on this are: number one, level

of training experience; number two, bodyfat percentage; and number three, genetics.

So first off, the less training experience that someone has the more likely it'll be

that they can recomp successfully and vice versa.

And that's because weight training will still be a new stimulus for their body and so it'll

react more strongly to the stressors and adapt in, basically, a more pronounced way.

And also because the amount of muscle that any given person can gain and how fast they

can gain it, that is directly proportional to how much total muscle they've built so

far.

A brand new lifter is going to gain muscle much faster than somebody who's already been

training properly for one year.

And someone who's been training properly for one year is going to gain muscle faster than

somebody who's been training for two years.

And after about three to five years of consistent proper training, once you're right up near

your maximum genetic potential, muscle growth is going to slow down very sharply at that

point to where it might take a year or even longer just to gain an extra one or two pounds

of new muscle mass.

So, training experience is a huge factor.

The second factor is going to be bodyfat level.

So people who have a higher bodyfat percentage are going to be able to recomp more effectively

than people who are already relatively lean.

And that's because bodyfat is a stored form of energy and your body can use the energy

in stored fat to fuel the muscle building process.

So if you're thirty percent bodyfat right now, your body already has plenty of extra

stored fuel available that it can use to support muscle growth even if you're eating in a calorie

deficit.

Whereas, if you're already relatively lean as is, say you're twelve percent of bodyfat,

your body's going to be fighting a lot harder to hold on to that remaining fat since your

body needs a certain amount of bodyfat for health and survival purposes.

It's already trying to conserve energy as is and it's not just going to readily burn

off that last bit of fat in order to build more muscle.

Especially since muscle is "calorically expensive tissue" to begin with.

So the higher your bodyfat is the more muscle you can gain in a calorie deficit and the

lower your bodyfat is the less muscle you're going to be able to gain while on a calorie

deficit, if any at all.

And if you're trying to get down to very low bodyfat levels then you'll actually start

losing muscle when you try to cut further.

And the third primary factor to pay attention to here is going to be genetics.

The reality is that genetics do play a significant role in the muscle building process.

This includes a bunch of factors like testosterone levels, growth hormone, insulin sensitivity,

nutrient partitioning, myostatin levels even, all of these things come together and will

influence just how effectively any given person can lower their bodyfat while putting on lean

mass at the same time.

So those are the three main factors that going to come into play.

And as a side note, if you are an enhanced lifter and you're using drugs to help out

then obviously that's going to change things as well.

And achieving a successful recomp, in that case is going to be a lot easier.

But this video in this channel are dedicated toward natural lifters.

And the vast majority of people watching this are natural, so that's not really something

we need to worry about here.

And the other side note is for lifters who are returning from a training layoff.

In that case recomping is also possible even if you're a more experienced lifter because

you're going to have the benefits of muscle memory on your side.

And so your body can build muscle and lose fat fairly easily in those first several weeks

back in the gym after you're coming back from a layoff.

So in terms of practical application here, the people who are going to be able to recomp

most successfully are beginners who are also carrying higher bodyfat levels.

In other words, either you're overweight or you're skinny fat.

In that case, you're going to want start off by eating in a calorie deficit, consume adequate

protein and combine it with a proper weight training plan.

And as you lose fat from week to week you should be able to gain some muscle mass at

the same time.

There's no guarantee on exactly how much you'll gain, because it does depend on your specific

bodyfat level and on your genetics.

But the bottom line is to just put your main focus on fatloss and then to whatever degree

your body is capable of recomping and gaining muscle during that period, that's just going

to happen automatically and it's not really something that you have to really worry about

other than just keeping your training and your nutrition dialed in to maximize how much

lean mass you do ultimately gain.

Continue with that until you get down to a good lean bodyfat percentage of around twelve

to fourteen percent for men, about nineteen to twenty-one percent for women.

And at that point you can switch gears and shift into a focused lean bulking phase.

So that's the main scenario where meaningful recomposition is going to take place.

Again, aside from the inclusion of drugs or in the case of somebody returning from a training

layoff.

And the key word there is meaningful, okay.

It's not that other people can't recomposition and can't still build muscle and lose fat

at the same time, but you're usually not going to see significant progress in both directions

simultaneously if you're a more experienced lifter or if you're already at a relatively

lean bodyfat percentage.

So for example, if we take a more experienced lifter who's coming off of a bulk and his

bodyfat climbed up to, say eighteen percent, and now he wants to do a cut.

Yeah, if he structures his program properly then he might still continue to gain a bit

of muscle and strength while he drops his bodyfat back to that twelve percent level.

But it's not going to be to the same degree that he experienced while he was eating in

a calorie surplus.

So on paper, he can say, yeah I lost fat and gain muscle at the same time, but it's probably

going to be mostly fatloss and maybe a small amount of muscle gain.

