Plan B Forum

How long can you watch the following video before you be slapping yourself upside yo' own head?...

Be alert. The world still needs more lerts. I apologize for not being able to rationally compare/contrast, the Delaware State Constitution and Natural Law. it has been many years since I walked int a music store. For real, one needs to be a trillionaire.. I lasted to 6:24.

snailgate.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:50 pm

I lasted to 6:24.

That's quite admirable. Or something. I watched for about 3 1/2 minutes and then after he started talking about troof, I slapped myself upside my own head and fell unconscious for a couple of hours.

I made it through less than 15 seconds.

If there is anyone out there that still believes in the 'Infinite Monkey' theorem, I merely direct you to content such as this that is rampant across the internet at sites such as BoobToob, TikkyTakky, Twatter, and countless others as a definitive disproof of that hypothesis.

-"BB"-

I got about 20 seconds in, figured this dude his high AF, watched another 10 seconds and that was enough for me.

16 seconds. Too long

I gave it 30 seconds, but could easily have left in 10. Nothing to see here.

Thanks to all for taking the test. I have to say that I'm surprised that most people watched only for a few seconds.

I'd say it was a rush to judgement.

Accurate judgement but a rush nonetheless...

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:07 am

If there is anyone out there that still believes in the 'Infinite Monkey' theorem, I merely direct you to content such as this that is rampant across the internet at sites such as BoobToob, TikkyTakky, Twatter, and countless others as a definitive disproof of that hypothesis.

Whimsical but quite wrong, of course. In infinite time, all possible things must occur - provided one assumes a beginning of time and that infinity goes in only one "direction". Once all possible things have occurred, then time and all will cease. Discuss.

Be that as it may, the presence of many monkey-failures does nothing to disprove that idea that the entire encyclopedia Britannica will (eventually) be produced by mere chance. It merely shows the corollarly - that an almost infinite amount of rubbish will be produced and, for some reason, they will be produced early.

Joe Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:20 pm

Thanks to all for taking the test. I have to say that I'm surprised that most people watched only for a few seconds.

I'd say it was a rush to judgement.

Accurate judgement but a rush nonetheless...

In today's media environment, 30 seconds is a very long time. Hell, in 30 seconds a pharma company can tell me an entire story about a person's debilitating disease and the drug product that enables their miraculous return to hot-air ballooning, as well as how to ask for that product by name from my prescribing physician. That OP video was long enough to have fit War and Peace.

Sue U wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 12, 2023 8:03 pm

That OP video was long enough to have fit War and Peace.

Maybe he had just finished reading that book.

Time is relative…

Perhaps, but it doesn't take very long to see if I am interested in watching something or not. I may lose out on some things I would otherwise enjoy on a rare occasion, but I save putting up with a lot of crap.

One thing that the internet has done is to shorten people’s attention span. The above video is an example of why that has happened.

The other thing the internet has done is give us a lot more choice in what we have to read. I recall reading the entire newspaper (even Dear Abby and the Style (or whatever) section, but now I don't have to waste my time with the parts I don't want to read--I can pick and choose. sure, I could have done something else, but I enjoy reading.

"The other thing the internet has done is give us a lot more choice in what we have to read. I recall reading the entire newspaper (even Dear Abby and the Style (or whatever) section, but now I don't have to waste my time with the parts I don't want to read. . . . "

I disagree. We have more choice, the stuff I might want to read is increasing, and so is the garbage like the beginning of this thread, but that is increasing at a much higher rate than the good stuff. I finally have reached a point where it takes so long to search for the stuff I want to read, that have reduced the time I spend reading on the 'net substantially. Even the NY Times has changed to where there is such a high ratio of 'entertainment to news' that I read a few select columnists. That guarantees I will not stumble onto a new piece that I really appreciate. That happened at least once a week back in the previous century when I was reading the NY Times, WaPO, Jerusalem Post, Neu Zuricher Zeitung all on line, all almost daily.

snailgate

I disagree. We have more choice, the stuff I might want to read is increasing, and so is the garbage like the beginning of this thread, but that is increasing at a much higher rate than the good stuff. I finally have reached a point where it takes so long to search for the stuff I want to read, that have reduced the time I spend reading on the 'net substantially. Even the NY Times has changed to where there is such a high ratio of 'entertainment to news' that I read a few select columnists.

This reminds me of why I like to shop at Trader Joe's and much prefer it to my local Kroger. At Kroger there is a cereal aisle with every cereal known to man, plus more in the 'healthy foods' section. At TJs there is about one six foot shelving unit of cereal with perhaps six kinds of cereal. They are all fine and do the job which a breakfast cereal is supposed to do - give you a quick bite of something reasonably nutritious with little effort at the start of the day and, as a sort of bonus, do that without being literally distasteful.

It's so easy with wi-fi (and I'm not advocating the bad old days of dial-up and CompuServe) to disappear down some www rabbit hole. There are days when I get to noon and I find I have done nothing remotely productive with my time so far . . .

No argument here Andy; sure, the junk is increasing, but then you can always move on and look elsewhere. And I think that's why I can easily mover on after reading a few lines (and why I avoid most online videos). Indeed, I think it's like movies; years ago, when you only could see them in the theater, I watched anything I paid to watch; with the advent of online movies (HBO, etc.) and video rentals, I became much more discriminating in what I watched (passing up a lot based on descriptions or packaging) and watched some for only 15 minutes or so. Now with streaming I am even more discriminating, and I'm sure I miss a lot of good films (or turn them off) because there are so many more to occupy my time (kind of like a buffet--even if it is good, I'll pick and choose).

You raise some interesting points, ex-kA.

There is a body of psychological research suggesting that humans are made more distressed and less happy by an abundance of choices, and are happier with fewer. https://behavioralscientist.org/is-havi ... 0paralysis.