You gotta be sure, you know? Does it actually shock you? How bad does it hurt? Cant be too dangerous, right? Maybe you’ll even like it, you won’t know for sure unless you hit the button.
Yeah its a low risk experiment. On par with poking an animal corpse with a stick, it makes sense that a solid number of men would immediately go with poke it with a stick. Also it kinda makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that men would be more prone to checking things that are low risk out, one man can make a lot of babies at a time while one woman can only make one baby at a time.
I am now curious if the rate is similar for tans folks.
In fact, they were the ones that invented cancel culture. Even helped the forming of the annoying leftist callouts by accident (they just wanted to point out leftist/liberal hypocrisy, often for them to get away with way worse things, then leftists/liberals took it to the next level, sometimes they outright manipulate who should be the callout’s target to incite infights, destroy alliances, or just to see someone who’s “deserving” to suffer).
I remember during the run of Mythbusters either Discovery or History or one of those tried to launch another show to cash in on Mythbusters’ success, it was called Smash Lab, and it’s clear the creation of this show involved a pie chart titled “Elements of Mythbusters by screen time” and there was one pie wedge labelled “explosions.” It didn’t last long IIRC.
Adam and Jamie were awesome, but I’m certain there are some passionate makers or something out there who could fill the role. It wouldn’t be the same, but it could be it’s own thing. Whoever the new hosts were must have just been the wrong casting, but also I don’t know how much Discovery cared because I didn’t know about it and I was a huge Mythbusters fan. I guess I just didn’t pay attention because Discovery had already killed everything that was worth paying attention to them for by that point.
It’s been a while since I watched them but I recall feeling like the new hosts weren’t genuine. It felt more like a YouTube reaction video than an episode of Mythbusters.
From listening to podcasts done by people involved in those attempts to bring the show back, it seems the show runners/studios in charge didn’t understand what made the show good and tried to steer their recreations in bad directions. It does seem like most every host they brought on had good intentions and skillsets, but were held back in some way.
If you need you fix Adam savage is very active on YouTube and is just a wonder human being. It’s not MythBusters but Adam was a light during Covid and someone I put on regularly on YouTube.
Yeah, I watch him. It’s not Mythbusters, but it’s still entertaining usually, even when he’s doing the most boring things. It really shows how good he was as an entertainer.
My favorite thing about Adam’s videos is the way they are edited, they leave in some silence so you can see Adam’s head gears working as he’s solving a problem. It sorta feels like we’re solving the problem with him.
Real Science attracts smart people who want to learn a thing or two about the world, Fake Science attracts the kind of gullible kooks you can sell snake oil and orgonite devices to… and I say this as someone who “wants to believe”
Same reason why scam e-mails and telemarketers intentionally leave big gaping holes in their stories while using dozens of spelling errors. If you’re the kind of person who can notice things like that, you’re too smart to buy what they’re selling.
You should checknout SMyths, fan edits that remove the cutting back and forth between stories so you get one myth at a time, and that cut out the repetitive narration meant for people joining mid-episode. Much nicer viewing
Fungi in general are about twice as old as sharks. Roughly a billion years vs ~450 million years.
The point is there just weren’t any which had bacteria to decompose trees, as no bacteria had evolved the ability yet. Until there were. Took millions of years though.
Fun fact, now we have mushrooms which can deal with plastic.
Pestalotiopsis microspora is a type of endophytic fungus discovered in the Amazon rainforest in 2011 which contains bacteria that can biodegrade and break down synthetic plastic polymers.
you’d think so, but sharks were in fact the first lifeform to be summoned from the astral planes, everything else evolved from a single shark cell that had the right mutations to survive (all sharks simply died within minutes until plants had created enough oxygen for them to breathe, at which point they died within days until the evolution of other animals)
There’s also fungi which can use radiation as a source of energy, radiotrophic fungi, and we’ve been thinking about using them as radiation shields in spacecraft.
you have seen how they look on the inside, yes? They bring about existential dread with how they’ve been twisted from the arthropod baseline, they’re like the creatures in Man After Man.
