Seethe much? Holy smokes, get it together.

It’s okay to be embarrassed because you didn’t know how the Nielsen rating worked and I gently pointed out how easy it was to determine.

It’s okay.

You don’t need to reply and get upset over it and result to personal attacks. It’s not a good look on you, champ.

Did this sound better in your head?

A 1.2 rating sounds bad …

Do you see the pH scale and go “hmm, a pH of 1 seems bad”?

It’s always remarkable to me when people feel the need to attach their approval or judgment to things they have absolutely zero clue about — despite the answer being a cursory Google search away.

Here’s a current list of of the top-10 Nielsen-rated programs as of last week:

1	NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL       9.6
2	SUNDAY NIGHT NFL PRE-KICK	6.9
3	60 MINUTES	                6.8
4	MNF ON ABC (BUF AT NYJ)	        6.7
5	FOOTBALL NIGHT IN AMERICA PT 3	5.2
6	MON NIGHT KICKOFF	        4.7
7	YELLOWSTONE 1	                4.1
8	AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-TUE	3.4
9	AMERICA'S GOT TALENT-WED	3.0
10	FOOTBALL NIGHT IN AMERICA PT 2	2.2

The tenth-most-watched program had a score of 2.2.

There’s a grain of truth in here, but not quite. One in every four or so (not quite, but we can roll with it regardless) identified species of animal is a beetle. Not one in every four animals, by population nor overall species.

The reasons for this is are many, but may include because beetles are big, easy to catch, agriculturally-significant, and are particularly easy to pin and study, dramatically boosting the count of beetle species we work with on an academic level (lending to higher identification rates). There are also just a shitload of beetle species, naturally.

Scientists estimate something closer to ~10 million species of animals, which would still make beetles a huge percentage of the species, but a far cry from 25%. If you looked at the total number (estimated) of individual animals, beetles are pretty insignificant.

Source: Studied entomology and love me some Coleoptera

I love how when new waves of people discover old technology, there are always these types of fundamental questions.

Firefox has been here for a long time. Plenty of people use it. Casuals don’t care about what browser they have installed. That’s the entire conversation!

The actual interesting part of these questions popping up is the staggering lack of awareness. We can click your profile, and, as I’ve linked above, see you try Firefox for the first time, ever. Then, you proceed to ask fundamental questions like the one in this thread without referencing that you’re brand new to the software, or that you haven’t bothered to look up previous discussions.

As for being the “reasonable conservative” in the room, well, I’ll let that speak for itself.

Your entire argument applies to books as well.

It’s a bad argument.

Hey, friend? My post specifically referred to your laughable use of the entire phrase. The idea that you’re now backpedaling into defending just a portion of that phrase indicates exactly how right I was.

I’m gonna go hard for a second here and say that they most certainly do not look “really silly”.

Your echoing of a term unique to a single author and acting unimpressed when someone hasn’t heard of it is weird. If you were couth, you’d have linked to the work or defined the term after using it. As it stands, your use of the term “secular cycle” is nothing more than a smarmy debate-trap with absolutely no constructive merit.

Those schemes are more fly by night and don’t last long.

Websites that sell illegal products are almost always based in a place where the product isn’t illegal or enforced.

I’ve actually noticed this too.

Upon asking what the deal is, I’m often met with an “I like when creators get paid” which is righteous but misguided, or “I don’t care about the ads”, which is baffling.

I had an acquaintance try to show me Linus Tech Tips one time.

I genuinely do not understand the appeal. You’ve got a whiny little shit making the worst jokes possible and basically wasting money fucking up hardware. Most of the actual “work” the group does, like testing things, is throwaway meant for views.

This video should be good. Will edit this comment if anything stands out.

Josh Rogan

Hey dumbo, you quoted the guy, sure, but then you immediately wrote a quote and attributed it to them that they did not write.

You’re dishonest, unintelligent, and bad at arguing. You’ve been judged.

Your comment basically assumes that everyone lives in poverty.

Which, granted, isn’t that far off from the truth, but the reality is that it takes an extremely poor person to think like you - to the extent that someone dropping $25 bucks on mac and cheese for a kid probably doesn’t share your sentiments.

If your post is hidden within seconds, it’s automod getting it most likely. Being hid from a channel by the creator means your comment just never shows up, even in their notification feed.

deleted by creator

What you’re talking about has absolutely nothing to do with any of the points I’ve made.

Please stop typing.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve just described.

Again, this isn’t YouTube removing his comments. His comments are not being deleted. OP was simply “hid from channel” by the creator. I don’t know how else I can explain this, short of recording a video of my YouTube channel as I shadowban a commenter.

YouTube does delete comments. But this isn’t that. When YT deletes your comments you can no longer see it in even on your account.

This was a hard post to read.

You’re not shadowbanned from YouTube. The creator you’re commenting on has simply “hid” you from their channel. Which ironically is a shadowban, just on a creator level.

The level of panic and outrage you’ve displayed here despite not having a clue as to how the mechanic you’re discussing works is remarkable.