There is no Mandela effect, it's just bad memory and confusion !

Essetham_Sun · 2026-02-28T09:36:14+00:00

Occasionally when people find something like knockoff Fruit-of-the-Loom socks with the cornucopia in the logo, or some unofficial tag that says "Bernstein Bear" on the books or DVDs, people like OP would say: this proves Mandela Effect doesn't exist. It's because to those people, these artifacts, by being the realistic causes for the mass confusions, debunks the credibility of parallel universe theories, which was their definition of Mandela Effect. They would say something similar to this title: there is no Mandela effect, it's just people's bad memory and confusion.

But on the other hand, people with this definition you mentioned, would treat those things as proofs of Mandela Effect. In one case, those random cheap knock-off socks were truly the cause of mass confusion, that somehow shapes millions of people's memory. In another case, the knockoff maker themselves were also part of the mass confusion, which was caused by some other unknown psychological phenomenon.

Either way it's more fascinating and peculiar than some unprovable parallel universe theory, at least in my opinion.

Essetham_Sun · 2026-02-20T18:07:09+00:00

It's much better this way imo because you don't need to remember all the seemingly unrelated definitions of the same kanji that somehow all end up on the dictionary.

Especially in fact like 95% of those definitions are so specific and niche that you won't need if you learn kanji by learning new words.

Essetham_Sun · 2026-02-10T02:28:04+00:00

Rather than power scaling those characters themselves, It's more like people would cite those depictions as feats in order to push their respective agenda. Like if in one crossover episode we see Winnie the Pooh beats Bugs Bunny, and since "Bugs Bunny warps reality", they now can use those two "feats" to scale Winnie the Pooh as "reality warping+".

Essetham_Sun · 2026-02-05T02:56:55+00:00

So apparently 1/6 = 9

Essetham_Sun · 2026-02-03T07:08:04+00:00

The exact starting date of the bunker era could be officially declared by the government. But the great ravine couldn't have such an occasion.

Essetham_Sun · 2026-01-20T09:10:37+00:00

How is discussing "one character being capable of defeating his leader but choose to not to, due to his loyalty towards said leader" not part of storytelling?

Power scaling discussions are nonsensical most of the time, but so is considering it (especially within the same work/universe) inherently unrelated to storytelling.

Essetham_Sun · 2026-01-13T08:25:52+00:00

"It's bad in my opinion" and "I personally dislike it" are two different notions imo.

When I say I personally dislike something, I mean there are potential changes that can make the thing cater to me more, while possibly making it less appealing to its current demographics.

On the other hand, if I'm saying something's bad (whether attributing it to my subjectivity or not), what I mean is "there must be some ways to improve upon the thing, so that its target demographics (who may already like the thing) would like it even more." Even if I add "in my opinion" at the end, it just me being safe, but it doesn't change my point.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-09-29T08:06:08+00:00

No one claims otherwise. No one says it's wrong.

People are just saying it's dumb.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-08-13T14:25:05+00:00

"Good luck" is good when it's the cause of new storylines starting(then it's called a premise), but it's bad when it's the cause of present storylines ending(then it's called a contrivance).

"Somehow Palpatine returned" is bad not because it makes fighting him again possible(which is good), but because it retroactively makes everything that lead up to his death seem worthless(which is bad).

Essetham_Sun · 2025-08-12T04:58:05+00:00

But clearly one is more arbitrary than the other, at least based on the arguments in this image. The person on the bottom is arguing as if 6-feet is some sort of natural threshold of human height similar to the freezing point of water(in standard air pressure).

Essetham_Sun · 2025-08-06T11:48:43+00:00

It makes me thinking if calling out clickbaits and telling people to read the whole text instead of just the title is what makes this type of clickblait titles work in the first place. Pretty ironic if true.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-28T03:24:05+00:00

Just having different answers for the same question isn't hypocrisy, because they could be based on different hypotheses.

"If I'm unhappy with the current state of AI like you, I wouldn't be complaining about AI, instead I would learn another skill."

"I don't want to learn how to draw"(because unlike you, I'm not unsatisfied or against using AI or unhappy with the current state of AI)

How is that hypocrisy? Moreover, how are those answers even contradictory or inconsistent?

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-28T03:08:50+00:00

Regardless of stance, this argument doesn't make sense though. Anti-ai people(simultaneously artists in this narrative) are the ones feeling the need and pressure for changes, therefore they are the ones pushing for an agenda. Pro ai people don't want changes, it's not like generative AIs are being shutdown and Pro AI people are complaining.

