site banner
Hour Day Week Month Year
Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 337734 results for

domain:alexepstein.substack.com

Why does advice work so poorly?

  1. Standard American redneck brand loyalty. One guy is convinced that Jeep makes reliable vehicles, like the grand Cherokee.

  2. there's a guy who literally didn't believe in oil changes. He has bought a long series of PoS $3k cars that all inevitably quickly break down irreparably within a year or two. Oil changes are a ripoff! The mechanic just wants you to throw away good money for no reason because the car is going to break down in a year or two anyway!

  3. On the opposite end, some truly poorly modified civics and f150s

  4. Some awful and idiotic ways to rip off your insurance company or auto repair shops.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

but very rarely will this shitty slop rise to the top over real artists.

Sorry to break it to you, but uh, yeah it does.

https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1833154509222129884?lang=en

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1905332049021415862?lang=en

Turns out demand was elastic. The ability to respond to the current thing in minutes with trivial input costs changes the game. Memes were a big part of Trump's 2016 win, but this is the next level.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

That image is strictly within the capabilities of any decent artist, and it has that hideous brown tint that every chatgpt imahe has these days.

Sure political cartooning has become more democratized slightly, but very rarely will this shitty slop rise to the top over real artists.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

The obvious explanation is that the videos are being heavily promoted. But I don't know if this is the case. It's my understanding that YouTubers generally don't pay for promotions,

I saw it said "promoted" under the sidebar, indicating he's paying for views. The low comment to view ratio is what you would expect for a paid video. . Videos with highly engaged fans will have really high ratios.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

Tariffs are fairly standard policy when it comes to import-substitution industrial development. If they're so bad, then why does the rest of the world have them? Are they stupid?

Because the rest of the world has a different context than America does, and tariffs in those contexts can work much more effectively. In the US, your manufacturing industrial base was shipped to China several decades ago - and that process took decades. In the meantime, all of the industries required to support that manufacturing base have also moved to China because that's where the manufacturing work is. As a result, even American manufacturing is getting hit by the tariffs because raw material costs are skyrocketing as a result and making American manufacturing LESS competitive. The US is so helplessly dependent upon Chinese manufacturing that the tariffs aren't even being applied to them - Trump has to extend the tariff pause over and over again because if it was seriously implemented the US economy would collapse overnight.

You can't reverse all of that overnight. You can't reverse all of that in the space of a single year. You can't even reverse that over a decade when the same forces and people responsible for profiting from the outsourcing of that industry are still in place... and they are. Outsourcing, offshoring - all of these things happened for a variety of reasons that are still here, and until you actually rework the economy to remove those incentives the tariffs will never work. Even then, could tariffs work to resolve the US' manufacturing issues? Yes, they could - but only as part of a larger plan to revitalise American manufacturing. You'd need lots of investment and government support in order to bring all these industries back, as well as large investments in training to build up the skilled workforce required... and that skilled workforce is also going to have to be compensated with the kind of good wages that will drive up the price of their output and make the made-in-China competitors even more attractive.

None of this has been done. Not only has none of this been done, the same corrupt politicians who were responsible for the problems which drove out manufacturing in the first place are still there (literally the same people in some cases) and actively working to make sure that this manufacturing resurgence does not take place because it would be bad for the interest groups and donors that keep them living the good life.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

AI Propaganda, Deepfakes, and the Law of Undignified Failure

A few days ago, a video appeard on Twitter of two white Scottish girls, 12 and 14, yelling, "DON'T TOUCH US," at an unseen cameraman and weilding a knife and a hatchet. Allegedly (though not shown) the cameraman was a migrant or other ethinc foreigner, was trying some form of assault or harassment, and the girls were trying to defend themselves.

The video is real. The event, insofar as it was depicted in the video, is real. Scottish police really did charge a 14 year old girl with brandishing a bladed weapon.

What is not real is this AI-generated image of a young girl emblazened with Scottish garb and Celtic war paint defending her home and honor with sabre and battleaxe. The image does not even purport to be real. No one could possibly believe that this is a real image. And yet, this fake image (and the countless others in the replies below) elicits much stronger emotions and sympathy from me than the real video. I know that the AI image is not real, it is operating on me at a cognitive level below logical propositions concerning real entities and events. One might say that the AI image represents certain ideals and concepts in a more-or-less true way (a sort of "truthiness" if you will), but the image itself is not evidence of anything.

Unless you are brand new to internet political discussion boards (in which case, welcome aboard) you have heard the concerns that AI-generated images and video will usher in a brave new post-truth world in which you can no longer trust the evidence of your own eyes and ears. Concerns typically center around some sort of incindiary event which is in reality totally fake, but which is indistinguishable from reality due to the photorealism of the AI media generation (so-called "deepfakes"). More sophisticated commentators point out that even just the threat of such "deepfakes" renders all multimedia depictions of events questionable, since it would no longer be possible to use the media artifact itself to determine the underlying truth or falsity of the events it depicts.

The sad truth is that none of that shit matters, because reality itself hardly matters. The law of undignified failure states that, "when plans and people fail, they do so in a less dignified way than you imagined." Perhaps you imagined that the forces of goodness would fight valiantly against the forces of epistemic darkness, only being finally overwhelmed by an exploitable quirk in the degeneracy of the vectors that make up abstract image space. In undignified reality, we get done in by anime girls waving flags.

You might object, "yes, but the rape of white British girls really is that big of a deal! We need propaganda to get across how bad the problem is." Maybe! but I hope you can see that this is not exactly an asymetric weapon as far as truth is concerned. I do think that AI-generated propaganda helps the right more than the left in the current environment, if only because conservatives live in more of an inherently audio-visual culture compared to liberals.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

Must everything be so over-dramatic? Berlin is not burning.

If by Berlin you mean the culture and the fabric of the society ("first we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"!), then it's definitely burning at the full blaze. At least for me - a regular middle class guy who wants nothing more than being left alone to grill on my backyard - it certainly feels that way. And I am not alone in this.

Trump is not the last hurrah of the right.

No, but Trump is there because of that feeling. He's not even "the right", for Heaven's sake - he's pretty much bog standard moderate Democrat, by the standards of times before Democrats went bonkers. Just watch what people like Biden, Obama, Clinton (either of them), etc. said before the Great Awokening. The difference between them and Trump, if you filter out all the bombastic rhetoric, is minimal. But the right had no choice. It was either Trump, or total destruction.

Your usual leftists on Reddit and some websites

Nope, nope. Remember the case of Gina Carano? She was booted from highly acclaimed role in a successful franchise because she said something right-coded. Reddit didn't cancel her. Reddit wanted to, but Reddit wants to cancel everybody to the right of AOC. No, people with much more power - people who contol billions of dollars - decided that. And now they are settling with her and talking about "looking forward to future cooperation". Did I vote for that? Hell yeah! One small example, of course, but it's everywhere.

I work for a woke company you've heard of.

I work for "maybe a tiny bit woke" company you probably never heard of (unless you're kind of professional that has to, then you did) but probably indirectly using something it did, maybe every day. It has DEI department, and some of the HR training had a little cringey tones but overall is pretty bog standard "these are ways in which you're not allowed to be an asshole" which didn't change much since The Great Awokening. No mandatory diversity kowtowing or pressure. Some people are explicitly woke but most keep it in their pants and don't bring it to the workplace. I am happy to be at this level because it's probably the best one possible in the US outside of tiny startup where everybody are buddies and HR does not exist. But I know that's not the situation in all companies.

Whether he was lying or all professors do, I can't tell you. I'm making the argument that life is often pretty banal

I've lived in Soviet Union (a long time ago). I know how people in evil empires work, and that not all of the storm troopers even want to shoot the rebels. Most of them don't care, they just want to get the salary and the pension. Some of them would purposedly miss or forget to lock the prison cells if they can get away with it. But that does not cancel the existance of the evil empire, and it always has enough troopers to maintain the required level of terror.

