gildings in this subreddit have paid for 6.26 days of server time

Digital Hygiene: How We Might've Fucked Our Attention Spans [5:26] by MindOfNailsAndGears in mealtimevideos

[–]Ernigrad-zo 64 points65 points x2 (0 children)

i'm going to watch this but before i do i just want to guess at the things it's wrong about;

i predict it's going to totally ignore the fact people now often binge watch things getting hyper into a series for days at a time. That mircocultural groups are more common than ever and many people are deeply involved in hugely complex projects like editing wikipedia, programming open source software and collecting every possible pornographic act ever captured on film... the starwars encyclopedia is larger than the 1990 Britannica so the idea we're all unable to concentrate for more than fifteen min is ridiculous.

-ah edit, he's too young to remember what life was actually like before the internet, he thinks everyone was Goethe because the only people who left records are the people like Goethe, no sonny the rest of us just pissed our lives away being feckless divots, we didn't need fancy phones to amuse us we could jerk off just by looking at the underwear section of the catalogues. and everything took so much longer then, you think people are feckless now it's because ordering a lightbulb takes thirty seconds on amazon back in the day it was a weekends work just to get into town and find a fucking shop that had some b-type bayonets.

honesty kid do you know how many times we had to watch the same shitty VHS recordings of bad films from telly? and if you got a good film fucking hell would you watch the shit out of it, and it was all shitty tv - yeah we didn't get it on demand but we'd watch Tarrent on TV and he'd show clips of foreigners being sexy or foolish, we just had to waste 90% of our lives waiting for it to come on or doing bullshit like tuning the telly. tuning the telly, if you wanted to watch something you had to know when it was on and you had to tune the fucking telly to try and get a signal, that's why so many people just watched itv all day and became stupid daily mail readers... but of course before that they were drunken farmhands [i.e. 1900] so progress does happen.

yes a lot of people are feckless morons, however if you're not reading Goethe then it's not the phones fault or the internet, you just need to sort yourself out and make an effort, people have always needed to make an effort and very few ever have. life has always been rubbish.

-also positive effects, oh my god people! is this really so complex, you noticed you weren't the sort of person you are and took steps to change them, of course you started making more effort in everything and doing better at things you were trying harder, that's what trying is! jesus christ. sometimes i wonder about humanity i really do, i mean you see the same on no-fap all the time 'i was just wasting my life wanking then i thought why don't i stop wanking and do something with my life!' and that proves no one sohuld ever wank again, no you idiot it proves you were in feckless funk and needed to pull yourself together, you'd feel exactly the same if you'd never jerked off ans started doing it as part of a program to improve your life -- it's not jerking off or going on the internet that matters it's your personal drive, effort = effort = result, it really is simple.

What Writers Should Learn From Dan Harmon [7:47] by Kinsonlee in mealtimevideos

[–]thosch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Saying that D&D is fundamentally a power fantasy is to fundamentally misunderstand what D&D is to a huge number of people who play it, and to misunderstand what it was designed to be.

I also like to play the way you describe it, but it would be an overstatement to say that this is how D&D was designed to be played.

In "Hamlet's Hit Points" in the chapter "Surprised by Story" Robin Laws describes the original intent of the D&D designers:

"When Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax entered into the collaboration that led to Dungeons & Dragons, and hence what we now call the tabletop roleplaying game, they weren’t trying to invent a new story form. They set out to create a new variant of the war games they both loved, in which the basic unit of play would not be a military platoon, vehicle, or squadron, but an imaginary individual."

"Gary, who, in one of his occasional excursions into controversy, used his Dragon magazine column to decry the growing influence of play-acting on the game he had cocreated and popularized."

The EVOLUTION of Call Of Duty [16:06] by evanvolm in mealtimevideos

[–]slappymcnutface 8 points9 points  (0 children)

why did i watch this.

there's really no insight here, it's just a recap.

How to Land the Space Shuttle... from Space [17:48] by Metalbird2014 in mealtimevideos

[–]jaredcheeda 13 points14 points  (0 children)


but seriously, he left so much out, like how the banking isn't just to slow down the ship, but also to maneuver around space sharks!

I Drunkenly Paid For 17 Federal Programs - Nerdwriter [6:04] by Rolanddh in mealtimevideos

[–]ebilgenius 60 points61 points  (0 children)

That article's source link is a 404. Luckily they give the article name which we can source back to a Truthout article.

