As part of a weekly series, these topics are a place for users to casually discuss the things they did — or didn't do — during their week. Did you accomplish any goals? Suffer a failure? Do nothing at all? Tell us about it!

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I wondered about this recently. I took three seemingly-solo Youtubers as examples at different scales.

Penguinz0 has 16 mil subscribers, and as far as I know his uploads are just him talking into the camera, giving his opinion about recent things in games and pop culture (I could be very wrong about that, I don't know why he's popular). Looks like he uploads at least a few times a week, so that could be manageable.

Videogamedunkey has 7.5 mil subscribers, and he used to do weekly uploads until very recently, I think. Given that his humor and editing style is a big part of his content, I'd be surprised if he's got anyone else working on his vids.

Northernlion has just over 1 mil subscribers and uploads multiple videos daily, and (in)famously refuses to do any editing. He just basically streams on Twitch all day and uploads clips from that.

I would imagine the day-to-day running of the business, i.e. answering emails and phone calls, would be where having help is most advantageous as you grow, but it also probably depends a lot on what kind of content you make. How big can you get before it's too much for a solo operation?

I was watching this clip of The Daily Show where Desi Lydic highlights the change in how Dr. Oz has been portrayed over the years, and it got me thinking about the perception of public figures over time.

I remember watching CBS Sunday Morning segment in 1998 where Elon Musk was painted in a fairly good light as a sort of rebel taking on Microsoft. This was around the time that Microsoft was seen in a pretty bad light for the Internet Explorer anti-trust case.

Musk as he appears in the media I consume today is almost unrecognizable from the 1998 segment.

I also recall a time when Rudy Giuliani was seen in a good light (disclosure: I'm mostly going off of my memory of how he was perceived by the nation as Mayor of New York. I never lived in or near New York, so I can't really speak to how he was perceived locally).

I'm sure I could come up with other examples if I thought about it some more.

All of this has me pondering the nature of my own perception. I don't know any of these people personally, so I rely on what I see online and in the news to guide my image of who these people are. But when I see this stark contrast it makes me wonder what is real.

Did these figures change over time, perhaps corrupted by power and/or fame?

Have they always been this way, and I'm just seeing the media paint them differently over time?

Are they just in a Harvey Dent / Batman "live long enough to become the villain" situation?

Maybe all of the above?

I also think about this in context of aging. My views on the world have definitely changed over time. I think I've mostly grown in a positive way as a person. But I've also seen my own parents change their views and become disturbingly conservative. It worries me that I may also have a regression as I age. They are still mostly the same loving parents I grew up with. The only real obvious cause of their shift in views is the media they consume.

So I'm curious to hear other points of view on this phenomenon.

I think I won't post the link here to one of the posts about this because I think it's an unproven conspiracy theory and it isn't true.
But there is a particular story going around online that one or more security experts is claiming that the latest presidential election was stolen. The "proof" is of this type:

• I'm a security expert
• There is some stuff in the election results that is statistically impossible, especially in swing states
• There is a specific type of ballot where the voter has only voted for one candidate or issue
• Here are the numbers compared to the normal numbers
• Voting machines were compromised, and here's how

For each of those bullet points (and a few others I didn't mention), I have to go and research that data in order to determine if it is accurate.

• I could google the expert and check their reputation
• I could research how common it is to have certain types of ballot completions
• I may be able to get detailed information about specific counties and their historic voting patterns
• I could do a lot of research on voting machine integrity

The research on each of those bullets could be compromised by other misinformation, astroturfing, bad AI summaries, etc.

Or I could just send the link to everyone I know and hope that someone else does this. Or just send it because I don't like the election result and I wish this story was true.

It's easy to see why CNN reported that 70% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was stolen, especially since conspiracy theories were repeated to them on all their main news sources and confirmed their biases.

What have you been watching and reading this week? You don't need to give us a whole essay if you don't want to, but please write something! Feel free to talk about something you saw that was cool, something that was bad, ask for recommendations, or anything else you can think of.

If you want to, feel free to find the thing you're talking about and link to its pages on Anilist, MAL, or any other database you use!