Supposedly the students are more woke than many of the professors.

88% of students lie about their politics to get better grades: https://x.com/bumbadum14/status/1957743796357329334 Take one guess to which side the lying goes. I clandestinely suspect that non-zero number of the professors aren't even woke, but they are so terrified to be cancelled they are pretending to, and thus their studends have to pretend in turn. A nice academic freedom the left built for itself, eh?

Billionaires tend towards the woke when it doesn't notably affect their bottom line. They aren't rushing to implement socialism or raise the minimum wage.

Are you sure? New York's Mamdani is financed by a billionaire heiress. Maybe she doesn't expect him to take all of her billions (and he, alone, now, probably can't) but she certainly contributes to the cause. And it's not unique - for example, a lot of rich Russian magnates supported Russian revolutionaires. We all know what happened next.

I think the right is becoming the party of nothing but political grievances and emotional overreactions in much the same way

That's not true. The right has a lot of the positive agenda. Just to advance this agenda, the right needs the ability to rule, and that requires taking control back from the left. If the right wins an election, but the Left continues to control everything in the country - as it happened in the first Trump term - nothing is getting done. Destroying the death grip of the left in virtually every institution of the country is a prerequisite to restoring the equal footing, this is the minimal necessary condition. Note I am not saying destroying the left - the left wants 0% right-wing people in every space. I am fine with certain percent - maybe even 50%, though I personally would prefer less, but I do not prescribe any specific number - of the left in any space they want to be, provided the right is also allowed the same. And yes, for this certain amount of power that the left has now must be destroyed, but while to them it may look as "revenge" and "overreaction", it's just returning to normal.

"Burn the institutions and salt the Earth!" is cringe and could possibly cost you the normie vote in future elections

The right doesn't want to burn the institutions and salt the Earth. The right wants the institutions that do what they are supposed to do. They want the politics be normal again, and so do a lot of normies. I remember the time where politics were about shoudl taxes be 25% or 28% and should minimum wage be $7 or $10. Now it's about whether it's ok to introduce port to kids in kindergarten, whether we need to let somebody to talk them into cutting of their genitals without even notifying their partent, we hear arguments that putting criminals in jail is racist and that deporting a violent gang member with dozen-page rap sheet including murders is fascism, we hear that mass rape and kidnapping is legitimate political tool, and that this kind of politics must be brought to the US, we see cities burned down and any semblance of rule of law eliminated, and we are told that if you are against any of that, you are nobody but a literal Nazi. Yes, we need some pushback to get back from this to what used to be normal, and if Trump can do at least part of it, then I am happy to let Trump do it. So far I haven't seen any better option, and I don't see how not doing it is an option anymore.

Free Speech can mean both the willingness to tolerate opposing ideas and the freedom to choose not to deal with other people.

This is very different for the right and for the left. For the right, not dealing with other people means ignoring them. For the left, at least institutional left, it means destroying them, grinding them into the fine dust and throwing it to the winds. The left has this power - at least had it before 2025 - and they weren't shy to use it. It didn't always work, but they always wanted to. Yes, the right has its history too, with porn in particular, a battle that they lost and will keep losing, and probably in other aspects too. But the left has been much more efficient in this game. Compare what happens if somebody in academia dares to say one of the words proscribed by the left and what happens if they say America must be destroyed and white people must be put in camps.

In a country of 350 million, you can find no shortage of idiots even if they don't matter at the end of the day.

The problem is those are not some lone idiots bloviating on a sopabox. There people are Congressmen, Senators, mayors, governors, prominent politicians, famous actors, academia managers, they control trillions of dollars and command vast power. And they are not shy to use their powers to achieve their goals. Which are diametrically opposed to mine. So I, as a voter, have no choice but to give my vote to somebody who can push back on them and at least slow down the descent to madness. Maybe, if we are extremely lucky, even reverse some of it. What other choice do I have?

