I do mostly agree. Honestly, I think a lot of people just don’t know how to be concise and effective with less. You could definitely trim down in most cases. But I think extremely long form content is a different type of beast, typically made by very passionate people and made for very passionate people who also like having extreme detail in the content they’re consuming.

I see it like this: if you’re an extreme fan of deus ex, maybe you hearing someone talk for 3 hours about how good the game is and going into many details of the game is exactly what you want. You don’t watch to learn something new, but just to mutually appreciate the game

It’s pretty clear you dont watch long form video content, most of the time they’re quite thoroughly written and well prepared. I haven’t seen long form video content that actually is just pure rambling, they’re pretty generally well structured. I don’t even watch them typically but the effort that goes into them is above just rambling lol, and you can tell they were actually written and scripted… Almost resembling an essay… How strange…

Appreciate the honesty haha

I have no idea why this meme caused you to say all of that, where does a lack of a niche community come into play with this meme? Just trying to understand

I totally get what you’re saying, but that’s not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy. I know many religious people who do not “listen to voices in their head” and it’s my belief that you’ve had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I’ve met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it’s unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me

That citation abstract very clearly says “could link” prostate cancer and biological processes and “may lower” prostate cancer risk, it’s definitely not as clear cut as you’re making it sound. The paper itself isn’t even confident about the statements it’s making

This doesn’t make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn’t sell?

Blockchain doesn’t fix anything new here, there’s no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.

Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it’s not profitable for them. It’s not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve