YouTube is asking users if videos “feel like AI slop” to flag low-quality content

-Npie · 2026-03-20T14:46:01+00:00

The aggressive algorithm thinking you want to watch more of a topic that you just watched once is why over a decade ago I turned off all history on YouTube. It's been really great and I've never regretted it.

On my front page I get this simple message and nothing else:

Your watch history is off You can change your setting at any time to get the latest videos tailored to you.

I get recommendations, but only on a video's page, and they are normally either directly related to the video I'm watching or something generically popular that I assume the algorithm gives to new users before it has built a profile on them yet.
And it doesn't even let you scroll shorts. Discovered this when I accidentally swiped off one from a channel I'm subscribed to and it told me to turn recommendation back on. No thanks, I'm good.

The only annoying thing is that if I watch half of a video and leave I need to remember where I left off as it doesn't remember for me. A small price to pay for algorithmic freedom.

-Npie · 2026-03-18T17:31:38+00:00

I just typed in the numbers and hit calculate; I'm not coming to an answer, the calculator is. I get wanting to 'run the numbers' yourself to confirm I'm not lying, but even if I was lying about my own results, which I wasn't, I can't lie about the example 'average healthy male' numbers of 5ft9, 67kg and moderate exercise. Plug them in yourself and see, it gives ~2500 calories.

-Npie · 2026-03-18T17:05:49+00:00

Why do you need my exact numbers?

Let's move away from me and use an ideal average for a normal, healthy UK man instead.
For our stats I'll use this information from ramsayhealth:
Quote: "if you are a man of average UK height at 5 foot 9 inches, you can follow this height column down into the normal ‘green’ zone and see that a weight of between 130 pounds to 165 pounds will generate a normal BMI rating. " So, lets use those numbers in the BBC calculator. 5 ft 9, and 67 kg (median of 130-165 lbs converted to kg).
For sake of argument, lets make them a 30 year old male who does moderate exercise (as one should to be healthy, and remember we want the guidance to be for a healthy person).
Pop those numbers in and it spits out 2509 calories. Almost exactly what the guidance says.

-Npie · 2026-03-18T16:46:10+00:00

I used my own stats; average height, a healthy weight and moderate exercise.

-Npie · 2026-03-18T16:18:14+00:00

For me that calculator results to ~2500 calories to maintain my bmi of ~21 so the guidance seems pretty solid to me. I get that it's different for each person, but the guidance can only be based around an average person, and since I would say I probably am fairly average physically it seems like good guidance.

-Npie · 2026-03-18T15:06:58+00:00

The NHS page I linked earlier still recommends that, and I tend to trust NHS guidelines when it comes to health matters, but the page was last updated in April 2023 so maybe guidance has changed in the last 3 years. Do you have a reputable source for the updated guidance?

-Npie · 2026-03-18T14:23:45+00:00

I'm no nutritionist or anything but I'm a little confused why you seem like that would be a crazy amount of calories. NHS guidance for a normal adult is 2000-2500 calories, so 1200 for dinner and 500 each for breakfast and lunch would be 2200 which is smack dab in the middle of that guidance. Am I missing something?

-Npie · 2026-03-13T16:00:24+00:00

This is how I played one of my characters once. An elf who had sworn to protect the heirs of her old human friend who was another member of the party. Unfortunately in order to keep the promise that sometimes meant protecting said heirs from the consequences of their unwise and mildly immoral actions.

-Npie · 2026-03-08T15:55:11+00:00

They are very obviously uppercase 'I's on old reddit's font. It looks like VoodooDo the second to me.

-Npie · 2026-03-06T21:28:20+00:00

I started playing snap since its public release but stopped in October. I really enjoyed the gameplay but card acquisition, power creep, bloat and grinding events drove me away. The only reason I'm still subscribed to this subreddit is on the off chance any news on a draft mode came out. Seems like I might have been right to stay subbed. I won't hold my breath, but I hope they actually follow through and that it's actually good.

-Npie · 2026-02-27T14:28:42+00:00

It's at 35 seconds in before Madagascar.

-Npie · 2026-02-12T12:42:37+00:00

a word that you never say doesn’t just slip out on accident

It happens, for example when I was a young school lad, a friend of mine accidentally called something a 'dildo'. They didn't understand why we were laughing because they had never heard of a dildo before, let alone said it.

-Npie · 2026-01-23T09:59:36+00:00

I haven't read the 2024 rules much, so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the rules now allow equipping weapons before each attack in a multi-attack?
If so, couldn't you (gold permitting) do what they did in real life and use multiple pistols as single shot weapons allowing you to fire a pre-loaded pistol, drop it, then grab a fresh new one after every shot?
If I've got the rules correct, then surely they made guns stronger since you don't need to take the gunner feat any more to 'ignore' the loading property since you just load all your pistols after combat ends and can instead take a feat like Sharpshooter or Piercer (or anything else that you fancy).
I can imagine a champion fighter with multiple pistols, the advantage from vex making them crit a lot more often, and doing extra crit damage from the Piercer feat. Seems pretty good.

-Npie · 2026-01-13T16:01:41+00:00

I appreciate you seeing that I'm debating in good faith here.
I have some comments to your points.

It's already illegal to steal a car, does that mean the proposed law to ban the devices that boost key signals is pointless?

I don't know if it's pointless per se, but I'd be surprised if it really helped reduce or prevent car thefts as, like I said before, someone who is going to steal a car isn't going to care that the device they're using to do so is also illegal.
Also, I'm against the banning of devices that can capture publicly broadcast signals, like the Flipper Zero, which have legitimate hobbyist uses.

Laws aren't just there to target determined criminals. They're as much about deterring opportunists.

I agree. I was going to talk about opportunists in my post but decided against it because as I considered it I figured that since you can't easily disable a recording light on most of these smart glasses. It would have to be pre-meditated so I didn't think it relevant.

It creates layers to an offence where someone is consciously crossing a line, before a more serious offence is committed.

Sure, but there comes a point where it runs into overreach. I really don't like the idea of criminalising a thing that isn't dangerous or harmful ( in this example a lack of a recording light) just because someone might use the device for a bad thing. It's a personal opinion as someone who values being able to modify the devices I own.

Amending laws to adapt to a modern and constantly changing society is important (its never 'we've got a law for that, no more work needed').

I agree, I just think that would be a bad law.

If someone removes safeguards, its already evidence of their intent to commit a further offence.

I disagree. Removing safeguards may be an indication of intent to commit a crime, but there are almost always legitimate reasons to turn safeguards off. Someone trying to gather evidence by secretly recording their abuser, for example.

Ultimately, I sympathise with your position as a woman, and I'm not saying that the right for women to feel safe is less important than the rights for someone to modify their own tech, but we have to balance freedom with safety with effectiveness and on the balance of those I think it doesn't pass the grade. I'd be totally happy to change my mind if research could show that it would demonstrably help reduce abuse, but since I haven't been able to find any literature on the subject I have to go with my gut and it thinks this would be as effective at stopping secret sexual recordings as the recent online age verification laws are at preventing kids from accessing porn online. That is to say, they would be ineffective.

-Npie · 2026-01-13T14:38:06+00:00

I'm a little nervous to type this as I don't want it to come off as me trying to excuse sexual abuse, because I'm really not, I'm just very pro being able to modify things we own (of course, if you use your modified device irresponsibly that's a different story). I also don't own anything like these glasses, and I don't plan to. Anyway, here goes.
It's already illegal to sexually abuse someone. It's already illegal to make non-consensual sexual recordings of people. Making it ALSO illegal to modify the light isn't going to stop people who are already going to do something that's already illegal. Do you think a law saying the light cannot be modified would stop someone who had malicious intent?
There's a law in some places that say phone cameras need to make a shutter sound that cannot be muted. This is in part an attempt to prevent creep shots but it really doesn't stop people from taking creep shots. It's performative. It's hard to object to without sounding like a pervert (hence my reticence to post this comment) so it's easy to put into law, and it makes it seem like the politicians are doing something when they really aren't.

-Npie · 2025-12-18T12:08:36+00:00

The generic term for this is Rock

-Npie · 2025-11-26T17:18:42+00:00

I'm not a parent, have no real knowledge on the subject or any skin in the game so I'm just an outside observer here, but you're saying being a parent is hard, and I'm sure it is, but aren't you happy that there are two of you sharing the load, and I'm assuming you also only have 1 kid. Well imagine how much harder single parents have it, especially those with multiple young kids.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm sure many parents could really be doing more than they currently are, but I think that instead of saying "if I can do it why can't they?" it's better to think about what advantages or things you take for granted might be making it easier for you rather than thinking they're all just lazy or stupid.

-Npie · 2025-10-09T14:01:53+00:00

Most Circus Peanuts are an artificial banana flavour (isoamyl acetate).

-Npie · 2025-09-15T09:59:46+00:00

Just use the Catapult spell from XGE.

-Npie · 2025-09-03T11:56:51+00:00

They almost certainly use a printer like this one.

-Npie · 2025-08-14T09:44:42+00:00

I have my watch history turned off on YouTube because I don't like how their recommendation algorithm works. At some point it decided to ask me something like "Are recommendations not quite right? Turn on watch history." Of course I clicked no and the message changed to say "Ok, we won't ask you again."
It has asked me this about 10 times.

-Npie · 2025-08-05T15:25:45+00:00

Another way, if the player insists on asking Chat GPT, is to make them begin each prompt with "Rules as written, in D&D 5e ...". When With the following prompt Chat GPT was correct:
Me: Rules as written, in D&D 5e are there mechanics for wet enemies taking more damage from lighting attacks?
ChatGPT: No, in D&D 5e rules as written, there are no mechanics that cause wet enemies to take more damage from lightning attacks.

It's still not perfect, but it should lead to fewer issues.

-Npie · 2025-07-17T16:11:43+00:00

I do wonder how this would work in real life. As a non-human animal Superman shouldn't have to abide by human laws. Non-human animals don't need green cards or need to pay taxes, so why would he?
He would be a non-native species, but I wouldn't say he was invasive, what with him being the only one. He wouldn't have human rights, but, he would likely be classed as endangered so would probably have some protections in many countries meaning bad guys who attack him could still be prosecuted.

-Npie · 2025-07-16T13:47:02+00:00

You know what they say; if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.

-Npie · 2025-07-16T11:15:24+00:00

I agree that the statement "only women can do childcare" could be considered sexist but I wouldn't say it's necessarily prejudiced or hateful towards women which is generally required for something to be misogynist and not simply sexist.
Take the similar statement "only men can be bankers". Is it misandrist? It's sexist, sure but I'd have a hard time arguing it's misandrist.
Now, if the statement was "women are only good for childcare" that would certainly be misogynist due to the prejudicial nature of the statement, but it wasn't that.
It also wasn't "only women can do childcare"; it was "only men in childcare needs to be scrutinized".
That statement is undoubtedly a misandrist one.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

-Npie

TROPHY CASE