I'm very interested in the motive of the shooter. Employee going postal? Relationship revenge?
Or someone "fighting back" because YouTube took down/put out new rules about firearm videos? (And, in usual YouTube scorched-earth fashion, they completely overreacted.)
I suppose that makes me callous, but mass shootings are so common in the US that I don't feel anything for the actual loss of life.
its a symptom of something deeper like [...] depression.
This is my biggest fear about the classification.
I have severe depression, going on 10 years now. I've resigned myself to the idea that it will never be cured, at best I can block it for short time periods. Over time all of my hobbies, pleasures, and interests dulled and disappeared; the only one that hung around with any sort of gravitas was playing video games (and even is more of a simple distraction than a pleasure.) Video games also make for good escapism, a way to keep my head from being crowded by dark thoughts. As such, I play video games a lot. I wouldn't meet the specific definition that the UN is proposing, but if I wasn't already open about my depression and already a small amount of help any lay onlooker might assume that I had that "video game addiction" they just heard the nice lady on the evening news mention.
The actual issue of depression would go overlooked, or ignored because America hates dealing with mental afflictions. A proper doctor would (hopefully) realize it for what it actually is, but likely not until after the "addict's" life has been upturned because someone thought they were being helpful.
I would like to nominate "-1 Citation Required". Or perhaps even a "-0" so the score/karma won't change, but it will be pointed out.
I've seen a lot of posts rated "informative" that completely lack any evidence for what they are claiming, and in a few rare cases I know are completely wrong. I try to focus on up-modding replies that correct the record and leave the original alone, but I usually arrive to threads late so they haven't always been responded to.
a lot nicer than the people you feel you're supposed to like
As someone who grew up in small towns amongst different red-states, my experience has been that the politeness is because of societal pressure, not any desire from the people in general to be courteous. You greet every person and wave and say thanks not because you know the person or are happy to see them or appreciate something they did, but because it's the expectation. This is how you get phrases like "Bless your heart".
It's also my experience that such politeness tends to fall away when you go into the denser cities even within red states.
From what I've learned about external views of America, this "affable" mannerism is just a more pronounced form of general American politeness (again, as a nurtured habit not actual good will.) So in America we'll open conversations with strangers using the line "How are you today?" to which the expected reply is something brief like "Good" or "I've been better" and anything longer is often seen as ingratiating. I have heard first-hand accounts about how this greeting has confused people in other countries.
I agree with people needing to get out of their bubble, though.
Hell, we had something like that 25 years ago when I was a little kid. It's not at all a new concept.
Perhaps, but right now they're a dime-a-dozen (I work in fast food accounting, tracking things like payments from these services.) In two or three years these will probably consolidate down to four or five national/regional plus some local operations, but at the moment it's a minor gold rush.
Answer this simple quiz to know if you've encountered Russian Propoganda: 1) Have you ever been on the internet?
If you answered "yes", then congratulations!? You've encountered Russian Propaganda. And American Propaganda. And probably Botswana Propaganda. Maybe some Klingon stuff, too.
I guess if you want to know if you interacted instead of just encountered you'll have to use that tool, and another for Twitter, and another for Tumblr, and another for LiveJournal[1], etc. I'm not trying to dismiss Russian interference (it's not good, and no, neither is American interference in foreign elections), but propaganda without direct interactions (such as, say, talking to certain members of a certain transition team for a certain President-Elect) has been blown out of proportion for their effect. With or without that interference, >40% of American voters didn't vote (or were blocked from voting), and about ~50% of those who did are idiots[2].
[1] Yes I know LiveJournal is owned by a Russian company. [2] I leave it to the reader apply this assessment to whichever tribe they don't belong to.
they did not stop using BitTorrent to pirate movies and TV shows that were not included in the offering.
...duh? And that's from years ago, when Game of Thrones started.
They can ramble all they want about things like Hulu or Netflix, but even with relatively-cheap services Hollywood still treats convenience like the plague. The show or movie you want to watch isn't available with your preferred service, or it is but is device restricted, or it is but only part of it (like one season out of seven in a TV series), or it is but you have to wait at least 24 hours after the live airing to watch it. There is a demand, but giant media corporations refuse to offer supply, and they complain when an alternative one is found.
Just because something is cheap does not mean it is good. And the more segmented streaming services get, the more people will turn to alternative sources for the entertainment they want; I expect that two or three services is the limit for most people, and as more studios start launching their own offering the consumer becomes more choosy about what they subscribe to.
Not all entertainment is equal, either in quality or in individual preference. Just because you gave someone free access to Jersey Shore season 3 doesn't stop them from wanting to watch Mr. Robot.
Walmart will now highlight this on the product's web listing to encourage customers to buy them from their local stores. It's all part of an effort to increase foot traffic as Walmart continues to compete with Amazon just about everywhere else.
And the thing that stops a person from just going to another website with a likely-lower price is...?
I even RTFA (okay, skimmed) to see if there was an answer to this question. I honestly don't know why someone would feel compelled to actually drive to a store (Wal-mart or otherwise) to purchase an item that they already intended to purchase online, especially since it's likely there are other retailers who will have lower prices after Wal-mart increases theirs. (The referenced WSJ article is paywalled so I can't look there for answers, either.)
And from TFA:
Shipping one box of instant macaroni and cheese from Chicago to Atlanta could cost Walmart as much as $10, reports the WSJ.
...so charge $10 to ship it? I realize things like Amazon Prime have made a lot of people expect cheap or free shipping, but that's an aberration, not a requirement, of online shopping.
I've taken to just giving out cash, with hand-written notes about how it could be used (normally referring to something on that person's wishlist, if they gave one). If I feel certain that they'll be completely used, I'll do a gift card to someplace to up the "personal" level a bit.
No complaints thus far.
(If I get a bunch of something in a grab bag I'll include those as white elephants. Last year my entire immediate family got cash+a camera strap.)
Especially with no other news (AFAIK) regarding their handheld side, which has been their bread-and-butter since the N64, it appears more-and-more that Nintendo is just going to have "the console" which straddles the gap between handheld and TV-only machine.
This actually places them in a very interesting (and good) position, where they are no longer competing directly against Xbonex/PS4, but act more as a "secondary" option. As the DOOM port shows, while the system does have far less power that doesn't preclude hefty games from running on it, and the games that look or run better on the main two consoles can't be played portably with them. I think you'd have a hard time even getting a laptop to be as convenient, as you couldn't pull it out for a few minutes of gaming while on the bus and then stash it away again.
Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.
Which is fine, but what really annoys me is that I pay for YouTube Red in order to avoid ads entirely. However, my understanding is that if a video gets demonetized (which could be for something as horrible as using a non-controversial swear word like "shit") then the channel doesn't get a cut of my Red fees, either, even if I watch the entire episode/video.
It's one things for ad agencies to get their undies in a bunch, but their fears shouldn't obstruct my ability to support creators I like. I've taken the extra step to start funding some Patreons, but not all creators I want to support have that or similar accounts.
It seems akin to blocking people from buying South Park DVDs because McDonald's disapproves (sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy.)
Them, first. The amount I gave is quite high and could be lower, but that's sort of how fines (should) work: If you set a fine that is under the profit margin for the complicit activity, then the fine is just accepted as a part of the business (because the underhanded tactic still pays out more overall than compliance would.) Equifax is not losing corporate business AFAIK and is even getting some returns from credit monitoring services that have seen a spike of enrollments, so unless the fallout lands on them they'll happily ignore the reality many people are now in, in deference to the next quarter.
I would be satisfied with Equifax completely shutting down, so let's agree to lower it to only $100/person and they can implode slightly less. I don't believe we have any sort of "execution" laws for corporate charters in this country, but more than a few really should have been and Equifax joins this prestigious group.
With the perception that security has no financial returns
So make it. Your company released data on 32 million people due to shoddy security? Your company will have to contact each one directly, individually, and cut them a check for $1000[1] on top of whatever monitoring services they might need now. Same thing if it's only 32 people.
This won't fix IoT issues, of course, but there's a different mechanism that could: cost internalizing. Require companies to pay into a fund for proper disposal of their products (which means they pass it along to consumers), where the amount they must pay is proportional to the cost of destruction/recycling but inversely proportional to the minimum serviceable window, and "serviceable" in the case of electronics is partially defined as providing upgrades, replacements, or maintenance to close security issues within the given window. After all, a device that is broken into is still broken, and for most people that means getting rid of it.
Razor-and-blade model won't hold out if each "blade" costs as much as the razor does.
[1] And be able to produce evidence that they received it; or, in cases where a person can be contacted, proof of a good-faith effort was made and the amount is instead donated or paid to another entity
I think the ideal cheater-punishment system would do that, but on a cool-down timer related to how often someone is "caught". This makes false-positives less bothersome, and gives cheaters the chance of redemption (though unlikely) without having to purchase another copy of the game (but if that is the cheater-punishment method, well...)
This cool-down would work much like the one used on Robot 9000, where the first few bans are short (hours or days at most) but each successive ban is an exponential increase in time over the last. One could also implement a drop-off, where going so long without a ban decreases the ban level so the next ban won't be as long. (This should be based on play-hours, not clock-hours; bans should be on clock-hours.)
There are ways to game this, probably, but as far as automatic banning goes it seems like the least-worst option.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just start a list of everyone not affected by this data breach? It might sound like it would still be a long list, but after another year of revelations I think it will top out to a few dozen, maybe 50, people at most.
...which doesn't apply to the WSJ? I honestly don't know, because the article is paywalled so I can't see if they back up their headline with "real facts".
I'm not sure how what I wrote doesn't qualify as "real facts," either. I'll grant my conjecture isn't "real", but I presented real technology and posited on what I believe are their future applications and rapid expansion, and how it differs from historically similar events. You don't offer anything to counter what I wrote, or provide alternative outcomes or explanations or "real facts from real people", you just rant about "media hype".
Very true, but my intention was to present Miku (along with my other examples) as something bleeding-edge that can become increasingly applicable as the technology matures and costs drop. The 3D models used for it can be re-used for other facsimiles, so Miku Hatsune can become e.g. Trisha Johnson.
It's the exact same setup as manufactured pop stars already prevalent in American culture, they've just taken the star out of the equation. For example, one person wrote many of the hits for Brittany Spears, NSYNC, and many other singers/groups. Music can be produced, at least partially, without physical instruments.
If Americans would accept a digital diva (I don't think they would, yet) you've replaced a dozen or two people (and their enormous entourage) with one song writer, two or three modelers, and maybe a handful of musicians. As an added bonus, a Vocaloid won't get drunk and drive their car into a lake, so even after the popularity of the model wains they can repurpose it.
As customers flock to these new offerings, companies have to hire more people.
Only if the new offerings are not produced by robots. That's where the breakdown happens, why the advent and adoption of general-use robotics and algorithms isn't another example of historical automation.
Buggy whips went out of demand, so the people went to build cars. Cars started to get automated, so people went to build the increasingly-intricate car parts. But now car parts can crafted wholly by robots (or, for a continuously-expanding class of parts in general, "printed"). Automation in the past was about very specific processes for very specific outputs; you couldn't take a line used to make cars and easily change it to one that makes bicycles (or soup.) But soon we'll have a robot chef that works mostly by mimicking human actions, so if it can cook it can assemble.
The "creative" jobs will hold out longer, but algorithms will replace many of these, too: IBM's Watson has made a movie trailer. A lot of marketing these days are applying set rules to things (certain colors evoke certain responses in certain demographics, etc.) A lot of music is based around similar setups. Hell, Japan has a popular singer who's not even a real person.
The only question I see is: how fast will this happen? If it's extremely slow then make-busy work might fill in the gap as robots and "AI" take over most regular production. If it's very fast then we'll have a lot of robots producing things that most people can't afford to purchase, and "things" will eventually include food.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is well known on/., and I call what you point out as the "Carson Corollary"[1]: someone actually is intelligent in a specific field, but they mistakenly believe this makes them intelligent in all fields.
Regardless of where they get their talking points, if they sound good and/or come from a "trusted" source someone suffering the Carson Corollary won't bother to do any research or give measured thought to contrary points or evidence, they presume their own knowledge of a subject is sufficient.
Exercise for the reader: Am *I* suffering from the Carson Corollary by making this post?
[1] Named for current US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, who by all accounts and records is a brilliant neurosurgeon but has made somestatements that suggest he is not as brilliant in other fields while still feeling confident enough to publicly comment on them.
"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States," warned Mr. Trump from his golf club in Bedminster.
"They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," he told reporters. "He has been very threatening -- beyond a normal statement," Mr. Trump said of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. "As I said, they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."
