@bio.bele: frosting a cake will TRULY humble you - but never give up fam🫶🏾 #fyp #foryoupage #fall #baking #bts #asmr #thanksgiving

Biobele Braide, MD
Biobele Braide, MD
Open In TikTok:
Region: US
Monday 20 November 2023 17:25:49 GMT
27868
3403
31
7

Music

Download

Comments

vampypjm
mich⁷ <3 ˚₊· ͟͟͞͞➳❥ :
the single reason i gave up baking i cannot
2023-11-20 17:32:29
18
abstractflours
LaLa af. :
Was this brown butter frosting? If so I suggest adding a little bit of warm water or half and half to make it less crumbly
2023-11-20 17:36:22
8
brittrockshair
Brittrockshair :
Listen you’re doing better than me
2023-11-21 00:42:30
8
richrrdd.d
richard :
loveeee brown butter! it turned out so good😄
2023-11-20 18:18:10
6
bianca.b_06
bianca :
a good tip is to dip your offset spatula in hot water and use it to get an even smoother coat!
2023-11-20 17:39:03
4
stillkindofanovice
stillkindofanovice :
I just frosted my first cake a few weeks ago and it was honestly so stressful and anxiety inducing 😂
2023-11-21 00:07:28
4
youthsweets
heather | youthsweets :
always humbled when I ice a cake
2023-11-20 17:57:23
3
marysol17101
marysol17101 :
Thank you for sharing the struggles of baking too 😭😅
2023-11-20 21:49:22
3
fresheatsunlimited
💖🥒💐✨Queana✨💐🥒💖 :
It looks Scrumptious tho…😍😍😍
2023-11-22 22:15:51
3
timeless.retro
Ashley :
It’s so cool that you’re a baker AND a doctor!
2023-11-20 17:56:07
2
bio.bele
Biobele Braide, MD :
I really appreciate all of the tips🥰
2023-11-20 18:01:23
2
itsthatjengirl
Jen 🍉 :
Oh this looks so good 😊
2023-11-20 17:38:22
1
aprilcee95
April Carter 🫧 :
I know it sounds weird, but it honestly helps if you put the frosting in the fridge for a few minutes before you frost the cake!
2023-11-22 08:22:38
0
bhunt96
Biannnca<3 :
@Gen 💕
2023-11-24 20:49:08
0
rachelgremie
racheleliseg :
Hahahahaha “sighs in baker” you crack me up
2023-12-07 02:59:53
0
kaycyn
Kay Cyn :
As a baker it gets better!!! believe me
2024-02-07 06:43:45
0
To see more videos from user @bio.bele, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs. Graham's number is g₆₄ where gₙ = { 3 ↑↑↑↑ 3, if n = 1 3 ↑^(gₙ₋₁) 3, if n ≥ 2 } Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a b c . . . a^{b^{c^{...}}} even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation, or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical Busy Beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.
Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs. Graham's number is g₆₄ where gₙ = { 3 ↑↑↑↑ 3, if n = 1 3 ↑^(gₙ₋₁) 3, if n ≥ 2 } Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a b c . . . a^{b^{c^{...}}} even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation, or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical Busy Beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.

About