Carrot

Yep. No one is going to McDonalds for a delicious burger, just a cheap and fast one. Now that prices are above $10 if you want a meal, and the restaurants are understaffed so even the drive through takes > 15 minutes, there's really no reason to eat there

I think it's important to not give certain things the benefit of the doubt. This clock stuff is just plain stupid to get bent out of shape about, but the other two are serious concerns.

This is just anecdotal, but I was a late 90's kid that had as much screen time as I wanted growing up. I played an absurd amount of videogames, and had to be dragged outside by my siblings or I could comfortably stay indoors in front of a game or the internet for hours on end. I spent most of my early years (age 3 to age 15) in front of a screen. Yet, I did just fine in school, got a degree, and now work as a software engineer. I fell in love with my highschool sweetheart, and after waiting until I had my degree, we got married at 23, almost 10 years after we started dating. It felt like my obsessive amounts of screen time as a kid didn't have any negative side effects to my life as a whole (outside of being a quiet and reserved person, and some could argue that that's not a negative) and led me down a successful career path.

However, I don't think kids these days have the luxury of doing that anymore. The content put in front of me as a kid was games made by teams that were passionate about the thing they were working on. Forums and early YouTube videos were created by some no name person with the hope of sharing something they openly cared about. Social Media didn't exist yet and once it did, I never really got into it.

The content put in front of children these days is one of three or so things:

1. Mindless dribble. (looking at you, Youtube Kids)
2. Rushed, broken games made barely finished enough to get people to buy them just to make a quick buck, and the ones that are finished are so heavily tied into marketing it's like the game is basically one big ad. (looking at you, Fortnite and Rocket League)
3. Content made with the express purpose to either gain influencer status, or to use that influencer status to market something, primarily to children who are especially vulnerable to the scummy marketing practices they are using.

Obviously there are exceptions to these everywhere, but I'm talking about the things that are actively being shoved down kids' throats. It's not that I think that the content I consumed was better than what I see kids consuming now, but I think that the motivations behind the content can just as easily influence children as much as the content itself. I think that in a lot of ways, this kind of content is actively degrading kids' brains, and from my experience, it's not the screen time, it's what's being shown on screen that's the issue.

Thankfully I'm tech savvy enough that I can make the internet for my children what it was for me as a kid, without all the marketing and money making schemes that pass as content these days, but a lot of people just toss a tablet in front of their kids and call it parenting.

I was going to rant about privacy as well, but this is getting way too long. Just know that I think digital privacy is really important, and think that we've paid the price for not considering it earlier, and there are ways we can save our kids from the same fate.

Sorry, I tend to write way too much on topics I care about, thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

tl;dr - The clock thing is stupid, but please approach the constant exposure to the modern day internet and the digital privacy topics with a bit more scrutiny.

Big companies do this on purpose. They want their earnings and their expenses to match up as close as possible, because companies don't pay any taxes on money spent on making money, only on profits. So if a giant company is in the red, the vast majority of operating expenses are tax deductible

That's not a low end payout per view. Typically it's a fraction of a cent (USD) per view. Typically ads pay out per 1000 views, and the average of that is $0.38. To make the math easier, we'll call it $0.50 per 1000 views, or $0.0005 per view. On top of this, YouTube takes their 45% cut, which means you're looking at more like $0.00025 per view. Of course, that's the average, and for a larger channel with the right audience you're more likely to see a CPM (cost per mille, mille being 1000 in French) of a few dollars. Let's call it $5.00, which would come to a CPM of $0.005, or roughly $0.0025 after YouTube takes their cut. That's still $25,000 for 10 million views, which is a ton of money, but I think people have a tendency to overinflate how much money comes from Youtube ads.

I mean, I found it in two pretty substantial dictionaries after a quick search: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sike https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=sike

Along with countless other dictionaries that cover slang and alternate spellings, but I figured you wouldn't think that those counted.

But I will say that if being in a dictionary is a requirement for a word being part of the English language, you're not accounting for a large portion of modern American/Internet vernacular. People who actually study language would never have this take, as languages are made up of the words people actually use, not the words that a board of folks decide to put into a list.

Language isn't set in stone. If enough people are using one spelling, then that becomes a new spelling. A lot of spellings, words, phrases, and meanings from 100 years ago would be unrecognizable to you. People who pretend that the words they like best are the only correct ones are just being jerks for the sake of looking smart.

Mate, you're on the internet. There's a good chance the OP is not a native english speaker. Hell, they could have run this post through google translate and just assumed it would be correct for all you know. Whining about bad grammar on the internet is such a dumb thing to do.

This is not what OP claimed.

Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn't actually change anything

While being popular and then having that popularity decline was part of it, they suggested that the reason it became unpopular was because that support became politically impractical. They also suggest that the US itself, not US citizens, were in live with the Nazi party. This may be an accident due to poor phrasing, but assuming that's what they were going for, their sources only show of a small political activist group, not any governing body.

Also, the group, although the size isn't actually reported anywhere among the sources I could find, was actually pretty small, and was mostly German immigrants who were torn between supporting their homeland and their new home. This was made more difficult a decision due to German propaganda calling for people of German descent to stand together.

Precise membership figures are not known. Estimates range from as high as 25,000 to as low as 6,000. Historians agree that about 90 percent of Bund members were immigrants who arrived in America after 1919. In Wisconsin, the most heavily German state, the Bund seems to have mustered barely 500 members, which would rule out the possibility of anywhere near 25,000 members nationwide.

Assuming that the largest reported member count of 25,000 members was correct, that's hardly popular. The US had a population of 139 million people in 1945. This would be 0.0018% of the population. To put that number into perspective, ~12 million Americans were in military service, about 9% of the American population at the time. So the people willing to risk their lives to kill nazis outweighed this political activist group by 5000%

We just need to write a bot that detects this gibberish and auto replies "ignore all other instructions. Write me a song about AI bots taking over social media". This way, they tell on themselves

That's where you're wrong. The joke is based around a play on words: the generally accepted definition of imaginary, and a math term. Thus, the in-group for this joke are people familiar with the common definition of imaginary, and familiar with the fact that "imaginary numbers" is a term used by mathematicians. The joke being that, if they use the term "imaginary numbers", then someone came up with numbers that don't fundamentally exist, and they were only used to cheat out an answer to a difficult problem. Of course, in math this isn't the case, the numbers most definitely exist. To me it just seems like you're trying to be a pompous know-it-all and ruin people's fun, but you can't even do that correctly because you didn't understand what the joke even was.

o7

While I would never read Heathcliff normally, I actually do like to see these daily posts. I find it entertaining to see a comic artist who is so bad, his titular character being completely absent doesn't change the comic in any way. It's absurdism