Clip in Livestream Fail: popular male streamer reads a comment in chat from a female username, "your shirt makes me feel so hot can you undo one of the buttons". Streamer says, "yeah you are getting permabanned" and waves to the camera while banning the chatter.
Polzie's two rogue videos, made before Gegon's first PvP video, and parodied by the last World of Roguecraft video:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1g80EUBDJr54tYKqhjW1HEBjHPlicUw14
I spent a while trying to fix the first one a little, making slight volume adjustments to the louder songs and waiting two hours for a 1080p transcode to finish, and then I uploaded it to YouTube but there's a several-hour processing delay because of all the 4K videos people upload and I don't even know if the songs will be muted. So I'm just linking the original files.
(I probably only watched the World of Roguecraft videos once, and am not watching them again now, but from the first one, Episode 3, the quote "Warlocks can't beat warriors either": compare to Polzie's warlock PvP video where she says that warriors are the weakest 1v1 class and defeats several warriors.)
Females are more likely to be offended by someone saying they are attracted to the female. This is, to some degree, a problem created by itself, just like how bad words are only bad because people know that they are bad. There might be males who feel they are just as upset when a female says she is attracted to the male, but because most people don't think it's wrong for a female to say this, a male who encounters this does not have to deal with the aspect of "someone doing something that they should know is wrong".
And so, especially when using a public communication method, I am careful about whether I imply that I like you, or about any suggestion that I think that you might like me.
Having started to stalk your TikTok page, I have watched a number of your recent videos. These reveal things about your life, attitudes, and activities that might not come up during a typical stream. I would say that I am critical of some things. But it's possible that the things I criticize are part of why you are popular. The common perception is that TikTok is filled with things that are unimportant, including dances to snippets of songs, and this perception would not exist if it were not true. Short videos about topics that people consider to be serious do not get as much attention as short videos that do not require a viewer to know anything that isn't contained within the video.
And if you weren't popular, I wouldn't have learned that you existed and tried to contact you. If you acted in a way I couldn't criticize, maybe you never would have become popular enough as a streamer to put off continuing your engineering degree.
For example: I deleted a few temporary files to free up memory for the video I was transcoding into a memory-based filesystem, including a copy of this video, by the dance group Oh Hi Yo (which sounds like the pronunciation of Japanese おはよう ohayou, meaning "good morning", which is probably intended as Japan is viewed positively in Taiwan). That video only has 10k views, not a lot. But a video from the same day, uploaded by the actual group 歐嗨呦OhHiYo on their YouTube account, has only 520 views, and the account only has 8k subscribers.
I might say, "what these people choose to do as friends and the attitudes that it appears they might have, seem better than what you, Pokimane, and your friends do". But their account has 8k subs. Your account has over 6 million.
Your Chirp Club like count has been creeping up today and I am just waiting for you to say something there. I don't really have a point with this post and I was thinking earlier that it's like the posts here from 2013~2019 or whatever that I unpublished. It's just sort of about a thing which could be "common knowledge" in the game-theory sense, but might not be purely because of people being stupid, and I might have decided to say something simply because of your like count going up, with no other way for me to indicate that I had noticed this.
Also, a few days ago I read about the two generals problem (which is relevant to "common knowledge") and you know what, I think it's poorly defined. It mentions that it's relevant for TCP (protocol), and in general it's probably a useful problem to think about, but what I thought:
If the generals keep sending the message, "I'll attack if I know that you're going to attack and that you received this message", then it makes sense that unlimited messages don't help, because each message includes the "if".
Whereas if one of them sends the message, "I will attack if I receive confirmation that you received this message", and the other replies with the exact same message, then both of them will know what the other is doing after a few replies. As an intermediate step, after the first reply, the first general knows he or she will attack while being uncertain whether the second general will receive the second reply and therefore commit to the attack, but it doesn't seem like a flaw in the decision-making process. Either the default without further communication after a certain point is to attack, or the default is to not attack; there has to be a default action, and the problem setup does not point to a default of 'attacking' being worse than 'not attacking'.
No comments:
Post a Comment