1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,640
Welcome to the deep dive where 
we, well, we like to unpack 

2
00:00:03,640 --> 00:00:07,080
these complex topics and unearth
these hidden gems of knowledge. 

3
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:10,880
And today we're diving into a 
fascinating legal concept, the 

4
00:00:10,880 --> 00:00:14,320
reasonable person standard. 
Imagine like this yardstick, you

5
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:17,240
know, for judging actions. 
But it's not about your personal

6
00:00:17,240 --> 00:00:20,040
quirks. 
It's about what society expects.

7
00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:22,720
It's fascinating really, because
it's not about what any one 

8
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,000
person would do, but instead 
it's this course of what would a

9
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:28,520
hypothetical reasonable person 
do? 

10
00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:31,880
And it's this benchmark, the 
standard acts as this benchmark 

11
00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:36,360
for evaluating actions based on 
societal expectations. 

12
00:00:36,360 --> 00:00:38,040
So. 
It's like, OK, imagine a cooking

13
00:00:38,040 --> 00:00:39,960
competition, right? 
You might have some chefs like 

14
00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:43,360
creating these crazy avant-garde
dishes, but there's this kind of

15
00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:45,200
a baseline, right? 
There's this basic level of 

16
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:47,040
competition. 
Everyone expects you won't serve

17
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:49,120
raw chicken and expect to win. 
Precisely. 

18
00:00:49,480 --> 00:00:51,400
And this standard is a 
cornerstone. 

19
00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:56,120
It's a cornerstone of both tort 
law, which of course deals with 

20
00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:00,880
accidents and injuries, and 
contract law, which focuses on 

21
00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:03,840
agreements gone wrong. 
Imagine it as this invisible 

22
00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:07,560
judge lurking in the background 
of everyday life, shaking how we

23
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:09,960
interact and how we hold each 
other accountable. 

24
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:13,000
So this reasonable person, let's
let's get into this, dive into 

25
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:16,200
this a little bit. 
OK, so it's not a real person. 

26
00:01:16,360 --> 00:01:18,440
It's not an actual individual. 
You're exactly right, the 

27
00:01:18,440 --> 00:01:22,040
reasonable person is an ideal 
hypothetical person really 

28
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:25,040
embodying embodying average 
prudence and caution. 

29
00:01:25,040 --> 00:01:27,360
Why is this hypothetical figure 
so important? 

30
00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:29,440
Why is this so important? 
Well, it helps courts. 

31
00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:33,280
It helps courts make objective 
and fair decisions, preventing 

32
00:01:33,280 --> 00:01:38,680
judgments from being swayed by 
individual quirks or biases. 

33
00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:41,680
It levels the playing field so 
everyone is being judged by the 

34
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:44,200
same standard. 
OK, our source material mentions

35
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:47,720
a case involving a haystack fire
and the defendants, well, their 

36
00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:51,080
poor judgement wasn't a valid 
excuse because any reasonable 

37
00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:52,680
person would have recognized the
risk. 

38
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:55,440
This makes me think sometimes we
overestimate our own judgement. 

39
00:01:55,600 --> 00:01:57,120
Right. 
Oh, absolutely we do, yeah. 

40
00:01:57,120 --> 00:01:58,360
We do, I do it all the time. 
Yeah. 

41
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:04,040
We often view ourselves as more 
rational and cautious than we 

42
00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:06,760
might actually be. 
That's that's why the standard 

43
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:08,680
is so crucial. 
It provides kind of that broader

44
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:10,759
perspective that we sometimes 
miss. 

45
00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:11,720
Yeah. 
For sure. 

46
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:17,200
OK, so in tort law, what are the
key elements of this reasonable 

47
00:02:17,200 --> 00:02:20,400
person test? 
Well, three primary elements are

48
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:23,040
at play here. 
First, foreseeability. 

49
00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:26,040
So could a reasonable person 
have predicted the harm? 

50
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,840
For instance, imagine spilling 
coffee in a busy shop. 