Also it's $36/year, not $42.

Truthout's source for the $36 towards social safety net programs is this post in a Democrat discussion forum, which further links to a forum post on ThomHartmann.com. Their number is $36.82, and only includes food stamps and the school lunch program. This is based on an article in the Examiner which no longer exists. Luckily we can find an archive of it here. In this article the assumption is a married person with one child making $50,000 a year. They will pay $3,820 in federal taxes, of that $2,100 goes to Social Security and $725 to Medicare which leaves $995 to other federal programs, and of that $995 only $36.82 of that goes towards "Food and nutrition assistance" which includes food stamps and the School Lunch Program and a food program for women, infants, and children. Not that that is only for the Food and nutrition assistance programs, the actual "social safety net" comprises more than 19% of the total, or $190.05 of the $3,820.

Also all of that data from the Examiner was from 2011, not 2012.


Your second point about the $3,000 is... weird. According to your source they say it's actually $6,000, and the first point assumes a married person with one child making $50,000/year, however the second point, according to the Truthout source, is the average American family, which makes comparing the two misleading.

So Truthout is sourcing this article in Common Dreams which is basically just a progressive blog. In the blog they again make it clear this is an average for all American families, not just $50,000/year married couples.

Let's go through their costs:

$870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies

This is a guess based on a vague estimate from this page on the CATO institute website, and then divided by the "number of families in the US".

$696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels

This is not entirely a cost, the majority of these are tax incentives and most of these are at the state level, not at the federal level.

$722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks

They base this off an article by the Huffington Post sigh who's article claims "U.S. Government Essentially Gives The Banks 3 Cents Of Every Tax Dollar". Note the "Essentially". Because the U.S. Government isn't giving shit. It's an assumption that a .8% lower cost that big banks can borrow is an "implicit subsidy", when in reality it's just that they're a big bank and they appear safe, meaning it's safer to lend to them at a lower cost. They somehow take 0.8 difference and multiply by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets (why only 10?), it amounts to a taxpayer "implicit subsidy" of $83 billion a year, or 3% of every tax dollar. Divide that by the number of families and we arrive at a hilariously bogus $722.

$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees

What the fuck? They don't even try with this one. Not all Americans have a retirement fund, and the $350 comes from an assumed annual fee of 1% of the "average amount of the retirement fund". This is a fucking management fee, not a tax fee.

$1,268 for Overpriced Medications

Something about free market prices and patent monopolies? Their source has no data so I can't take it seriously.

I don't know where they get their fucking numbers for the second source, I searched all over. You find it.

$870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies

Again, not a direct cost, but an estimation of how much businesses avoided with tax regulations divided by the number of families. Their source link is broken also.

$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens

Their source is a liberal grassroots advocacy group, so I don't think these numbers will be unbiased. And looking at their source it looks like they got their numbers from "we asked tax professors what they thought and then threw their numbers together and called it good.".


4/6 are subsidies which we don't actively pay for. 1 is too vague to answer and I'm lazy and 1 is from extremely questionable sources. Actually they're all from extremely questionable sources.

TL;DR: This is a load of horseshit.

The Youtube Happiness Deception [8:00] by Insouciant101 in mealtimevideos

[–]chemysterious 71 points72 points x2 (0 children)

As a dude with bipolar, I don't like that this guy is describing the obviously manic episode of Sheen as if it's this great authentic enlightenment. The truth is, that's what mania feels like. It feels authentic, and real. It feels like everyone around you is faking it, and you just plowed through the bullshit. And that's what Sheen communicated. Thats what I've communicated when I've been manic. There are lessons to learn from mania, but Sheen's musings didn't demonstrate some deeply true authenticity, just a lack of inhibitions.

That's my issue with this video. It simplistically implies that your current impulses (whether happy, brooding, offensive or depressing) are the real and authentic you. This is the kind of thing every highschool student "discovers" at some time (I did). And it's wrong. We are our current feelings, and our inhibitions. We are our impulses, and our better judgement. We are what we feel in the moment, and what we want to be in the future. Being mean isn't more authentic than being polite. It's just lazier.

Authenticity isn't embracing your whims, it's taming them.