TIL that barnacles are crustaceans. Had thought that were mollusks. Yeah. I’m going to have to agree with them bring a horrifying twisted version of the clade.
Fungi are pretty awesome. We can decompose plastic with them. Engage in inter dimensional astral travel with them. And have a nice trip by a campfire without ever leaving the chair.
Yup, as time went on, I simply felt less need to have proprietary software on my system. Steam remains as an exception; simply by virtue of having no F(L)OSS alternative (AFAIK).
Steam itself isn’t that special and things like Heroic exist but where Steam wins is the ecosystem. Also Valve sponsor developments of Linux desktop technologies, so even if Steam itself is proprietary, some of the money ends up advancing open source.
I won’t say it’s “best”, as I just want to run a game without friendlists and other bloat, so I really hate the fact Steam is nessesary for so many games.
Valve has put a lot of work into helping WINE & Linux. Even if it was a selfish play to break free from Microsoft & other app stores to lock those into their marketplace fee, I can’t help but be grateful for the better ecosystem & uptick in users. Since they are privately held too, they aren’t in the same business of chasing quartely profits or making the experience worse & worse by selling your data & slapping ads everywhere.
If its just for her, I don’t really care what content I host for family unless it straight up nazi/gay hate shit. New age “found christian” movies are massive yuck, but innocuous otherwise. She’s gonna consume them regardless of whether you host them or not.
Move it to its own library, make sure to rip in low quality (480p low bitrate) so you’re not spending too much disk space in her, and let it be. It’s not worth driving a rift in the family over.
Good level headed reply, I like this. Others have suggested that as well, I’ll move the crud over to her own library, then it doesn’t pollute my main library and I can hide it from the others.
Years ago, I had to do customer service training for a job, and one thing they said is to always say “you’re welcome” instead of “no problem”, because some people think “no problem” is rude. But I think it’s a generational thing, and it’s kind of the opposite with younger folks.
explanation I got long ago was that “No worries” was reserved when the situation was so bad, nothing you did would change things – sit back, “No worries”, crack a beer, and enjoy the spectacle
Implying that it was an effort, but you are welcome to it. Whereas “no problem” denotes that the effort is was not a problem for me to do. I use them interchangeably - “you’re welcome” as a response to a complement, or something where there was moderate effort put into the task; “no problem” when the task was low effort (“Thanks for responding to that email so quickly”) or I feel my effort was obliged (helping pick up after a meeting).
Disagree, no problem is saying that what you are thanking me for was not a problem for me to do.
Honestly, I think this perception is the disconnect between millennials thinking it’s better and boomers thinking it’s rude - two different perspectives of what it means.
Maybe it’s “you are welcome (to ask me for help/favors, as I am neutral to the task. I might even enjoy it.)”
And “it’s not a problem (for me to do what you asked me to do; we have now both acknowledged that I have done something to help you that was not organic to me, but now we can move past it with no further conversation.)”
I bet “no problem” to some people is like seeing someone wear a T-shirt to church. They’d really prefer it if you would put on a suit and tie, even though the purpose of both are the same (cover my body when away from home because that is our current social agreement), because a T-shirt is disrespectful.
Also everyone sucks, it is a problem, and you are not welcome.
I had to do one communucation trainung where the trainer saud that saying “no problem” should not be used, because it implies there might’ve been a problem. I was not convinced though.
Wow. facepalm The words literally say there’s no problem, and yet it somehow implies there is a problem? Talk about overthinking what someone is saying.
This is why I often hate neurotypical communication styles. The world would be a lot more straightforward if people just said what they meant. Jesus fucking Christ on a motorbike…
… would be quite a sight to see. Although if He can do all those other miracles, I guess fucking Himself on a motorcycle wouldn’t be impossible. So I guess it’s just a straightforward statement on your part.
Someone said that to me just the other day! That saying “no problem” implies there might be a problem. Crazy. I’m thinking of switching to “well it was quite an imposition on my time and energy to help you out, especially given you’re not paying me, but I’ll let it slide this time because you seem like an ok person and I’m in a good mood” just to annoy them.