51
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:32,600
It's it's foreseeable that 
someone might slip. 

52
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:34,440
Right. 
You can totally see that 

53
00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:35,720
happening. 
OK, what else? 

54
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:37,080
What's What's next? 
Well, next we have 

55
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:40,520
proportionality. 
So the higher the risk, the 

56
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:42,680
higher the level of care that's 
expected. 

57
00:02:42,880 --> 00:02:47,160
Carrying a box demands less 
caution than, let's say, 

58
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:49,080
handling toxic waste. 
Sure. 

59
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:50,840
All right. 
So the potential consequences 

60
00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:52,760
determine the reasonable level 
of care. 

61
00:02:52,920 --> 00:02:55,440
You wouldn't wear flip flops to 
a nuclear power plant. 

62
00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:58,880
Exactly. 
And lastly, we have custom and 

63
00:02:58,880 --> 00:03:01,480
practice. 
So doctors, for example, are 

64
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:05,040
judged against the prevailing 
standards of medical practice. 

65
00:03:05,040 --> 00:03:06,240
So. 
It's not just general common 

66
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:10,040
sense, but it's also like what's
expected within specific 

67
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:10,880
professions. 
Right. 

68
00:03:11,160 --> 00:03:13,760
OK, That makes sense. 
So this reasonable person is 

69
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:14,880
very adaptable. 
Yeah. 

70
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:17,200
OK. 
What about children? 

71
00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:20,000
They don't always have the same 
judgement as adults. 

72
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:20,640
How does? 
How does that? 

73
00:03:20,640 --> 00:03:22,320
How does it work? 
That's a that's a great point. 

74
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:25,680
When it comes to children, 
they're generally judged against

75
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:27,840
other kids of the same age. 
Makes sense. 

76
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:29,760
You wouldn't. 
You wouldn't expect a 5 year old

77
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:33,160
to have the same level of 
responsibility as a 30 year old.

78
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:35,600
Sure, but what about like, a 
teenager driving a car? 

79
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:38,360
I mean, that's, yeah, that's a 
lot of responsibility for 

80
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:40,680
someone so young. 
You raise a a crucial point 

81
00:03:41,760 --> 00:03:45,920
because in high stakes 
situations like driving, even 

82
00:03:45,920 --> 00:03:49,920
minors are often held to an 
adult standard because because 

83
00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:51,960
the potential consequences are 
significant. 

84
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:55,480
So the reasonable person 
recognizes that certain 

85
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:59,280
activities demand a higher level
of care, regardless of age. 

86
00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:04,880
OK, so the reasonable person 
adapts different contexts, even 

87
00:04:04,880 --> 00:04:06,160
age. 
What about people with 

88
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:08,160
disabilities? 
How does this standard apply to 

89
00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,440
them? 
Well, in cases involving 

90
00:04:10,440 --> 00:04:13,440
physical disabilities, the 
standard shifts to consider what

91
00:04:13,440 --> 00:04:16,640
a reasonable person with the 
same disability would have done.

92
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:21,120
So if someone is blind, for 
example, their actions are 

93
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:25,000
judged against a reasonable 
blind person, not a sighted 1. 

94
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:27,400
That makes sense. 
It wouldn't be fair to hold 

95
00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:29,680
someone to a standard that they 
physically can't meet. 

96
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:33,080
The source material also 
mentions mental disabilities, 

97
00:04:33,800 --> 00:04:36,080
and this is where things get a 
little bit more complex. 

98
00:04:36,080 --> 00:04:37,520
It's. 
It's a complex area. 

99
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:40,480
It's a complex area indeed. 
Traditionally, mental 

100
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:44,080
disabilities hasn't always been 
factored in to the reasonable 

101
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:48,560
person standard and this has 
sparked considerable debate 

102
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:52,280
about fairness. 
It raises the question if 

103
00:04:52,280 --> 00:04:56,080
someone's mental state yeah 
genuinely impacts their ability 

104
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:59,040
to act, quote UN quote 
reasonably, should they be 

105
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:00,840
judged by the same standard? 
Precisely. 