What next, people freaking out that out in the desert somewhere, the military is practicing with guns, bombs, rockets, and other weapons that can kill large numbers of people?
I can't even stand the 5 seconds youtube makes you watch an ad before you can skip it.
I couldn't, either, which is why I subscribed to Youtube Red. I know some people find it expensive, but Youtube is virtually my only source of visual media consumption, so with that consideration it's a no-brainer.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, I already have severe depression, so I've stopped giving a fuck.
I'm very interested in the motive of the shooter. Employee going postal? Relationship revenge?
Or someone "fighting back" because YouTube took down/put out new rules about firearm videos? (And, in usual YouTube scorched-earth fashion, they completely overreacted.)
I suppose that makes me callous, but mass shootings are so common in the US that I don't feel anything for the actual loss of life.
This is my biggest fear about the classification.
I have severe depression, going on 10 years now. I've resigned myself to the idea that it will never be cured, at best I can block it for short time periods. Over time all of my hobbies, pleasures, and interests dulled and disappeared; the only one that hung around with any sort of gravitas was playing video games (and even is more of a simple distraction than a pleasure.) Video games also make for good escapism, a way to keep my head from being crowded by dark thoughts. As such, I play video games a lot. I wouldn't meet the specific definition that the UN is proposing, but if I wasn't already open about my depression and already a small amount of help any lay onlooker might assume that I had that "video game addiction" they just heard the nice lady on the evening news mention.
The actual issue of depression would go overlooked, or ignored because America hates dealing with mental afflictions. A proper doctor would (hopefully) realize it for what it actually is, but likely not until after the "addict's" life has been upturned because someone thought they were being helpful.
I would like to nominate "-1 Citation Required". Or perhaps even a "-0" so the score/karma won't change, but it will be pointed out.
I've seen a lot of posts rated "informative" that completely lack any evidence for what they are claiming, and in a few rare cases I know are completely wrong. I try to focus on up-modding replies that correct the record and leave the original alone, but I usually arrive to threads late so they haven't always been responded to.
What is the FBI's definition?
As someone who grew up in small towns amongst different red-states, my experience has been that the politeness is because of societal pressure, not any desire from the people in general to be courteous. You greet every person and wave and say thanks not because you know the person or are happy to see them or appreciate something they did, but because it's the expectation. This is how you get phrases like "Bless your heart".
It's also my experience that such politeness tends to fall away when you go into the denser cities even within red states.
From what I've learned about external views of America, this "affable" mannerism is just a more pronounced form of general American politeness (again, as a nurtured habit not actual good will.) So in America we'll open conversations with strangers using the line "How are you today?" to which the expected reply is something brief like "Good" or "I've been better" and anything longer is often seen as ingratiating. I have heard first-hand accounts about how this greeting has confused people in other countries.
I agree with people needing to get out of their bubble, though.
Perhaps, but right now they're a dime-a-dozen (I work in fast food accounting, tracking things like payments from these services.) In two or three years these will probably consolidate down to four or five national/regional plus some local operations, but at the moment it's a minor gold rush.
Answer this simple quiz to know if you've encountered Russian Propoganda:
1) Have you ever been on the internet?
If you answered "yes", then congratulations!? You've encountered Russian Propaganda. And American Propaganda. And probably Botswana Propaganda. Maybe some Klingon stuff, too.
I guess if you want to know if you interacted instead of just encountered you'll have to use that tool, and another for Twitter, and another for Tumblr, and another for LiveJournal[1], etc. I'm not trying to dismiss Russian interference (it's not good, and no, neither is American interference in foreign elections), but propaganda without direct interactions (such as, say, talking to certain members of a certain transition team for a certain President-Elect) has been blown out of proportion for their effect. With or without that interference, >40% of American voters didn't vote (or were blocked from voting), and about ~50% of those who did are idiots[2].
[1] Yes I know LiveJournal is owned by a Russian company.
[2] I leave it to the reader apply this assessment to whichever tribe they don't belong to.
They can ramble all they want about things like Hulu or Netflix, but even with relatively-cheap services Hollywood still treats convenience like the plague. The show or movie you want to watch isn't available with your preferred service, or it is but is device restricted, or it is but only part of it (like one season out of seven in a TV series), or it is but you have to wait at least 24 hours after the live airing to watch it. There is a demand, but giant media corporations refuse to offer supply, and they complain when an alternative one is found.