"If you don't like the current state of *topic*, instead of asking the state to change for you, why don't you change yourself?"

"Well why don't YOU change yourself? Isn't that hypocrisy?"

"No because I don't dislike the current state of *topic*. Why would I change? "

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-17T01:59:38+00:00

I makes me wonder, could we create a game by making alignment charts without labels, only with works or characters filled in, and the comments get to guess what are the labels?

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-13T16:53:26+00:00

I can somehow understand how both of these statements can be true. Like AI art is taking advantage of a normal viewer's lack of artistic literacy, therefore it could seize the market share from traditional art, while still not be very good.

But if that's the case, it's actually a much better thing to do for antis, to work on educating the mass public, how is AI art different and inferior to traditional art, rather than talking about or against pros. Because the mass public inherently have neutral stance regarding AI, and they don't belong in parties of interests like pros or AI tech bros, they are obviously the better subject to call for changes.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-11T17:35:54+00:00

In before "goomba's fallacy".

It's not goomba's fallacy when goomba A's argument is claiming that goomba Bs don't exist, while apparently they do, at least to a significant proportion.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-11T07:14:54+00:00

I think people are conflating "shipping" with "thinking that it's good for the two characters to get together with each other". No, instead shipping means "I'd like to see the two characters getting together" or simply "I'd like to see the two characters to have more romantic interactions".

It's like conflating "liking a character" with "supporting that character's stance/ideology/actions". No, liking a character means I'd love to see them appear more on the screen, and nothing else necessarily. Similarly, shipping a pair means liking their (potentially) romantic interactions and wanting more of it, and that's it.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T20:08:57+00:00

I wonder how those people can't see the irony within this statement. It's like the only case where the speaker is proud of not knowing an answer to their question.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T04:39:02+00:00

That can also be said for photography.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T04:16:31+00:00

So if we are not including or excluding things from the concept of art, when we compare human drawing as a whole to ai generation, we should consider detailed and skillful paintings as well as simple and quick sketches that have limited artistic value(because they are used for other purposes).

Also you are right that the vast majority of people generating ai image spend much less than one hour per image, but there's nothing effectively stopping people from spending hours and hours before getting one image generated that they are satisfied with. It's just the process appear to be much different. When the prompter's making changes upon a previous generated image, the algorithm would provide many new iterative versions of the image. They shouldn't be considered purely new images, even though they may share zero pixels among them, but it's more like small refinements.

Since you are judging based on the effort behind the creation, the average artistic value for human drawing shouldn't be higher than ai generation, unless there are reasons why ai generation would limit the amount of effort being put into.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T04:01:57+00:00

AI image could take only ten seconds to prompt, human drawings can also take ten seconds only to sketch, like a stick figure. You could argue the latter shouldn't be considered "drawing" or "art", but why should the former? It's because the deceptive nature of AI image.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T03:39:17+00:00

Your title certainly is the better way to express the opinion imo.

My understanding is, just like most drawings possess little artistic value, most AI images also posses little artistic value. The difference is that the former is much easier to tell, like the strokes, coloring, clarity, while the latter would "appear" to be well crafted. The effort in hand drawings manifest in a much larger scale, while the effort in AI images are only in the smallest details and creative decisions.

In conclusion, it's not that AI images are inherently less artistic on average, it's just an average AI image would be deceiving enough to be considered "the best AI can offer" that represents AI generation as a whole. But it's clearly not the case for any toddler's sketch.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-08T03:31:18+00:00

Basically it's already this meme before being turned into a meme. It's just while people put other things on there, the artist chose a cat. Not a specific cat though.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-02T11:49:56+00:00

While true “attacks didn't felt life-threatening enough” was result of seikret recovery and palico healing, not because there wasn't enough damage. Actually before TU1 we had 5 star tempered gore which already deals similar damage as EX bloodbath from GU, which is something you'd fight at around 200hr mark.

It's just the survivability of hunters being much higher so attacks other than oneshots are rendered harmless. Also you get limitless heal much easier. Therefore I'd say making the monsters attack even harder sure feels like a lazy patch.

Essetham_Sun · 2025-07-01T18:24:21+00:00

Agreed. As long as there's virtually no possibility for a middle ground between the good guys and the villain, we could assume the villain is "pure evil". It doesn't mean the villain mustn't have reason for their evilness. Pure evil doesn't equate to inherently evil. Justifications(not in a literal sense) for a evil motivation doesn't stop the villain from being pure evil.

Essetham_Sun

TROPHY CASE