106
00:05:00,840 --> 00:05:05,280
And that that question is at the
heart of ongoing legal 

107
00:05:05,280 --> 00:05:07,160
discussions. 
So the reasonable person's 

108
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:10,560
standard isn't static, it 
evolves with society's 

109
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:11,680
understanding. 
Exactly. 

110
00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:16,240
And as and as we grapple with 
new situations, the very notion 

111
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:20,640
of what's considered reasonable 
is constantly being refined and 

112
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:23,200
reevaluated. 
This, this ongoing evolution, 

113
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:25,600
ensures that the standard 
remains relevant. 

114
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:27,760
Yeah. 
And applicable to the 

115
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:30,840
complexities of our world. 
So fascinating to see how this 

116
00:05:30,840 --> 00:05:34,960
like seemingly simple concept 
actually has so much depth and 

117
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:36,760
nuance to it. 
We've explored how the 

118
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:39,480
reasonable person operates in 
tort law, but what about its 

119
00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,040
role in contract law? 
How does it how does it impact 

120
00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:44,040
agreements, you know, that we 
make every day? 

121
00:05:44,440 --> 00:05:48,240
Well, the reasonable person acts
as a sort of mediator in the 

122
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:51,600
world of contracts, helping us 
to interpret confusing terms and

123
00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:54,880
determine if a if a chew 
agreement was actually reached. 

124
00:05:55,160 --> 00:05:59,160
It helps determine if someone 
broke the contract by not acting

125
00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:01,360
in a way a reasonable person 
would have expected. 

126
00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:04,480
So it's like having this 
invisible observer making sure 

127
00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:07,000
everyone is playing fair in the 
world of agreements. 

128
00:06:07,840 --> 00:06:11,360
OK, the source material 
mentioned some landmark cases, 

129
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,080
and I think the one that has 
maybe the most relatable human 

130
00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:17,920
impact is Donahue V Stevenson, 
the snail and the ginger beer 

131
00:06:17,920 --> 00:06:21,760
case. 
That one This case established a

132
00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:25,960
manufacturer's beauty of care to
consumers, and it affects 

133
00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:29,480
probably nearly everyone 
listening today because we all 

134
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:31,880
buy products. 
So this case highlights the 

135
00:06:31,880 --> 00:06:35,000
significance of Product Safety 
and holds manufacturers 

136
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,480
accountable for negligence. 
Wow, talk about a case with some

137
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:40,360
serious far reaching 
consequences. 

138
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:43,880
OK, I think this is a good place
for me to take a quick break and

139
00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:46,000
we'll come back and we'll dive 
even deeper into the reasonable 

140
00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:51,720
person standard. 
Welcome back to the deep dive. 

141
00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:54,880
We've been exploring the 
reasonable person standard and 

142
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:57,360
well, its impact on everything 
from spilled coffee to Product 

143
00:06:57,360 --> 00:06:58,920
Safety. 
And I'm curious about the 

144
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:01,960
challenges this standard faces. 
It can't all be smooth sailing, 

145
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:03,320
right? 
You're you're right. 

146
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,200
One of the biggest hurdles I 
think is achieving true 

147
00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:09,480
objectivity, because whose 
version of reasonable are we 

148
00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:10,880
using? 
Right. 

149
00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:14,640
Human judgement is inherently 
subjective and this can lead to 

150
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:15,760
bias. 
Yeah. 

151
00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:18,880
And it's not like reasonable is 
like frozen in time, right? 

152
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:22,160
What might have been considered 
reasonable behavior decades ago 

153
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:25,280
could be seen as completely 
irresponsible today. 

154
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:28,720
Exactly what was deemed 
reasonable in the 1800s might be

155
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:31,320
considered, well, negligent 
today. 

156
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:33,160
Think about seatbelts, for 
instance. 

