@tamsudaokeo28: Ngày càng nhiều cô gái trẻ suy buồng trứng, nguy cơ ảnh hưởng khả năng sinh sản vì thức khuya kéo dài#theanh28 #tamsudaokeo #tiktoknews #fyp

TÂM SỰ DAO KÉO
TÂM SỰ DAO KÉO
Open In TikTok:
Region: VN
Thursday 02 July 2026 03:34:05 GMT
1878260
43601
565
75176

Music

Download

Comments

han10102k
Hân Cô Nương💋 :
2 năm nay kinh nguyệt 2 ngày là hết xem video này hơi lo
2026-07-03 02:18:24
195
maiqn_173
min.hyu :
giờ t còn chưa ngủ 😭
2026-07-03 21:38:56
41
phuongmyg091234
mỹ mỹ :
anh huong gi k
2026-07-02 06:14:28
171
kimmo241296
nhai nhuồm nhoàm :
t mới 30t. mà nay thức tới 11h hơn thôi là mấy ngày sau t mới thấy khoẻ lại được. nó mệt uể oải kinh khủng luôn. moik người chú ý ngủ sớm. 4h sáng thức cũng dc. nhưng tuyệt đối phải ngủ sớm.
2026-07-03 00:34:12
8
ngc.lan.0606
Ngọc Lan ❤️ :
Thôi chết tui rồi ... tôi toàn thức đến sáng🥺
2026-07-03 21:22:25
10
lamonmoitinh_
Đánh Lọ Giờ Ngọ :
Dạo này lướt tik tok thấy đáng sợ quá, tạm thời xoá tik tok
2026-08-15 11:23:39
1
angngocthuytrang
Ngọc :
t thắc mắc này mà mình đi nc ngoài ngủ ngày cày đêm theo giờ bên nc ngoài thì có bị bệnh k v
2026-07-02 22:15:17
55
lngon79
giây phút tĩnh lặng :
cày đêm từ 2014 đến giờ
2026-08-14 22:26:26
0
shady_f2p
Không tìm thấy tài khoản :
Ủa sống giờ mỹ thế sao bên mỹ họ ko bị nhỉ
2026-08-17 10:10:52
1
behelen98
T-Hương store :
Vừa mới thức nguyên đêm tới giờ , giờ thấy vdeo này 😳😳
2026-07-03 02:47:44
40
httbap2
vizt :
oi 5g sang thi doc dc
2026-07-03 22:12:37
30
phungvanthin65
Anh bánh mì 🥖 :
Tao làm đêm cả chục năm🤡
2026-08-12 00:19:36
10
dwcdwi
dwcdwi :
May quá mình không có trứng
2026-08-06 02:50:38
3
hameeeyelash
1_9_9_6 :
Mé. Từ lúc ngoagi 30. Nó tự dưng mất ngủ là thật
2026-07-03 02:00:32
6
thaomooncuti
Thảo(草🌙) :
Ngày nào cũng 2h mới ngủ :((
2026-07-03 03:17:59
26
_puongg
cô gái mét 75🧚‍♀️ :
Mấy bạn ơi , mấy bạn nhớ ngủ trước 11h và ngủ đủ 8 tiếng nha , buổi trưa phải ngủ 15-30p nha , ăn uống đừng quá cay hoặc quá ngọt quá hay chua nha , không được bỏ bữa nhất là bữa sáng , tập thể dục 10p-20p mỗi ngày , không nên tắm khuya và uống ít nhất 1,5 lít nước 1 ngày , và nhớ đi xe cẩn thận nhé..!!
2026-07-04 14:46:53
9
minhminhpro102
Minh Minh :
quan trọng là bác sĩ cảnh báo chứ bác sĩ vẫn trực đêm thiếu ngủ ấy thôi🙃cái gì nó cũng có xác suất
2026-07-05 02:14:07
5
trghieu28
_nth_ :
nếu liên tục như v thì đồng hồ sinh học của cơ thể cx thay đổi việc cc j lq đến ngủ ngày cày đêm
2026-07-07 01:28:19
0
nt.tuyetlanh
👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌 :
đi làm đêm😆😆😆😆
2026-07-02 18:13:19
2
hwng_ngwc2
N. :
Lm đêm thì s z🥲
2026-07-03 01:58:40
1
nglinh132004
Ng.Ngọc Linh :
đủ 7ngày đều như vắt chanh
2026-07-04 08:47:42
1
hunh.s.ma
Huỳnh Sợ Ma :
may tui toàn thức đến trưa
2026-07-05 03:43:32
1
igwtth
tt :
cháu đag coi lúc 1:28 sáng ạ
2026-07-04 18:28:42
3
user7t0qc17z12
Egg :
trà vs cà phê đặc thì cút sớm đúng r, riêng gì chứ cứ uống vớ vẩn, không chịu uống nước lọc là cút nhanh nhất
2026-07-05 11:40:50
0
thanhtuyet_at
thanhtuyet_at :
th từ mai t không thức đến sáng nx t ngủ sớm
2026-07-03 07:00:45
1
To see more videos from user @tamsudaokeo28, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Pentagon,Pulse nigihtclcub,Las vegas / 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. #tcc #fakesituation⚠️ #iqmaxx
Pentagon,Pulse nigihtclcub,Las vegas / 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. #tcc #fakesituation⚠️ #iqmaxx

About