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

I just wanted to chime in that I personally think your thoughts written here were so well spoken, worthy of consideration and discussion and sympathetic to many opinions in the way I think your intentions are such and that which the Motte rules encourages that they resurrected my lurking ghost to my corpse to tell you someone out there sees what you say here and appreciates your effort in this post. I think if more posts used language like yours here, the brain drain happening on this site currently will be dialed back a bit.

I've also skimmed and read your responses to what you've said from other users and I want to additionally commend you for what I think is a genuine effort to remain calm and give everyone fair questions and chances to explain themselves. Keep it up!

Now, um. Remember remember the 5th of November. My soul now leaves this husk.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

Thanks, a title like that is worth the immediate Kindle buy!

I listen to a podcast, "What God is Not," and the title has been in my head a lot in this conversation. But also so much of the Podcast is the spiritual experiences of a Byzantine priest and nun, and their spirituality is so clearly dependent on God being so Other to them. It's really beautiful and inspiring to see the witness of a healthy spiritual life going though everyday matters.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

Is there a reason it's committing to vote with the board rather than abstain from voting?

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

((There's also some messiness involving Intel ARC, which is both strategically very important to the Western world's military, not obvious, and which has an entertainment business case that it's only barely starting to credibly begin to compete with kinda, but is a short investment away from being a really big deal.))

This is the first I've heard of a significant military interest in Arc. Could you unpack that?

Certainly the whole computer gaming world has been begging Intel not to kill off Arc before it's reached maturity. Everybody expected it to lose money for the first couple generations, but Intel has been incredibly strapped for cash, so it wouldn't be a shock to see it sacrifice long-term interests for short-term ones.

The current CEO and board have been abandoning new development processes since December of last year.

This is tantamount to giving up its foundries, and I'm surprised not to have seen more analysis. I wonder if he thinks that that portion of the business is totally unsustainable in the long run, or if he's just playing chicken with the U.S. government hoping for more money.

Maybe that's what a government stake in Intel is supposed to resolve?

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

Ballmer also likely Knows People. Hoi polloi might need to pay lots of money (and Ballmer may well be paying lots of money) but I imagine there's a switch the youtube people can flip to artificially boost channels they like, regardless of money. Youtube is part of google and google doesn't like Trump or Trump policies, some middle manager could easily decide that people should be seeing more Ballmer videos and make it so.

I wrote that... and then I checked his channel. It's extremely, blatantly inorganic. 18 M views, 16 M views, 23 K views, 7 M views, 5.6 K views. There should never be a factor of 1000 in views of videos from around the same time. He has 3 videos with the same title and slightly different lengths: 'Get to the Source'. 60K views, 258K views, 4M views. Very strange. Maybe 1% of those 200,000 subscribers are real people and not bots?

I think google is better at propping up inorganic celebrities, this is very amateurish stuff.

Why does advice work so poorly?

The others I can see but car repair? I'm curious!

Why does advice work so poorly?

I'm not willing to say it's an all around bad practice with gift giving.

As corvos points out quite a few cultures adopt a more transactional nature for gifts. I feel that even the standard American culture has some aspects of gift giving that feel more transactional in nature. Wedding gifts are often basically a ticket price for attending the wedding. I currently have young kids everyone buys cheap crap for each other's kids, and then gives out gift baggies of cheap crap for the party. The kids barely know each other well enough to buy meaningful gifts. They certainly don't have some idealized understanding of gift giving. Tipping at restaurants which is supposed to be a gift is often just an assumed revenue stream for servers.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

Fantastic response. Would fit in well with “Your God Is Too Small” by J.B. Phillips.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

If your concept of God is more closely tied to the definitional one (God as the first cause) then to your direct experiences with him, then in my hypothetical, the being who performed everything in the Old Testament, performs miracles, atoned for our sins, etc. would not be God.