157
00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:37,400
They weren't always mandatory. 
The The very definition of safe 

158
00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:40,360
evolves over time. 
So we're all kind of chasing 

159
00:07:40,360 --> 00:07:42,800
this moving target of 
reasonableness. 

160
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:46,040
In a way, yes, but but that's 
not necessarily a bad thing. 

161
00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:49,160
It signifies that our legal 
system is is adaptable, capable 

162
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:52,120
of reflecting changing values 
and and understanding this 

163
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:55,440
constant evolution is is 
actually a strength ensuring the

164
00:07:55,440 --> 00:07:59,320
standard stays relevant and just
it it keeps pace with society's 

165
00:07:59,320 --> 00:08:01,680
progress. 
This deep dive has really made 

166
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:03,560
me think about all the things I 
just take for granted. 

167
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,760
I never really considered how 
this reasonable person idea 

168
00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:10,280
influences so much of our lives.
It is pervasive, isn't it? 

169
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:12,480
It? 
This standard underscores the 

170
00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:15,480
interconnectedness of our 
actions and the expectations we 

171
00:08:15,480 --> 00:08:18,400
have of one another. 
The reasonable person reflects 

172
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:21,640
our kind of our collective 
values, shaping the kind of 

173
00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:24,520
society we create. 
OK, so if this standard reflects

174
00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:29,200
our values, does that mean it 
can be flawed because societies 

175
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:31,880
aren't perfect? 
That's an incredibly insightful 

176
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:33,880
observation, and the answer is 
yes. 

177
00:08:34,039 --> 00:08:36,840
The standard can be imperfect 
because it it mirrors the 

178
00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:40,440
imperfections of society itself.
Biases can creep in. 

179
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:42,799
Societal blind spots can 
influence judgment. 

180
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:46,400
So it's like this constant work 
in progress where striving for a

181
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:49,120
more perfect version of 
reasonableness, but it's a 

182
00:08:49,120 --> 00:08:50,760
continuous journey. 
Precisely. 

183
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:54,440
The law is constantly adapting, 
refining itself, striving to 

184
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:57,320
become more just and equitable, 
and the reasonable person 

185
00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:00,280
standard plays plays a key part 
in that evolution. 

186
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:02,520
It's making me think about my 
own actions in a new light. 

187
00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:05,360
It's as if I'm more aware of 
this invisible, reasonable 

188
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:06,960
person looking over my shoulder 
now. 

189
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:10,880
I, I think it's, it's beneficial
to be mindful of this standard, 

190
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:14,320
not in a way that that paralyzes
us with feel, but encourages 

191
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:16,840
thoughtful action. 
You know, it reminds us to 

192
00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:19,440
consider the potential impact of
our choices. 

193
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:23,720
Welcome back to the deep dive. 
We've been exploring this 

194
00:09:23,720 --> 00:09:26,520
fascinating and sometimes 
challenging world of the 

195
00:09:26,520 --> 00:09:30,320
Reasonable Person standard. 
So it's not just about avoiding 

196
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,560
lawsuits, but like being a 
decent, responsible human being.

197
00:09:33,680 --> 00:09:36,520
Well said. 
At its core, the reasonable 

198
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:40,600
person standard encourages a 
society where people act with 

199
00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:42,640
care and consideration for 
others. 

200
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:46,080
It it reminds us that we're all 
connected and our actions have 

201
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:48,520
have ripple effects. 
I'm so glad we did this deep 

202
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:50,360
dive. 
It's shifted my perspective. 

203
00:09:50,360 --> 00:09:53,120
I feel like I not only 
understand the legal world 

204
00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:56,520
better, but also, you know, my 
own responsibilities as a member

205
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:58,800
of society. 
That's the beauty of knowledge. 

