• Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This is my reaction anytime I Google virtually anything. Stop fucking recommending videos, Google. We’re not fucking interested.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You are not fucking interested. We, as Google’s customer base, want everything in video format because we are allergic to reading. If it pisses off 1% of users (which is ten of millions of people), so be it, still profit.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’m with you. This shift over the last decade or so to everything being in video essay format is infuriating. Especially when I’m trying to look up instructions for something that could just be a five item bulleted list or a single image but instead is stretched out into a ten minute video.

      There have actually been a few times I’ve given up on finding some piece of information or instructions I wanted because I could only find video sources.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        There are also the SEO sites, you search for how to write a file in python and you get 20 pages about file writing and why that is used, the history of python and more until you, maybe, get the simple one liner you forgot about.

        And I use an ad blocker.

        I know it’s so google thinks I’m enjoying myself on that site because I stay there “longer”, and thus thinks it’s a good site, but would it be so hard to have a search engine just straight out exclude large sites? I mean it does clearly not work well.

        Fuck, exclude all “dynamic” ones too. Back to pure html! 😺

  • kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Oh hell yes! I also feel that people who can’t summarise their argument likely don’t understand it

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    This shit happens far too often. Between the YouTube links that “prove” their bullshit, to the thousand-word copypasta essay that doesn’t contain a single original thought.

    Yeah. I’m not doing that.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I watched/listened to her rant about some Star Wars hotel that I didn’t know existed, while it existed, for 4 hours! Wish I had gone to Disneyland while she was a guide.

        She and Milo Rossi need to figure out a crossover topic for them to just go full ham on.

        • smort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          She has a video on the lore of some church’s series of musical theater performances. Highly recommend

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Sometimes I back up my argument with entire books lmao. Its not usually for the person I am arguing with. Its for the people who see the argument and are curious

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I would’ve loved to hear him explain general relativity to an elementary school kid. No bowling ball on trampoline nonsense either!

        • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 hours ago

          There’s no such thing as absolute speed in the universe. But there is relative speed. That’s how fast something is going, from something else’s point of view. The speedometer on your car measures your speed relative to the road. But another car on the road next to you would say your speed is 0, because from their point of view you aren’t moving. That is to say, you’re going the same speed.

          We used to think relative speeds just added or subtracted together normally. The same rules you learned in math class. But Einstein figured out that isn’t true. See, Einstein and many others knew that the relative speed of light is always the same. No matter how fast you’re going, light is faster. And always by the same amount. You can never get closer to the speed of light. It didn’t make sense to anyone until Einstein figured it out.

          Einstein realised that the faster you’re going, the slower time passes. So even if you’re going at a million miles an hour, you just slow down, and now from your fast/slow point of view, light is still beating your speed by the same amount. You don’t experience time as slower, but anyone looking at you would see you moving in slow motion.

          That’s how drag’s high school physics teacher explained it to drag. Drag oversimplified a bit, but all the important bits are there, and anyone could figure out the rest if they spent the time thinking about it. Anyone who thinks relativity is hard to explain doesn’t understand it. That’s what Einstein was saying.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            That’s special relativity. General relativity is the theory of the curvature of spacetime as the mechanism for gravity. Large masses curve spacetime more than small masses. Under GR, gravity is not a force.

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Good point but why “no bowling ball on a trampoline nonsense”? That’s not a correct analogy, since it deforms “space” different from how gravity transforms space, but it’s good enough to understand how that works, I think

              • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Oh because that incorrect analogy is the most common “lay person” analogy for describing gravitational curvature of spacetime. The most common reply from children is that it’s the earth’s gravity pulling down on the bowling ball so that the trampoline demonstration wouldn’t work in space.

                Also the trampoline analogy doesn’t show us how gravitational lensing works, nor does it even touch how different gravitational reference frames affect the passage of time (GR generalizes special relativity, after all).

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Agree with that 100 % I have a degree in Philosophy and that’s a reoccurring dynamic I saw with people trying to baffle with bullshit rather than make a cogent argument

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      You should be able to explicate your own argument, though. “Read this book” isn’t convincing on its own.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, this happens way too often “it’s all in here (link), but I will not elaborate”

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, you need to take specific portions of the book to support your argument. I won’t just say “read Fanon” but will give a a specific example from the book in addition to the more general example of the entire work, plus encourage them to read more.