So even though, yeah, technically he recomposition during that time it was still primarily just

a cutting phase for the most part.

And that's another important thing to keep in mind here.

You can gain muscle while you're in a calorie deficit as long as we're not talking about

getting shredded to, like below ten percent bodyfat, in which case you'll probably actually

lose a bit of muscle.

You can gain muscle in a deficit but it won't be to the same degree that you'd achieve

by eating in a straight calorie surplus.

So this isn't a black and white thing.

Some people will say, well, you can gain muscle in a deficit or at maintenance as long as

you eat enough protein.

And so for that reason you don't actually need a surplus and bulking is a waste of time.

Well, true, you don't need a surplus to build muscle in the basic sense but if you want

to build muscle as effectively as possible then, yes, you probably do need to have a

small surplus in place.

So for that reason if you're already at a good lean twelve percent bodyfat, give or

take, and you're primary goal is to gain muscle size and strength, that's your main

aim, then I'd recommend just going with a standard lean bulk at that point by eating

in a small calorie surplus in order to maximize your gains.

You're never going to lose bodyfat while in a surplus so a true recomp is out of the question

at that point.

But your strength is going to go up faster and you're going to gain more overall lean

mass with that surplus in place.

And if you do it properly and you do it patiently you won't gain a lot of bodyfat anyway.

And even after you do gain a bit of bodyfat you can just do a quick cut and lean right

back down.

So, in the bigger picture you are gaining muscle and losing fat, it's just not happening

at precisely the exact same time.

But in the slightly bigger picture it kind of is.

But that's the key thing, you have to lean bulk properly.

A proper bulking phase is done slowly and gradually and it only takes a relatively small

calorie surplus in order to maximize muscle growth in the first place.

This is the big mistake that a lot of lifters make and it's why a lot of people ultimately

get scared of the idea of bulking in the first place, because they're worried that they'll

put on a bunch of bodyfat.

But the bottom line is that your body can only use a pretty limited number of calories

for the purpose of muscle growth in any given day and once you exceed that number the rest

of those calories are just going to be stored as fat.

You don't need five hundred or seven hundred and fifty or a thousand extra calories per

day to maximize your gains.

Most of that will end up as fat, especially as you get more advanced.

So as a rough guideline beginners can go with a surplus of about three hundred calories

above maintenance per day.

So that means lifters with less than one year of proper training experience, intermediates

with, let's say between one two three years of proper training experience, can go with

about two hundred to two hundred and fifty calories.

And more advanced lifters at three years and beyond somewhere around a hundred to a hundred

and fifty calories above maintenance.

Those are just approximate figures to go by.

They're never going to be perfect.

But that should provide enough calories to optimize muscle growth while keeping fat gains

to a minimum.

So while I do recommend eating in a calorie surplus in order to maximize your gains if

you've already got that relatively lean bodyfat percentage to start out from and you want

to get bigger and stronger, especially if you're a more advanced lifter because recomping

at that point is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible, you still shouldn't be

getting fat during your bulk anyway.

If you do things right then you'll gain muscle along with a small amount of fat then you

can go back to a deficit again to get rid of the fat while preserving the gains that

you made, then you can lean bulk back again with a small surplus, then go back to a deficit.

So really it's not much different from recomping anyway, because over time, again like I said,

you will be gaining muscle and losing fat "simultaneously" but it'll just be happening

in the slightly bigger picture.

So, a lot of information to take in there, but to sum it up, yes, recomping is possible.

It is possible to build muscle and to lose fat at the same time, but it will usually

only happen to a truly significant meaningful degree in beginners who are also carrying

a decent amount of extra bodyfat, lifters who are coming back from a layoff, or those

who are using drugs.

And genetics will also influence just how successful your recomp is.

For everybody else standard bulking and cutting cycles are usually going to be the most efficient

approach.

But if you do them properly you'll stay relatively lean year round anyway.

So thanks for watching, guys.

I hope you found this advice helpful.

If you do want to get a complete, fully structured roadmap in terms of training, nutrition, and

supplementation to properly guide you throughout this entire process.

Step-by-step depending on your individual goals, experience level, and your body type

then you can check out my complete Body Transformation Blueprint system over at www.BTBluePrint.com.

Or by clicking up here.

The link for that's also in the description box.

If you found these tips helpful make sure to hit the like button, leave a comment and

subscribe to stay up-to-date on future videos.

You can also follow me on Facebook and Instagram as well if you aren't already.

The links for that are also in the description box.

And the official website is over at www.SeanNal.com.

Thanks for watching, guys.

And I'll talk again soon.

For more infomation >> The Truth About "Recomping" (Is It REALLY Possible?) - Duration: 11:40.

-------------------------------------------

After Washing Your Face With Coconut Oil And Baking Soda This Is What Happens To Your Face - Duration: 2:37.