Just because something is cheap does not mean it is good. And the more segmented streaming services get, the more people will turn to alternative sources for the entertainment they want; I expect that two or three services is the limit for most people, and as more studios start launching their own offering the consumer becomes more choosy about what they subscribe to.
Not all entertainment is equal, either in quality or in individual preference. Just because you gave someone free access to Jersey Shore season 3 doesn't stop them from wanting to watch Mr. Robot.
And the thing that stops a person from just going to another website with a likely-lower price is...?
I even RTFA (okay, skimmed) to see if there was an answer to this question. I honestly don't know why someone would feel compelled to actually drive to a store (Wal-mart or otherwise) to purchase an item that they already intended to purchase online, especially since it's likely there are other retailers who will have lower prices after Wal-mart increases theirs. (The referenced WSJ article is paywalled so I can't look there for answers, either.)
And from TFA:
...so charge $10 to ship it? I realize things like Amazon Prime have made a lot of people expect cheap or free shipping, but that's an aberration, not a requirement, of online shopping.
I've taken to just giving out cash, with hand-written notes about how it could be used (normally referring to something on that person's wishlist, if they gave one). If I feel certain that they'll be completely used, I'll do a gift card to someplace to up the "personal" level a bit.
No complaints thus far.
(If I get a bunch of something in a grab bag I'll include those as white elephants. Last year my entire immediate family got cash+a camera strap.)
Especially with no other news (AFAIK) regarding their handheld side, which has been their bread-and-butter since the N64, it appears more-and-more that Nintendo is just going to have "the console" which straddles the gap between handheld and TV-only machine.
This actually places them in a very interesting (and good) position, where they are no longer competing directly against Xbonex/PS4, but act more as a "secondary" option. As the DOOM port shows, while the system does have far less power that doesn't preclude hefty games from running on it, and the games that look or run better on the main two consoles can't be played portably with them. I think you'd have a hard time even getting a laptop to be as convenient, as you couldn't pull it out for a few minutes of gaming while on the bus and then stash it away again.
Which is fine, but what really annoys me is that I pay for YouTube Red in order to avoid ads entirely. However, my understanding is that if a video gets demonetized (which could be for something as horrible as using a non-controversial swear word like "shit") then the channel doesn't get a cut of my Red fees, either, even if I watch the entire episode/video.
It's one things for ad agencies to get their undies in a bunch, but their fears shouldn't obstruct my ability to support creators I like. I've taken the extra step to start funding some Patreons, but not all creators I want to support have that or similar accounts.
It seems akin to blocking people from buying South Park DVDs because McDonald's disapproves (sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy.)
Them, first. The amount I gave is quite high and could be lower, but that's sort of how fines (should) work: If you set a fine that is under the profit margin for the complicit activity, then the fine is just accepted as a part of the business (because the underhanded tactic still pays out more overall than compliance would.) Equifax is not losing corporate business AFAIK and is even getting some returns from credit monitoring services that have seen a spike of enrollments, so unless the fallout lands on them they'll happily ignore the reality many people are now in, in deference to the next quarter.
I would be satisfied with Equifax completely shutting down, so let's agree to lower it to only $100/person and they can implode slightly less. I don't believe we have any sort of "execution" laws for corporate charters in this country, but more than a few really should have been and Equifax joins this prestigious group.
So make it. Your company released data on 32 million people due to shoddy security? Your company will have to contact each one directly, individually, and cut them a check for $1000[1] on top of whatever monitoring services they might need now. Same thing if it's only 32 people.
This won't fix IoT issues, of course, but there's a different mechanism that could: cost internalizing. Require companies to pay into a fund for proper disposal of their products (which means they pass it along to consumers), where the amount they must pay is proportional to the cost of destruction/recycling but inversely proportional to the minimum serviceable window, and "serviceable" in the case of electronics is partially defined as providing upgrades, replacements, or maintenance to close security issues within the given window. After all, a device that is broken into is still broken, and for most people that means getting rid of it.
Razor-and-blade model won't hold out if each "blade" costs as much as the razor does.
[1] And be able to produce evidence that they received it; or, in cases where a person can be contacted, proof of a good-faith effort was made and the amount is instead donated or paid to another entity
I think the ideal cheater-punishment system would do that, but on a cool-down timer related to how often someone is "caught". This makes false-positives less bothersome, and gives cheaters the chance of redemption (though unlikely) without having to purchase another copy of the game (but if that is the cheater-punishment method, well...)