206
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:02,200
It empowers us to navigate the 
complexities of the world and 

207
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:05,440
participate more thoughtfully. 
Speaking of complexities, I I I 

208
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:08,320
feel like there's still so much 
more to uncover about this 

209
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:11,000
reasonable person. 
Our source material mentioned 

210
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:13,920
that society shapes what's 
considered reasonable, so so 

211
00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:15,720
where are our standards heading 
in the future? 

212
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:20,040
That's the $1,000,000 question. 
As technology advances, social 

213
00:10:20,040 --> 00:10:22,280
norms shift, new challenges 
emerge. 

214
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:26,680
The concept of reasonableness 
will undoubtedly continue to 

215
00:10:26,680 --> 00:10:28,640
evolve. 
Think about artificial 

216
00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:31,920
intelligence, self driving cars,
the metaverse. 

217
00:10:32,440 --> 00:10:34,720
These innovations are already 
blurring the lines of 

218
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:37,320
responsibility and raising new 
legal questions. 

219
00:10:37,360 --> 00:10:39,840
Well, you're right. 
What seems like science fiction 

220
00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:43,440
today could become like the 
legal battleground of tomorrow, 

221
00:10:43,680 --> 00:10:46,240
and this reasonable person will 
be right there in the middle of 

222
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:47,480
it all, trying to make sense of 
it all. 

223
00:10:47,520 --> 00:10:49,600
Exactly. 
And this, This is why it's so 

224
00:10:49,600 --> 00:10:51,840
important to grasp this concept.
It's not just a legal 

225
00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:54,880
abstraction, it's a framework 
for navigating a world that's 

226
00:10:54,880 --> 00:10:57,880
constantly changing so. 
It's an ongoing dialogue between

227
00:10:57,880 --> 00:11:00,800
the law and society. 
We're constantly refining our 

228
00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:04,320
understanding of what it means 
to be reasonable as we face new 

229
00:11:04,320 --> 00:11:07,960
situations and grapple with with
evolving ethical dilemmas. 

230
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:09,840
Absolutely. 
That's what makes this topic so 

231
00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:11,960
fascinating. 
It's it's not just memorizing 

232
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:14,160
legal precedents. 
It's about a a critical 

233
00:11:14,160 --> 00:11:17,800
conversation about values, 
responsibilities and the kind of

234
00:11:17,800 --> 00:11:21,000
society we want to create. 
This deep dive has been eye 

235
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:24,080
opening. 
I I have a new appreciation for 

236
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:27,960
the legal system and how this 
reasonable person shapes our 

237
00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:30,840
world. 
And remember you you don't need 

238
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:32,880
a law degree to engage with 
these ideas. 

239
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:36,160
Every time you make a decision, 
consider the impact on others, 

240
00:11:36,160 --> 00:11:39,040
or try to understand a different
perspective, you're engaging 

241
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:41,080
with the reasonable person's 
standard. 

242
00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,280
It's not just about lawyers in 
courtrooms, it's about how we 

243
00:11:44,280 --> 00:11:45,840
interact with each other every 
day. 

244
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,000
Well said. 
And remember, as our world 

245
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:53,120
changes, so too will the idea of
what's considered reasonable. 

246
00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:57,160
It's an ongoing conversation, a 
constant process of adaptation 

247
00:11:57,160 --> 00:11:59,200
and refinement. 
It makes you think about the 

248
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:01,840
response responsibility we all 
share in shaping those standards

249
00:12:01,840 --> 00:12:05,160
for the future. 
Well folks, that brings us to 

250
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:08,120
the end of our deep dive into 
the reasonable person standard. 

251
00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:10,960
Big thanks to our expert for for
guiding us through this 

252
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:13,280
fascinating topic. 
It's been my pleasure, always 

253
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:15,440
happy to explore the 
complexities of the legal world 

254
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:18,600
with such an engaged audience. 
And to our listeners, thank you 

255
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:21,680
for joining us on this journey. 
We hope you've gained a new 

256
00:12:21,680 --> 00:12:24,200
understanding of this this 
powerful concept. 

257
00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:28,640
Until next time, keep exploring 
and keep those brains engaged.