When a chic-fil-a worker hits you with that, you gotta one-up them with “No! The pleasure is all mine!” and then hit the gas, peeling out cackling because you stole that pleasure motherfuckaaaaah.
I told a bartender “oh, the pleasure was all ours!” one time just sort of joking around and he said “you have no idea how much”. I wasn’t really sure how to take that.
he hated us in particular (there’d be no reason why though, my gf and I showed up, had a couple glasses of wine, didn’t complain that one had gnats in it, got rained on on the patio, went inside and paid and I had just finished tipping 25-30%)
I think a lot of younger generation, myself included, prefer casual responses, conflating professionalism with being rude, slimy, or otherwise malintentioned
For paid service I like the simple “of course” recognizing that is what I’m here for and it’s normal. No faux generosity nor implication of a tolerated imposition.
During my years in retail exactly one customer ever had a problem with me saying “no problem”. He also said he was an assassin. That’s not a joke. This old, fat boomer said I shouldn’t say ‘no problem’ because some people might take it to mean ‘yes problem’ and then told me he kills people for a living.
That’s the stability of people that can’t understand the meaning of words. If I go to a police station and say I am a serial killer vs I’m not a serial killer, I don’t expect them to react the same…
There’s nothing that indicates he was coerced.
My point is that people portray a father taking a 4 year old to his death. I’m just pointing out that he wasn’t a child but an adult who chose to go on the trip.
Winter driving and shoulder season driving. Snow, ice, black ice, freezing rain, slush, hydroplaning, driveway clearing, walkway maintenance, windshield scraping, and keeping an emergency kit for breakdowns. Stuff like that.
Or driving in general. As an American who didn't get a driver's license until I was 21 (gasp! so old) due to some reasons, I can attest that many, many people here simply can't comprehend the idea of someone over 17 or so not having one. I got turned away from a hotel once because they didn't know how to use a passport as an ID.
The only other people I've met with this problem were immigrants. And we were always able to bond over lamentations of how difficult it is to solve this problem... the entire system to get a license here is built around the assumption that everyone does it in high school, so every step of the way is some roadblock like "simply drive to your driving test appointment"...
As an American who didn’t get a driver’s license until I was 21 (gasp! so old)
I’m now 41, never made a license - there wasn’t really much of a need until now. I can get anywhere I want with a combination of bicycle and public transport.
Guessing you live in or close-ish some kind of urban center? I got my license at 18 cause the closest bus stop from my parents’ place was a 30 minute walk from the closest bus stop, getting literally anywhere useful was at the very minimum another 30 minutes on top of this, and getting downtown was another 45-50 minutes of bus+metro over those last two stretches, assuming no traffic. I currently live 60km outside of town, it’s the exact same story. 20 minute walk to the bus, 30 minute bus ride to the train station, and 45 minutes of train to get downtown. North America was built for cars, for better or (especially) for worse, our public transit infrastructure is terrible, things are so far from each other, nothing was built for it…
When I moved out of my parents’ place and got an apartment in the city with my wife though, we managed without a car. Bus/metro/walking got us everywhere we needed for every day life, and we used car sharing services when we needed to go out of town. I wouldn’t mind going back to this, but living in town would be literally twice as expensive, and we’re deeply priced out of that area if we ever want to buy, despite me making a solid 6 figures lol
Currently in Finland - single family home in a town with 46k people. Originally from a 2k village in Germany.
We have two daycares, a school and a grocery store 1km from home - here that kind of stuff is integrated in the neighbourhoods where people live. Many elementary schools, some just grades 1 and 2 - by grade 3 they can already easily travel the longer distance to another school by themselves.