This cool-down would work much like the one used on Robot 9000, where the first few bans are short (hours or days at most) but each successive ban is an exponential increase in time over the last. One could also implement a drop-off, where going so long without a ban decreases the ban level so the next ban won't be as long. (This should be based on play-hours, not clock-hours; bans should be on clock-hours.)
There are ways to game this, probably, but as far as automatic banning goes it seems like the least-worst option.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just start a list of everyone not affected by this data breach? It might sound like it would still be a long list, but after another year of revelations I think it will top out to a few dozen, maybe 50, people at most.
...which doesn't apply to the WSJ? I honestly don't know, because the article is paywalled so I can't see if they back up their headline with "real facts".
I'm not sure how what I wrote doesn't qualify as "real facts," either. I'll grant my conjecture isn't "real", but I presented real technology and posited on what I believe are their future applications and rapid expansion, and how it differs from historically similar events. You don't offer anything to counter what I wrote, or provide alternative outcomes or explanations or "real facts from real people", you just rant about "media hype".
Very true, but my intention was to present Miku (along with my other examples) as something bleeding-edge that can become increasingly applicable as the technology matures and costs drop. The 3D models used for it can be re-used for other facsimiles, so Miku Hatsune can become e.g. Trisha Johnson.
It's the exact same setup as manufactured pop stars already prevalent in American culture, they've just taken the star out of the equation. For example, one person wrote many of the hits for Brittany Spears, NSYNC, and many other singers/groups. Music can be produced, at least partially, without physical instruments.
If Americans would accept a digital diva (I don't think they would, yet) you've replaced a dozen or two people (and their enormous entourage) with one song writer, two or three modelers, and maybe a handful of musicians. As an added bonus, a Vocaloid won't get drunk and drive their car into a lake, so even after the popularity of the model wains they can repurpose it.
Only if the new offerings are not produced by robots. That's where the breakdown happens, why the advent and adoption of general-use robotics and algorithms isn't another example of historical automation.
Buggy whips went out of demand, so the people went to build cars. Cars started to get automated, so people went to build the increasingly-intricate car parts. But now car parts can crafted wholly by robots (or, for a continuously-expanding class of parts in general, "printed"). Automation in the past was about very specific processes for very specific outputs; you couldn't take a line used to make cars and easily change it to one that makes bicycles (or soup.) But soon we'll have a robot chef that works mostly by mimicking human actions, so if it can cook it can assemble.
The "creative" jobs will hold out longer, but algorithms will replace many of these, too: IBM's Watson has made a movie trailer. A lot of marketing these days are applying set rules to things (certain colors evoke certain responses in certain demographics, etc.) A lot of music is based around similar setups. Hell, Japan has a popular singer who's not even a real person.
The only question I see is: how fast will this happen? If it's extremely slow then make-busy work might fill in the gap as robots and "AI" take over most regular production. If it's very fast then we'll have a lot of robots producing things that most people can't afford to purchase, and "things" will eventually include food.
You mean like 80% of librarians? (2011)
Perhaps 60% of accountants? (2006)
Or do you want to opine that the professions are "catering" and 100% of the work in those fields is done by the minority of employees that are male?
The Dunning-Kruger effect is well known on /., and I call what you point out as the "Carson Corollary"[1]: someone actually is intelligent in a specific field, but they mistakenly believe this makes them intelligent in all fields.
Regardless of where they get their talking points, if they sound good and/or come from a "trusted" source someone suffering the Carson Corollary won't bother to do any research or give measured thought to contrary points or evidence, they presume their own knowledge of a subject is sufficient.
Exercise for the reader: Am *I* suffering from the Carson Corollary by making this post?
[1] Named for current US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, who by all accounts and records is a brilliant neurosurgeon but has made some statements that suggest he is not as brilliant in other fields while still feeling confident enough to publicly comment on them.
— President Donald Trump, 2017 Aug 8
— Mr. Donald Trump, 2013 Aug 13
Actually, and sadly, yes.
I couldn't, either, which is why I subscribed to Youtube Red. I know some people find it expensive, but Youtube is virtually my only source of visual media consumption, so with that consideration it's a no-brainer.