1. Home
  2. Detail

@manuevyzobg: #marvel #whatif #mcu #ucm #avengers

manuevyzobg
manuevyzobg
Open In TikTok:
Region: DO
Thursday 06 August 2026 08:52:04 GMT
446237
64607
256
942

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (2.89MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (2.95MB) Watermark .mp4 (6.28MB) Music .mp3

Comments

nahuelz430
Nahuel Z :
un thanos con sentido comun
2026-08-06 16:04:08
6217
jaggr6
Pinot Noir 10RB 17/122 :
Thanos el titán sensato
2026-08-06 19:40:13
4148
satarlord_403
Starlord :
Me estás diciendo que al enemigo más poderoso hasta Endgame se le podía haber hecho cambiar de bando vendiéndole la moto?
2026-08-06 10:10:22
4975
ende_ka8
JyoN_Rojas :
yo quería ver más de ese Thanos ...solo fue cortó
2026-08-06 12:43:02
197
asesandcoficial
Asesandc :
Tiene un punto, genocidio es cuando se comete una matanza generalizada a un grupo específico de personas sea por su origen, raza, género, religión, etc etc etc, si es aleatorio me parece que no es genocidio
2026-08-06 20:12:05
481
mijail322
Mijael :
El mejor Starlord T'chala 🗿
2026-08-06 19:45:17
126
macross_coversgameplays
macross_coversgameplays :
pov: el Thanos que quería iroman
2026-08-06 19:00:09
91
el.anexado.del.pr8
el anexado del profe 2.0 :
Thanos me cayó bien en ese episodio
2026-08-06 18:50:55
37
zeph_xrl
Zeph :
Es que si, dentro de lo que cabe Tanos es muy razonable, pero en ves de plantarle argumentos, solo se limitaron a pelear y estar en su contra
2026-08-07 23:07:26
6
piipee.ignvciio
piipee.ignvciio :
que episodio mas imbecil
2026-08-07 15:45:21
5
ses20120
ses_34 :
diablo este thanos me cayo muy bien
2026-08-07 01:53:06
10
parzibald
💪🤟D☾❀Parzibald❀☽ :
no olvidemos que esté Thanos aún cree que su método es eficiente jaja
2026-08-07 02:53:33
8
bruno_villagran
Brunostudios1901 :
si no fuera malvado, Thanos sería un tipazo
2026-08-06 22:54:17
35
eduardoorihuelah2
eduardoorihuelah2 :
No sería más fácil duplicar los recursos.
2026-08-06 21:33:00
199
albertohirashi
Alberto Hirashi :
El chasquido al ser al azar pudo haberlo eliminado a él también?
2026-08-07 15:02:50
40
elw3b0n_3000
Sigmababy69 :
Es normal proyectarse con thanos?????
2026-08-07 11:16:37
18
bautista.fajardo2
Bauti :
los sueños de aironman
2026-08-06 17:40:27
13
leonard.0.6
JSS :
Esto funciona porque el Thanos del UCM solo tenía el título de "El Titán loco" solo por su hermano. Porque la verdad, eres alguien bastante razonable, lógico, y que no dudaba en escuchar al menos a sus enemigos antes de matarlos. Si, es un genocida de primera, pero no es ni la mitad de grotesco como el de los cómic. No dudo que si agarraban al Thanos de buenas, como muy seguramente fue que lo hizo Tchalla luego de MATAR a todo su ejército junto a los devastadores, podrías hablar con el, y lograr hacerlo ver qué las gemas no solo pueden y deben de ser usadas con ese propósito, y que el hacer ese genocidio al azar en todo el universo no sería la mejor opción, pues la mayoría del universo ni entendería por qué pasó eso, y volverían a repetir lo mismo, y en cambio, si les enseñanzas al camino que podrían llegar a tener por sus acciones, pero que esté puede ser evitado, podrías llegar a tener mejores resultados.
2026-08-06 22:49:50
5
To see more videos from user @manuevyzobg, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Replying to @Be$tFindsAround📲 flawless skin in a bottle #bodyconcealer #westmorebeauty #unevenskintone #westmorebeautybodyperfector
Replying to @Be$tFindsAround📲 flawless skin in a bottle #bodyconcealer #westmorebeauty #unevenskintone #westmorebeautybodyperfector
why are you running 🤣🤣#funnyvideos #comedyvideos #prankvideos
why are you running 🤣🤣#funnyvideos #comedyvideos #prankvideos


Này con, trong cuộc đời, có thể con sẽ gặp rất nhiều người. Có người khiến con rung động, có người làm con vui, cũng có người khiến con tưởng rằng đó là điều mình đang tìm kiếm. Nhưng rồi con sẽ hiểu, điều quý giá nhất không phải là có thật nhiều người để lựa chọn, mà là sau tất cả, vẫn có một người khiến con muốn sống chân thành. Nếu đã thương, hãy thương bằng sự tử tế. Nếu đã chọn, hãy biết trân trọng. Và nếu người ấy cũng thật lòng với con, đừng để những phút xao lòng làm mất đi một người mà có khi cả đời con mới gặp được một lần. Bởi đôi khi, hạnh phúc không nằm ở việc tìm thêm một người tốt hơn, mà là biết gìn giữ người đã thật lòng với mình. 🌿#RadioHealing #xuhuong #ChuaLanh #healing #podcast
Này con, trong cuộc đời, có thể con sẽ gặp rất nhiều người. Có người khiến con rung động, có người làm con vui, cũng có người khiến con tưởng rằng đó là điều mình đang tìm kiếm. Nhưng rồi con sẽ hiểu, điều quý giá nhất không phải là có thật nhiều người để lựa chọn, mà là sau tất cả, vẫn có một người khiến con muốn sống chân thành. Nếu đã thương, hãy thương bằng sự tử tế. Nếu đã chọn, hãy biết trân trọng. Và nếu người ấy cũng thật lòng với con, đừng để những phút xao lòng làm mất đi một người mà có khi cả đời con mới gặp được một lần. Bởi đôi khi, hạnh phúc không nằm ở việc tìm thêm một người tốt hơn, mà là biết gìn giữ người đã thật lòng với mình. 🌿#RadioHealing #xuhuong #ChuaLanh #healing #podcast
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.
asikin sebelum luluss #fypシ #xyzbca #foryou #smkn1purwokerto
asikin sebelum luluss #fypシ #xyzbca #foryou #smkn1purwokerto

About

Legal