We are running into the problem here where I believe it is clear that the God of the Old and New Testament clearly identifies with Being itself, "I Am Who Is." St. Paul explicitly links together the Greek concept of the God of the philosophers with the God of the Bible in Acts 17 by quoting a Greek philosopher and identifying that definition of God as the one he has come to preach. Then there are hundreds of other places where it's clear that God is not in the created order, not changing, sustaining the being of everything at all times. (Psalm 102:25-27):

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.

Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.

But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

Acts 17:27-28:

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’

My belief in God is based on my direct experience of Him in my life, including revelations through contemplation and meditation. It is based on the Divine revelation of the Bible and the personal revelation that Christians have recorded throughout the centuries. And these both point to the Classical conception of God. Learning more about the classical conception of God helps me then go back and interpret the revelation I have received and which was revealed through the public ministry of Jesus Christ. It is all a positive feedback loop bringing me deeper and deeper into Love.

Without the positive feedback of the classical conception of God, though, my spiritual life went nowhere. What does it matter if God isn't all that He is? If he's just like some alien dude who did everything in the Bible? That has no implications on who I am, what morality is, the Good, the True, the Beautiful. If He doesn't actually explain anything, if He's not actually the Summum Bonum? I'd be left with a cool role model but if I disagreed with His actions it's conceivable that my judgements are better than his. The Cool Role Model called God is just a potential tyrant.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

It wouldn't say anything about Batman, but it would say something about Warner Brothers.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

They almost made Batman into a Broadway musical, with Jim Steinman and Tim Burton. Is this argument that Batman is almost a girl-ish princess product? It tells more of Broadway than history of Disney.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

Do you think he wants to run for office? It worked for Trump.

On the other hand, this would be for parodies of the "Developers! Developers! Developers!" speech that was mocked online. But that was a quarter century ago, wow.

Why does advice work so poorly?

In some cultures this is of course the point - giving a gift is implicitly initiating a reciprocal relationship. And may be resisted for that reason.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

what about, OG Mickey Mouse and friends in comic and animation. Slapstick, mysteries, criminals, mad doctor apes in haunted castles.

I grant that "Disney" was a different in 1930s to 1950s, it was a name of a man with a company, not just a company. He certainly was aware of the boy demographic: Treasure Island (1950), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1952), Davy Crockett TV series, Man in Space (I think it was 'childrens TV' in 50s. Or perhaps family documtainment?).

1990s DuckTales had some of the same spirit, and coincidentally nearly all the DuckTales IP was ~50 years old. In comparison, "Disney Princess" line was launched in 2000. It did tap into some more effeminate than masculine aspects present in many of the animated Disney products, but it was not a conscious product line choice until after that. their target segment was family friendly / boys and girls.

slopCorp, failed theater kids, orally fixated women

Or you could do what most boys do by the age of five and stop thinking about a globohomo company that makes princess cartoons. It's not the masculine flex you might think.

many transgressive choice of word, very little sourceable facts

Why does advice work so poorly?

It’s generally at least something the person understands how to do.

My point is that "just work harder" is to some extent something people (me) don't understand how to do, so everything that hinges on this (most advice) falls into this category. There is a lot more to discipline and human psychology than just flexing your indomitable human spirit if you want something hard enough.

"Work harder" isn't bad advice so to speak but it's not that useful. So, by extension, "Just wake up every morning and exercise for 30 minutes" is also not necessarily that useful.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

I suppose not. In the link under "sorry my finger slipped", Scott explains the chain of reasoning better than I can.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 2025

I looked into the archeology of the channel, and the findings were interesting. The channel uploaded its first video on August 31, 2017 (a 2 minute clip of an interview with Kara Swisher), and the first "Just the Facts" video appeared that October. There have been over 120 videos posted in the past 8 years, yet only 12 of them cracked the million views threshold, and the first video to do this was a video about immigration posted on August 1, 2024. This was following a nine month hiatus, prior to which the previous video, about mammograms, only got about a thousand views.

The obvious explanation is that the videos are being heavily promoted. But I don't know if this is the case. It's my understanding that YouTubers generally don't pay for promotions, for the simple reason that it doesn't work. An alternative explanation is that the video times increased from under two minutes to about fifteen. By 2017, most YouTubers were making longer videos, and the algorithm had adapted accordingly. Making videos that short in 2017 indicated a channel that hadn't done basic research into the zeitgeist, as the kind of viewer looking for World Almanac type information isn't looking for a two minute video. That may have been true in 2006, when streaming video that worked was novel, but there was enough better content out there by 2017 that few people would bother. That being said, under 1000 views suggests no action on the algorithm and no promotion, just uploading and forgetting about it. If these videos had been promoted but failed to take off, I'd expect at least a few thousand views.

Part of the reason YoutUbers don't like promotions is that it gives a few extra views but doesn't do anything to promote the channel. Basically, it will show more people the video in their feed, but only a certain percentage will actually click, and only a certain percentage of those will watch for any appreciable amount of time, and only a certain percentage of those will actually subscribe or otherwise become a regular viewer. It also does nothing to boost numbers from sponsors, since sponsors look at other metrics like average view time and percentage who watched the whole thing when making decisions, and those numbers are harder to fake using bot farms. We don't have access to Balmer's number for that, but one number we do have is comments. Bots don't leave comments, and leaving a comment means you were invested enough to engage with the creator and other viewers. I'd imagine that comments are more valuable than views.

The trade and tariffs video got 12.5 million views and 688 comments. The DOE video got 11 million views and 232 comments. These numbers are pitiful. Looking at some of the channels that play to a smarter audience and looking at the numbers for videos that got around a million views:

  • Adam Ragusea - Edible shelf fungus (chicken of the woods 'mushroom') - 1,182 comments
  • Wendover Productions - The Logistics of Music Festivals - 1,122 comments
  • Stewart Hicks - Inside the Station Nightclub Tradgedy - 1,715 comments
  • Technology Connections - How Much Thrust Does a Ceiling Fan Produce? - 5,042 comments
  • Practical Engineering - California’s Tallest Bridge Has Nothing Underneath - 943 comments

None of these videos are about anything that could be described as a hot-button topic that will stir engagement based on subject matter alone. So generally speaking, an established channel with an audience can expect around a thousand comments per million views. There may be some point of diminishing returns where we can't expect that to scale linearly, but I've looked at a pretty wide sampling of channels and this holds. Take a channel like Deb Armstrong's which has an incredibly limited audience that has natural constraints on its growth. Ms. Armstrong unexpectedly won gold in women's GS in the 1984 Olympics and currently works as a ski instructor and youth race coach in Steamboat, CO.

The audience for ski videos in general is small. Only around 3% of Americans skied in the past year, and most of them went skiing once. Ms. Armstrong, furthermore, does not make videos designed to entertain a wide audience, or teach tricks, or review resorts, or have bro hangouts. She makes technical videos from the perspective of a ski instructor that appeal to the kind of skier who is actually interested in improving their technique. Bode Miller, Franz Klammer, and Lindsey Vonn have made appearances on her channel. But only briefly, and not in a way that exploited her connections. Her most-watched video is titled "Use of the Inside Leg to Change Turn Radius", which got 711,000 views and 437 comments.

If you noticed, this comment ratio is below the 1,000 comments per million views average, which is interesting because most of her videos get fewer than 100,000 views but over 100 comments, in line with or a little above the average. My suspicion is that this is an artifact of a video that triggers the algorithm for no conceivable reason. I doubt there are 700,000 people worldwide with any serious interest in learning how to use their inside leg to lead turns. Hell, most skiers have zero idea what that even means. (For the layman, most carved turns are initiated with the outside leg, which comes naturally to most skiers. Pros, however, will use the inside leg as well, which takes a certain amount of practice and intentionality to get the feel for since it's not a natural movement). The video features an unusually self-aware 12-year old whom Ms. Armstrong engages in a Socratic dialogue about how use of the inside leg has improved his skiing, complete with videos of him making buttery smooth turns. I imagine that the kid caused something in the algorithm to trip, which in turn caused the video to show up in the feeds of people who wouldn't usually see it, some of whom watched a bit of it before moving on with their lives. So it got more engagement than her other videos by dint of higher viewer numbers, but not as many as one would expect if her actual audience had grown to the point where she was regularly getting those kind of numbers.

