@bylia88123: Use my old bread maker with me 😆❤️ bread maker for beginners 🍞 Recipe at the end of video #bread #breadmaking #vloglife #recipes #baking

ByLi

Open In TikTok:

Region: MY

Saturday 16 May 2026 05:19:47 GMT

15317500

222519

824

8991

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (2.68MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (2.68MB) Watermark .mp4 (5.23MB) Music .mp3

Comments

scupper-punk :

Yeah that’s not when you should add yeast

2026-05-21 22:19:47

6942

Firestar503 :

politely - the yeast goes into the wet ingredients

2026-05-24 13:55:55

71

Timehhh :

gotta activate the yeast though

2026-05-19 09:56:42

1399

darkblue :

It sounds angry 😢

2026-05-18 18:06:29

4497

Noddy :

Quicker to use a fork

2026-05-18 21:48:15

5720

user9546272920325 :

Egg in bread?

2026-05-25 22:41:57

45

ira_humairah94 :

maaf breadmaker dh dijual 😂 beli preloved ngn kawan semangat ye sbb nak bt donut viral . skali cuba jd lps tu.. goodbye

2026-05-17 09:06:57

0

maya :

te lo juro me dió flojera 😁... a mano es más rápido 🚄🚄🚄

2026-05-25 02:15:48

532

Pemburu_Menceme :

Harap recipe nie jadi. Saya dah buat beberapa kali, result dia keras je

2026-05-17 09:06:23

29

intan :

benda ni boleh masak terus ke

2026-05-17 05:05:43

46

FATIMAH :

العجانه تقهر والا

2026-05-30 00:32:19

392

Beestouri :

quelle horreur

2026-05-21 10:01:38

9

S_r_a :

جيبيها اعجنها بيدي ابرك

2026-06-02 20:04:01

15

N :

مستفزة

2026-06-18 21:56:16

25

🧸 TℹℹQaa 🧸 :

sy beli masa PKP.. bsimpan dlm kotak... belum pernah guna sampai skrg 🥲

2026-05-17 02:51:10

42

Cida :

sy punya beli time pkp, entah rosakk dah skrg hm

2026-05-16 23:13:21

795

gaktaugue :

oh dia memang gidak gitu ya? saya ingatkan dulu salah pasang. demi menyenangkan hati mak saya , saya uli dan letak dalam bread maker😂

2026-05-17 07:39:50

490

❤ :

Una semana despues pruebas el pan 😳

2026-05-22 02:19:23

30

🇲🇩 girl's mother🇲🇩 :

у меня тоже такая есть дома 🔥

2026-05-25 04:28:33

9

melodynoe41 :

Avec cette machine je me faisais des gratin dauphinois, ils étaient excellents très bien cuit

2026-05-19 12:49:43

14

ozqulozer :

4-5 saat sürüyor bir ekmek yapmak

2026-05-24 17:58:20

8

peachy_pans :

Thanks for the recipe! It turned out well and it was really good 😁

2026-05-26 06:37:10

25

To see more videos from user @bylia88123, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

$Spoony Spoonicus 🤣 AI 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 can 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 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, 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.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3, if n=1 and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3, if n≥2. {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} 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, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #robert #maudsley #spoonyspoonicus #tpd #fyppppppppppppppppppppppp$
Spoony Spoonicus 🤣 AI 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 can 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 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, 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.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3, if n=1 and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3, if n≥2. {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} 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, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #robert #maudsley #spoonyspoonicus #tpd #fyppppppppppppppppppppppp

THERE WASNT A LABLE ON Your CONNECTION. But you are Divine Counterparts tarot reading part 2 #tarot #foryourpage

THERE WASNT A LABLE ON Your CONNECTION. But you are Divine Counterparts tarot reading part 2 #tarot #foryourpage

Nỗi buồn này nặng lắm anh với em tìm cách giảm cân 🌊 #vcclefthand #tanvotuoi20 #weedie #jerseyclub #fypシ

Nỗi buồn này nặng lắm anh với em tìm cách giảm cân 🌊 #vcclefthand #tanvotuoi20 #weedie #jerseyclub #fypシ

Leao X Shape Of You 😍💫 | #aftereffectsedit #rafaelleao #acmilan #footballtiktok #fyp #viral ★ upload method ★ TG: @editing_news

Leao X Shape Of You 😍💫 | #aftereffectsedit #rafaelleao #acmilan #footballtiktok #fyp #viral ★ upload method ★ TG: @editing_news

Confesso que esse novo álbum me surpreendeu. 🎧 Fui ouvir sem criar grandes expectativas, mas a qualidade das músicas, da produção e dos clipes acabou chamando bastante a minha atenção. É aquele tipo de trabalho que vale a pena ouvir antes de tirar qualquer conclusão. ✨ @Anitta #anitta #anittacy #equilibrivm

Confesso que esse novo álbum me surpreendeu. 🎧 Fui ouvir sem criar grandes expectativas, mas a qualidade das músicas, da produção e dos clipes acabou chamando bastante a minha atenção. É aquele tipo de trabalho que vale a pena ouvir antes de tirar qualquer conclusão. ✨ @Anitta #anitta #anittacy #equilibrivm

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy