Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In the belly of the MrBeast

kevinmunger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 410 posts

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#81

Post by feoren »

alt227 wrote: post #49
n3storm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that

They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition. See definition 2 here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...

That definition genuinely gives me cancer. I seriously, 100% am going to die now because dictionary editors don't seem to grasp that this is simply a "tone" of ironically over-emphasized speaking similar to sarcasm, and not a new definition of one word. I'm 250% honestly in chemotherapy now because they don't get that. Veritably, indubitably, unarguably cooked now. Thanks, dictionary editors.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#82

Post by criddell »

wodenokoto wrote: post #51

> in cybernetic terms, a long lag time in production is deadly. Does "long lag time" or "deadly" mean something else in cybernetic terms than in regular terms? I found the "in cybernetics terms" insert quite puzzling.

I googled for a cybernetics definition and this came back:

> Cybernetics is the scientific study and mathematical modeling of regulation and control in systems, focusing on the flow of information and how it is used by the system to control itself.

So maybe a long lag time is deadly because they lose control of the system? That doesn't really make sense to me either though because what control do they have in the first place? The author says as much when they call it an ever-shifting target.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#83

Post by Salgat »

iambateman wrote: post #4

First of all – the essay is phenomenal and his book is available online for free – https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/youtube-apparatus/36... > “Communication within the YouTube Apparatus has no meaning.” The rapid feedback loop between creators and audiences (as constructed by platform metrics) means that the system more and more responds to itself. Rather than trying to go somewhere (as is the case with politi…

For people confused like me on what intensification means, it means maximizing the amount of attention and interaction that occurs. On Youtube this would be the metrics that drive engagement, including views, likes, comments, shares, and watch time. The issue is that the content focuses on driving engagement at the expense of communicating ideas with coherence and depth, for example by sensationalizing or oversimplifying a complex issue (especially for things like political discourse focused on sound bites and emotional appeals, or with virtue signaling and outrage culture). I think the above commentor is right, in my opinion, intensification shapes our world into being very reactionary, with only a superficial understanding of issues, and platforms like Youtube Shorts and Tiktok take this to its furthest possible level.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#84

Post by alt227 »

bena wrote: post #66
n3storm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that

Dickens did it. And people have been doing it since the 1700s. Not to mention, if you're using the word "literally" to mean "something that actually happened", you are also using the word wrong. Because it means "relating to or expressed in letters". I also notice people complain about "literally", but they never complain about "really" which also gets used in the same ways even though it means the opposite. And I've…

What would you suggest using instead. Actually?

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#85

Post by alt227 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #61
alt227 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition. See definition 2 here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...

Literally false: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.

I literally had no idea.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#86

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

drawkward wrote: post #75
wodenokoto wrote: post #51

> in cybernetic terms, a long lag time in production is deadly. Does "long lag time" or "deadly" mean something else in cybernetic terms than in regular terms? I found the "in cybernetics terms" insert quite puzzling.

Cybernetics has a lot (everything?) to do with feedback loops; the word itself comes from the Greek for "steersman". If you have a long feedback loop in a process that is supposed to self govern, it would be potentially deadly to the equilibrium.

Also the etymology of kubernetes

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#87

Post by qskousen »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #26
mhartz wrote: post #5

> The ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona. They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account. Isn't this sort of one of the themes from The Prestige(2006)? That certain magicians were so dedicated to their craft that they became inseparable from it. The performance never actually stopped

This isn't purely new, either. I'm perhaps dating myself a bit but I recall that over the years I have seen a few actors have this weird vibe where they're never "human", they always "on" and seem like their actor-thing has totally subsumed their humanity. David Cassidy and Shirley McClain come to mind for me on this.

I realize I'm probably in the minority for this, but for me when people create a "persona" for their media, it turns me away. I prefer watching people who are more genuine, whose content is less entertainment and more just themselves, even if that isn't what the internet seems to be looking for.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#88

Post by j45 »

Communitivity wrote: post #48
achierius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baudrillard just gets more relevant every day. Honestly I find it hard to imagine how someone could have media literacy in the modern day without coming to an intuitive understanding of semiotics, whether they know it or not!

I called myself a Semiotics Engineer for 4 years, but the title didn't catch. I did domain analysis, logical model creation, concrete model creation in XML/OWL/KML, model review and improvement, semantic reasoning-based system design/implementation, and message system design/implementation. This was before the rise of ML.

That collection of skills is still valuable.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#89

Post by yifanl »

JohnMakin wrote: post #31

It is indeed a fascinating topic, and it’s completely changed content (for the worse, in my opinion) in the last ten years. I always wonder though, does the dead-eyed creepy smile factor into his metrics analysis? it must, or he wouldn’t do it. something has always felt a little “off” about that guy, but if your entire adult waking life is devoted to the whims of the massive YT content space, I guess you’d probably s…

It does at the moment. At some point in the future, it might not rank, at which point he and anyone else devoted to the rat race will get their teams to replace their thumbnails with whatever new thing gets more clicks.

Re: In the belly of the MrBeast

#90

Post by llamaimperative »

Salgat wrote: post #83
iambateman wrote: post #4

First of all – the essay is phenomenal and his book is available online for free – https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/youtube-apparatus/36... > “Communication within the YouTube Apparatus has no meaning.” The rapid feedback loop between creators and audiences (as constructed by platform metrics) means that the system more and more responds to itself. Rather than trying to go somewhere (as is the case with politi…

For people confused like me on what intensification means, it means maximizing the amount of attention and interaction that occurs. On Youtube this would be the metrics that drive engagement, including views, likes, comments, shares, and watch time. The issue is that the content focuses on driving engagement at the expense of communicating ideas with coherence and depth, for example by sensationalizing or oversimplif…

For an excellent, prescient, hilarious, and terrifying book on this topic, I highly recommend "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman.
Post reply on HN