It’s a little jarring in a world of deep-fried memes.

No worries, Know Your Meme is still fairly reliable.

The Freedom Frank is War, Hallowiener is Death, Mtn Dew is Pestilence and Baja Blast is Famine.

I think this is how the smaller ones flourish - people look for alternatives.

Based on the space I would guess it just had “girlfriend” because that’s a pretty straightforward joke.

But I found it instead of guessing:

I love that opening this I can immediately tell that it’s not AI generated, and not just because everyone’s got reasonable proportions and numbers of parts, and the face can handle being split by that line while still retaining its structure.

It’s obvious because there’s composition, negative space that’s not crammed with prompt-maximising guff. There’s a focus, deliberate lines of action implying tension and intention. It’s five heroes with the eye at the centre of their motion, with a godlike being looming ominously over them. The eye is red which is reflected in the looming figure’s eyes, implying a connection between them.

I have no idea about the story here, I’ve never seen it before, but I can glean that much just from the design. This is what art is, it tells a story or expresses something. This is why it matters that someone made it on purpose.

I’ve told you how the concepts apply, if you found it confusing you could ask. You didn’t.

But you’ve admitted you’re not actually interested in my answers, you just want to accuse me of pulling things out of my arse:

I was simply establishing the fact that neither of us had them.

I don’t know why I’d bother with someone whose only point here is to tear down whatever I’m saying. You don’t even seem to have a position.

That’s not how that works. I told you the point I had a problem with and wanted sourced, and you admitted it was pure speculation.

If you are skeptical about anything specific I’m saying, you can ask for the same thing. You didn’t, you just said I hadn’t sourced anything, which wasn’t true, I gave you links so you could educate yourself, and since you’re still confused on what any of it means, apparently you didn’t do that. When I asked you what you wanted specifically sourced, you named everything, which is as pointless as naming nothing.

This is presumably because you don’t actually care about sources, you were just embarrassed that you had to admit it was pure speculation and you wanted to project that back at me.

If you’re actually curious to understand what I’m saying, you can ask a specific question, but you’re not doing that. If you’re just going to keep insisting that I’m pulling things out of my arse, you’re wrong, but I won’t keep replying.

(I know, you don’t believe my source)

That’s literally not what I said, I said something direct and specific, something you can read in the first paragraph of that source. I believed what they were saying and I repeated it to you. I read your source back to you and you misunderstood.

This is the problem - you clearly aren’t engaging in what’s being said. If you did so directly and specifically, then maybe you could get farther, but you dissolve things into nonspecific drivel, to the point it’s just either wrong or meaningless.

It’s like if I asked you, “What’s 2+2?” and you replied, “The nature of addition is involved in the very definition of numbers, which comes from set theory. Entire books have been written on this subject before we can even define the number 2 and I couldn’t possibly cover it all, it’s just so complicated.”

Like sure, maybe that’s all true, but motherfucker, what is 2+2? You go broad and vague and mysterious with things that sometimes have simple answers.

Maybe that’s why you feel it’s pointless having conversations online. I certainly don’t find that, but I try to stay focused on the points and deal with things directly, and when someone is wasting my time I tell them so and I disengage.

Again, you seemed responsive to what I was saying at first, but when you’re talking about the limits of the “speed of language” in response to a request for details, you are clearly looking for an out. I wouldn’t spend this much time talking about this with someone if I thought it was a waste of time. I’m making the effort to give you this feedback because you’ve shown the ability to be responsive and I don’t sense any ill-will. But if you find that “this always happens”, then maybe you need to take a good look at why, and what it is that you’re doing that might cause that.

Oh so you want sources for literally every tiny claim with no evidence that you’ve engaged at all, but you’re sticking with “pure speculation” for your claims and you’re fine with that? Just checking.

Rain world.

Are SCUBA and cave exploration not dangerous enough for you? Why not do both, at the same time, at even deeper depths! Hear the call of the void louder and clearer than ever!

According to this there are about 91 different definitions of league throughout human history, so I thought the most reasonable way to deal with your question was to calculate them all:

What? No, the network effect is why they have a dominant position. The network effect comes from their user base.

Enshittification is how platforms die, it’s not a winning business model, it’s just an outworking of capitalism’s contradictions.

The way you wrote that shows you don’t understand the principles at all.

I could explain further but you’d have to express interest.

Well I now can’t unless I disable my VPN. Storefronts would probably like VPN users to be able to use their stores, in which case they might be more interested in an alternative.

deleted by creator

Source for what? The network effect? I gave you a link, you can read.

And youtube is enshittifying.

These are both well-established effects. My sourcing is finished now. It beats your “pure speculation” unless you have something else you want to add.

“Massive increase” I think needs a source.

And they rely on the network effect to be the de facto standard video hoster. Every little bit of that network that they carve off while they’re enshittifying brings them closer to the critical point where people can afford to ditch them.

The logic that they can “afford” to lose marketshare is exactly what will make them keep losing it until people migrate en masse and they lose all of their marketshare.

Could be, maybe it’s intermittent, but the more times they try to lock this shit down and it stops working for storefronts, the more unreliable it becomes.

What percentage of visits can they afford to have this error happen before they seek alternatives? If it were my business and I didn’t know how many customers were closing the store page because the video didn’t play and they lost interest, I would be immediately looking for an alternative.

EDIT: Still broken for me. I can fix it by turning off my VPN, but storefronts are going to want to sell to everyone, including the VPN users.

Sure but it’s really common to see embedded youtube videos on storefronts, and if storefronts en masse abandoned it that’s one more piece of the market that youtube has lost.

They can’t keep locking it down and not lose market share, is my point. They’re enshittifying so much, so fast, and eventually there will be a tipping point.