Sigh. My town is even larger and more populous than yours… Really discouraging. Jobs in my field (programming) are mostly around town, and it’s too expensive for me to buy there, so unless I manage to keep working remote indefinitely, I’ll never be able to buy lol
You’d be surprised how for you can stretch ANY transit infrastructure. I despise the resignation that North America was “built for cars” you’ll find people-centric places all over the country, both in cities and rural areas too. The biggest issue is that a lot of rural areas lack transit service, but fixing that would be relatively inexpensive. Unfortunate anywhere without transit is inaccessible to disabled people such as myself who are incapable of operating their own vehicle, so this is something we need to work on.
Most places were built for people, not cars. But many weee, and even more were demolished for them. But saying that North American cities were designed for cars ignores much of the history of North American urban development.
Either way, if a place isn’t transit accessible, it might as well not exist. Though I must stress that it is NOT difficult to make something transit accessible.
IMHO that’s kind of a simplistic view. Let’s take my town for example. Going down to Montreal on a bus takes 1h45 alone, so that’s not remotely an option. So next best option is bus + train, but closest train station is a 20-25min bus drive. So unless they manage to rezone and displace a bunch of people to lay another handful of kilometers of tracks through agricultural and residential land, new trains in my area won’t happen, therefore my best option will always remain bus+train. And it’s far anyway.
All decent transit around here covers areas I’ll never be able to afford to buy in. Or I could rent forever, I guess. Point is, everything is so freaking far apart around here that land based transit just doesn’t cut it. It takes way too long to get anywhere to get a viable option for anything but short distances. I used to live on one end of Montreal’s island… It took me 1h30 to get downtown by public transit. 3h+ a day sitting my ass on a bus/train/metro. That’s not acceptable. And I lived inside the city. Half the province lives in that Greater Montreal area, and transit doesn’t even cover it all properly. I had similar experiences in Quebec City, Gatineau/Ottawa and Toronto too.
It’s not resignation, it’s realism. By your own definition, 95% of North America basically doesn’t exist for you lol. If I wait for transit to become acceptable, I’ll be 50 by the time I do anything with my life. And I’ll be honest, I have a lot of trouble agreeing with the take that much of NA was built for people, when I see the amount of highway it takes to get from one city to another, or the amount of towns built around a large “stroad”. Intra-city transit might be fine in some areas, you seem to say it is, but it is not enough, with large North American cities getting way too expensive to live in for many.
I moved to the USA and then Canada as an adult. I had never needed to learn to drive in my home country because there were decent buses and trains. But you really can’t function easily in North America without driving a car, so I had to learn and start polluting like everyone else. It’s not a good setup.
I had an Uber driver in Florida last time I was there (business) and when he found out I was from Canada he told me he went to Boulder in the winter for a vacation and thought it would be cool to rent a car and drive up a mountain. Yeah, he was pretty freaked out by that driving experience. :)
Good call on the Subaru. My wife had a couple and they were great in the snow. First car we ever had with heated seats, too!
When I first moved here I thought to myself,”Damn there are a lot of Subarus here.”. The reason became abundantly clear during my first winter here lol.
I’ve never been there but I lived in Banff, Alberta for a while when I was 19 (which was a while ago). I was cooking at a hotel there and living in residence. Sometimes I thought I’d stay there forever but I love the ocean, too. Jokes on me, I live in a city hours from the mountains and a day from the ocean now. :)
Something about a mountain town after a snow storm… Pretty cool.
Maybe I’m old but I love John Denver’s Rocky Mountain High. Takes me back.
This right here is a big one. I live in a college town in Minnesota and the students from out of state are absolute mennaces on the road in winter. My dad used to plow snow for one of the local universities. He had multiple students drive directly head on into his plow because they never cleared off any of their windshield before they started driving down the road. Luckily the snow plow tends to handily win in those situations and the plow trucks all had dash cams for exactly that reason.
You also get the people who think they’re invincible in the snow because they’re driving a 4 wheel drive truck. Newsflash, 4 wheel drive doesn’t mean you stop any better and it doesn’t do much when you’re on glare ice.
Similarly people who haven’t dealt with snow have no idea what to do when they do start sliding. So many people will just hit the brakes when they start to slide, which anyone who is familiar with winter driving should know that is the exact thing you never want to do.
