[–] 4 points 2 years ago

I do mostly agree. Honestly, I think a lot of people just don't know how to be concise and effective with less. You could definitely trim down in most cases. But I think extremely long form content is a different type of beast, typically made by very passionate people and made for very passionate people who also like having extreme detail in the content they're consuming.

I see it like this: if you're an extreme fan of deus ex, maybe you hearing someone talk for 3 hours about how good the game is and going into many details of the game is exactly what you want. You don't watch to learn something new, but just to mutually appreciate the game

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    It's pretty clear you dont watch long form video content, most of the time they're quite thoroughly written and well prepared. I haven't seen long form video content that actually is just pure rambling, they're pretty generally well structured. I don't even watch them typically but the effort that goes into them is above just rambling lol, and you can tell they were actually written and scripted... Almost resembling an essay.... How strange....

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    No, it's pretty clear that this is a result of modern "AI"... key word filtering wouldn't push applicants mentioning basketball/baseball up and softball down, unless HR is explicitly being sexist and classiest/racist like that.

    I mean, the problem has existed for sure before ML & AI was being used, but this is pretty clearly the result of an improperly advised/trained dataset which is very different from key word filtering. I don't think HR a decade ago was giving/deducting extra points on applicants for resumes for mentioning sports/hobbies irrelevant to the job

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    Uh, no. If you're just a kid at 24 according to OP, when do you stop being a kid? When OP arbitrarily says so now? Could've sworn legal age meant something like "when you're no longer a kid and can make your own decisions". I mean I agree, 24 year olds are basically kids and still have a lot of life experience to gain. But they're not actually children like you're weirdly implying I'm saying

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I see/hear about marriages started at 30+ 40+ 50+ all the time that fail. I see people pivot careers and industries in the middle years of their life. People tastes change all the time as they get older. Let's not pretend that when your brain finishes developing you suddenly have life figured out/know exactly what you want

    I generally agree that getting married before 24 is a pretty risky move and you have to have thought it through very carefully, but the argument that "you don't know what you want for the rest of your life" is not the reason why that is. It relates more to life experience/emotional capability/massive foresight. Marriage is more than just "wanting something for the rest of your life", it's a commitment, it's not just some eternal desire you may/may not have

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›