The upshot of this is that these videos aren't being viewed due to a natural audience developing for the channel. Usually when that happens it's similar to Glenn and Friends Cooking, whose 2019 video where he attempted an old Coke recipe got millions of views for a channel that hadn't broken a thousand in nearly 15 years of regular uploading. While the video certainly grew his audience, he wasn't consistently getting numbers like that video. It currently sits at 18 million views, while number two has just over a million. It should be mentioned that Glenn is very up-front about how he's not chasing sponsorships, optimizing for the algorithm, or making videos for anything other than his own personal edification, which means that his numbers are skewed by him regularly breaking all of the "rules".

So it's clear that there's something going on other than Ballmer's videos hitting the algorithm at the right time. But how does this square with promotion when most YouTubers say promotion doesn't work? I think the answer lies in the fact that most YouTubers looking to pay for promotion don't have the kind of budget Ballmer has. If the average guy looking for a boost pays $500 to get his channel going, at $0.10 per view that only buys 5,000 views, which is nothing. 20,000 views per video, which seems to be the minimum I see among people who are doing it for a living, would cost $2,000, and would be cost-prohibitive for anyone trying to jump-start a channel.

And it gets even worse. Since real channels with real audiences get a certain level of engagement, this engagement drives the algorithm as much as it drives advertisers. If you boost your video, and it's shown to people who don't like it and who don't comment, it's a black mark against your channel as far as the algorithm is concerned. So rather than jump-start a moribund channel, it can actually make things worse, since the algorithm is now less-inclined to show people the video on its own. The only way this could possibly work is to keep feeding money in until enough of your natural audience finds the channel that it can support itself (say, 100,000 average views). But you're now paying millions month in and month out to hopefully get a channel big enough to generate a middle class income.

So there you have it. Ballmer is almost certainly paying through the nose to get a synthetic YouTube audience, and I've just spent seveal paragraphs stating the obvious conclusion that OP reached in the original post. As to why he's doing this when he doesn't seem to be pushing any kind of agenda, I dunno, maybe he likes it? Maybe he wants a bigger audience and just figures that since he has the money he'll throw money at it? I don't know how billionaires think.

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 2025

It doesn't mean anything to be God unless there is a something that God means.

You're still using "God" as something other than an identifier.

God is whatever person or entity did the things described in the Old Testament, performed the Atonement, etc. It's not a definition, it's an identifier. It doesn't have to mean anything--identifiers, such as our names, generally don't mean anything at all. And God isn't "a god", he's God; if the word were "Blogalsnarf" it would work just as well to signify who it is that we're talking about.

If your concept of God is more closely tied to the definitional one (God as the first cause) then to your direct experiences with him, then in my hypothetical, the being who performed everything in the Old Testament, performs miracles, atoned for our sins, etc. would not be God. They would instead be two separate entities, who I'll call scripture-god and platonic-god, and it would be questionable whether the latter even exists (in this fake hypothetical, of course).

I think this is wrong. Our belief in God should be based on direct experience with him, and relatively direct experience (e.g. through scriptures, through others' accounts with him), much more than it should be based on philosophy. This is the point of my whole line of questioning. I'm not saying philosophy is wrong, but in the end if reality and philosophy conflict, reality should win out; and even if you think they will never conflict, it still matters that you give reality precedence on the off chance you happen to be wrong about the philosophy.

Have you ever had someone who agrees with the Cosmological argument explain it, asked them questions, etc? Or is your exposure mainly by people who don't agree with it giving their rebuttals?

I haven't read any rebuttals of the cosmological or ontological arguments, they just seem obviously wrong to me. If you'd like, I'll read into them some more to make sure I understand them, and then take you up on the implicit offer, thanks.