So perhaps I should have done more research , should have known, etc. But their recent news post took me by surprise:

Your subscription money at work:

Image search enhanced with Yandex

They're just out there bragging about giving money to Yandex. This bothers me.

As I said above, I should perhaps done more to research this before subbing, but that news post.

Shame, as I quite liked the search, but it's back to DDG I guess.

Am I over reacting here? What do others think?

Assumption - wage stagnation, off shoring of well paying jobs, the opioid crisis and the skyrocketing cost of post high school education have rendered a significant portion of what used to be a highly privileged population into yet another incredibly vulnerable population.

Then instead of even attempting to develop some empathy, I picked a side and vilified and shamed.

I talked down to people on the internet, presuming to know what was best for them. Better health care and gun control would vastly improve the lives of all Americans, but lets be honest, is it really a coincidence that those two issues would especially benefit me directly?

The most active thing I've done about the opioid crisis was watching Matthew Broderick on Netflix. My attitude around wage stagnation has been "Oof, glad I'm work in an economic sector that has done better than most!". My attitude around off shoring has been to a) enjoy the cheaper goods and services and b) huMANsplain to those more impacted than I that we need to think GLOBALLY!!!!

I haven't taken any genuine opportunities to consider what people who are watching their loved ones and their communities die from substance abuse while struggling to feed their families and failing to ensure that their children do at least as well as they did might actually care about or how these crises might impact their attitudes and actions. Edit - that's a HUGE run on sentence. I'm at a loss to fix it this morning. :(

From what little I think I know about empathy, people in general and people in crisis in particular want to feel like they're not crazy or bad and that someone is actually listening. They've already got plenty of self imposed shame. They already (on some level) know what they've been doing isn't working. They are not in a mental state to hear from sanctimonious me that they should be ashamed and they're doing it wrong. I don't think anyone has ever rubbed my nose in my own shit and gotten the outcome they were hoping for, why have I been rubbing other's noses in their shit fully expecting better outcomes?

Now I fear a much larger percentage of the population has recently become vastly more vulnerable, and I fear I am much closer to joining that population myself.

I'm sorry. I've contributed to what I perceive as an utter catastrophic mess. What I've been doing has been making it worse, faster... and I've been encouraging others to do the same, both in words and deeds.

There's no quick fix visible to me, but I'm going to talk about it on line and try to listen with empathy if anyone is still willing to talk... (I fear I'm still a sanctimonious asshole, even in this post. I've got work to do. I want to be better)

I am not a native English speaker.

Because that word became prominent in recent years, with a meaning that is heavily disputed, dictionaries and encyclopedias are useless in determining how it should be interpreted.

Tildes has a good assortment of intelligent native English speakers. In that light, when applied to people and in the context of social discourse, what do words such as "cancelled" and "cancelation" mean to you? In your view, are there situations in which these are employed either correctly or incorrectly? Or are they multiple and fluid in such a way that they can be applied to a vast array of situations dissimilar from each other?

This discussion is about semantics and subjective interpretation. It's about how words are employed to convey meaning. If you find semantics or subjectivity irrelevant, boring, stupid, unnerving, or otherwise unworthy of discussion, please do not comment.

What have you been doing lately for your own fitness? Try out any new programs or exercises? Have any questions for others about your training? Want to vent about poor behavior in the gym? Started a new diet or have a new recipe you want to share? Anything else health and wellness related?

The user @trim posted an interesting question in ~Tech and it made me wonder: what are my forgivable sins? What kinds of misdeeds on the part of companies that are suppliers of goods or services do I tacitly concience or to which I will turn a blind eye?

Whenever there is a scandal, the easy answer is, "I don't know, but definitely not that." This, however, is just an ad hoc definition that can be applied to any unsavory revelation on the part of a service or product provider. What would I be left with? I couldn't retreat from society if I wanted to and the cost of commercial puritanism would be prohibitively high.

What I realized in that topic was that (1) I will not sanction providers merely for doing business with others to whom I am opposed and (2) I will not sanction providers merely for issuing words or statements that I disagree with.

That said, I'm curious about others. What are your criteria for bad behavior in a service or product provider that you would judge to be nonetheless admissible?