Snow tires are another big one. I drive a tiny crappy rear wheel drive pickup but as long as I have a good set of snow tires on it and a few sand bags in the bed of the truck, then it still out performs any other vehicle with all weather tires in the snow.
I live in a ski town that caters to the Los Angeles crowd, and I feel you on all that. 4 wheel drive does not mean 4 wheel stop lol. We are lucky in that we don’t get that permafrost y’all get up north, usually the roads dry out a few days after a snow storm so snow tires aren’t mandatory up here. But the number of overconfident goofballs in the winter is way too high.
The big one I can think of are snow rated tires, most people have plain old radials that don’t do squat in snow. And then you have people that don’t know which axle is their drive axle and that’s always fun to watch. Thankfully I have a two door wrangler with all terrains that is a breeze to drive in snow, very rarely do I have to chain up.
So it will snow at night but warm up during the day so you’re dealing with icy conditions that have a layer of melt water on them. Or freezing rain that flash freezes at dusk to black ice. And so on.
And for people who don’t know, black ice isn’t actually black (unless is filthy with dirt). It’s ice clear enough that the black asphalt underneath shows through very clearly. This make it so you’re on ice and don’t know it because it just looks like regular road.
A few years ago I was stuck in a terrible traffic jam, five hours through ice and snow for a drive that should’ve been 50 minutes.
A woman froze in her car in that jam, and since then I’ve made sure to always have a warm sleeping bag in the car.
Also, heated side mirrors are so nice
One variant of this I encounter is driving in the rain. I moved to SoCal from NY, and everyone here freaks out when it so much as drizzles, and there is always insane traffic due to accidents upon any precipitation…
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don’t know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don’t know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who’s not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn’t convince you if you heard it.
It’s hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the “rules” of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.
Yeah except for the fact that they are causing very real damage to POC and LGBTQ people. So let’s be very clear here. Conservatives are not intentionally hateful and can be nice and kind if you are a straight white Christian. If you aren’t in the in group though they can and will turn on you even if they tolerate you. Because conservative ideology is one fundamentally founded on hate and oppression.
I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, “We are using the same words, but they all mean different things.” It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That’s how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.
That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.
research subjects who considered themselves conservative tended to have larger amygdala, the section of the brain in the temporal lobes that plays a major role in the processing of emotions. Self-defined liberals, meanwhile, generally had a larger volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain associated with coping with uncertainty and handling conflicting information.
Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.
I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.
Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.
“Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”
Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.
You’re not outright wrong, but it’s really hard to have the rational discussion skills to cut through decades of propaganda. For the many deep in the right-ring bubble, brainwashing is a better term than mere propaganda.
I can agree with that. I’ve been part of a cult before (was born into it) and I can recognize a lot of what I went through there in far right people. I guess I’m just a little sensitive to people calling these people idiots and hateful people due to seeing myself in them. Like, to me, they’re (usually) just good people being manipulated into thinking the awful things they say and do are good, and they need a rational and caring person to pull them slowly out of it, the same way I did.
Obviously, it takes more than just talking usually to pull somebody out of a cult, but I think it’s still a big part of it. They’ve been fooled into thinking that things that are rational aren’t, and unless they’re confronted with the actual truth and the facts to back them up, they’re not going to even start to question their beliefs.
I’m also not suggesting that every person needs to debate every republican about every issue they bring up. If you can’t or even just don’t want to debate somebody, you don’t have any obligation to, but I don’t think insulting them over it is almost ever the right response.
There’s also the angle of how every cult teaches you that you’re going to be persecuted for your beliefs, and brainwashes you into thinking that should reaffirm you that you must be correct. That is one major reason I think labeling all conservatives as irrational and hopeless is dangerous. When somebody who’s been taught that the world is going to hate them for being “right” finds that the world does not, in fact, hate them, but instead just displays genuine concern, that’s when you fully start to question everything.
I don’t think every right winger is going to fling left when presented with this view. In fact, I think the vast majority won’t, but it will make them a little more understanding, and a little more understanding over the course of many years and generations adds up.
I was going to post my rant about conservatives as a top level comment, but I didn’t think it was unpopular enough.
I agree with your central premise that there is a disconnect of understanding and perception between progressives and conservatives.
However, it’s not that conservatives haven’t heard a convincing argument, or something that accounts for their perspective. This is part of the fundamental disconnect, and you’re an excellent example of why people don’t know how to put things in a way others will understand.
Conservativism is not a principled ideology. It is the political justification of narcissism in every form. Conservatives like being conservative because it gives them a free pass to be selfish and egocentric in their political beliefs. There is no foundational value system or policy that is inherently conservative.
The conservative ideology defines the self and the other. Nothing else is fixed. Whatever is good for the self is good, and whatever is bad for the self is bad.
That’s it, that explains every conservative position ever held by any conservative since the invention of conservativism in the 1800s. From Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand wanting to roll back many of the reforms of the French Revolution, to Donald Trump becoming the Messiah, conservatives identify the self, and then do anything to benefit the self. Granted, Francois-Rene was a much better writer, but he was no less inconsistent in his desire to promote ideologies that benefitted himself and his peers.
Conservatives will couch their positions as staunch defense of tradition, and general opposition to change for the sake of change, but that’s window dressing. They don’t believe in stoicism or absolutism or really anything they claim to believe. And that’s why you cannot have a rational debate with a conservative. That’s why you won’t ever convince them to change their minds on a subject simply by pointing out flaws in their logic or perception.
The only method that has ever worked at getting a conservative to shift or compromise is by showing them how it will benefit them. Why is this policy good for the self? What value will they receive in exchange for easing up on their intransigence? If you can convince a conservative to abandon an ideological position, you can be sure it’s because they believe the new position is better for them.
Look at any conservative leader in history, any political pundit, any legislator or writer or conservative iconoclast. Viewed through the lens of narcissism, their intentions, their hypocrisies, their inconsistencies, they are all laid bare. There is no deeper meaning, no mystery to why they have had sudden changes or seemingly flip flopped on an issue. It’s not that complicated.
So no, it’s not that people don’t know how to have rational discussions these days. It’s that conservativism is anathema to rational thought, and it always has been. It’s a license to be as hateful or ignorant or selfish as you want to be, and you needn’t worry about defending your positions from things like facts, or realty, or reason, because those are tools of the other. If the other opposes you, they are evil and their reality, their facts, their reason is equally evil. They don’t need to be refuted, they need to be destroyed by any means necessary. The self is good, therefore anything the self needs to do to win is good. Lies, deception, personal attacks, intimidation, threats, violence, all of them are justified by the belief in the righteous self. There is no bar too low to be stooped under, no treachery too vile to be considered, no accusation too false to be levied. A conservative with scruples is a conservative unchallenged.
youtube doesn’t actually care if you comment, “engagement” is through sharing, and watching. that’s all youtube cares about for engagement. how many watch hours, how many adverts, how many click throughs on those adverts.
also literally every large social network has shadow bans, it’s the only successful way to deal with unwanted elements. if you tell the unwanted element that they are banned, then they just go make a new account.
Actually, it seems like engagement is through any kind of interaction, commenting, upvoting, even downvoting, are used to boost a video visibility, because, as you say, their ultimate goal is maximizing money from ads.
OP is right to support creators via comments.
Note also that YouTube has automatic filters for comments, which will remain visible for its author only, but the creator can also shadowban someone from their channel.
“actually”, no it doesn’t. that’s the old youtube logic. now youtube actively buries any kind of engagement like comments or liking, it’s not useful. youtube does not care about who is leaving comments or not, and leaving comments itself is highly susceptible to bots.
again, all youtube cares about is about watch time, and if you share something with someone else as that leads to more watch time. people arguing in the comments has zero relevance on how many ads people see.
Then you would not comment on their videos, and the whole thought of “supporting” them via watching their videos is questionable but at least there’s some direct, material, merit to that.
“I only watch trashy scumbag creators and not nice ones who actually struggles when engagements really fluctuates on a whim. I also have never been on the other side to emphatize with them.”
It’s like Reddit. If you only consume trash the algo gives you you’re not using it right.
The whole point of lemmy is to be decentralized and made up of different instances with different rules. You are a lemmy.ca user talking to a lemm.we used on a lemmy.world topic. Some instances are fully of toxic shit, some aren’t. If you’re calling YouTube comments garbage, there’s garbage to be had in the fediverse too. Acting like someone’s dumb for caring about YouTube comments while posting on lemmy is also dumb. Let people care about what they want to care about.
California gets trotted out in the conservative media sphere as “liberalism run wild”, a place where being what they consider to be a “real American” is illegal but crime is subsidized by the state, where everything is expensive and dangerous, and homeless people have gay sex in the street. There’s an entire industry focused on filtering for the most extremely awful news they can find in a state of almost 40 million people, packaging that news as though it’s the typical experience everyone there goes through, and then blasting that news into the brains of Americans 24/7. That image, carefully crafted to be as extremely negative as possible, is the only experience most people have with California.
The liberalism run wild concept is kinda what I’m curious about. Like what things? I know California protects abortions and has stronger gun control laws. But is that really it? There’s gotta be more actual examples
A lot of social programs, better employee pay and benefits, legal weed. Conservatives are just jealous that their shithole backwater hick towns will never change so they point at the scary liberal boogeyman that is “Commiefornia” in some vain hope they will get noticed.
The lack of enforcement against crime combined with a never ending cycle of endless handouts to anybody not willing to work have led to their cities being extremely hostile places.
We have different views on incarceration as well. Ask a conservative what they think about Prop 47, for example. I guarantee you they’ll not only know what it is but they’ll have a very strong opinion as well.
I moved from Canada to California a few years ago and spent almost 5 years in the San Jose area. Loved California; the food, the people there, the scenery, definitely the weather. End up hating America though.
I live in the Bay Area and love all the natural beauty in all directions. We can hike a different trail every weekend during the months when it’s not unpleasantly warm or chilly and never repeat. The tragedy of it all is that it’s attached to the rest of the country, by which I mean red states.
I’m from bumfuck nowhere in the US, but damn I am jealous of California and it is wasted on the US. But hey, if leaving the US entirely is out of the question, there’s bound to be a few places there that are somewhat bearable.
That image, carefully crafted to be as extremely negative as possible, is the only experience most people have with California.
That’s the thing. No one I’ve ever heard who says this kind of shit has ever lived here for any length of time or knows anything about the state beyond what the “news” has told them to believe. There are issues here like there are issues everywhere. So people want to focus on homelessness. Of course we have more homeless people, we have more people. We have two of the largest and most well known metro areas in the nation with an up and coming third.
The bitching takes away (maybe intentionally) from the homeless issue that is rapidly increasing throughout the rest of the country. This is an issue of inflation and greed masquerading as inflation. Of corporate property owners buying up rentals and raising rents. Of workers not being paid a living wage. Of food and essentials becoming increasingly unaffordable by the month. Of course people are losing their homes and stealing from walmart. But this is a national problem. It gets worse all over the country for the same reasons and at the same time that it gets worse in California.
But what I will say is, we do have reproductive rights. Reasonable firearms regulations. More tenant regulations that most places, though still never enough. Some cities have social worker response teams instead of sending cops to kill people having mental health problems. We have homeless outreach and a statewide homeless census. Our schools and colleges still have diversity programs and sex ed. The state provides tuition waivers and grants for low income and marginalized students. We have drag shows and pride parades. And our libraries aren’t being purged by fucking nazis. So there’s that.
Yeah, this was bound to happen. The Internet was designed to be decentralized and then we went ahead and made social network platforms that were so popular that hundreds of thousands of users conglomerated into a centralized server (or server cluster technically), completely defeating the purpose. It took time, but this is exactly how it’s supposed to be.
kbin.life
Top