permo-w

For 1300 the only words I'm not sure of are "swie" and "rewth", although from context they presumably mean something like "silence" and "mercy"

1200 is much harder but I can get maybe 60-75%:

Hit is muchel to seggen all þat pinunge hie on me uuroȝten, al þar sor and al þat sorȝe. Ne scal ic nefre hit forȝeten, naht uuhiles ic libbe!

There is much to say of all that paining he wrought upon me. All that soreness and sorryness. Not shall I ever forget it, not while I live!

Ac þer com me gret sped, and þat was a uuif, strong and stiþ! Heo com in among þe yuele men and me nerede fram heore honden.

Here is where I lose the thread.

A wiff ... wife? witch? waif? woman? ... who is strong and perhaps stiff or some similar word, comes to him with great speed. She comes in among the evil men/man and saves him with her hand. Although I could be way off

Heo sloȝ þe heþene men þat me pyneden, sloȝ hem and fælde hem to þe grunde. Þer was blod and bale inouȝ And hie feollen leien stille, for hie ne miȝten namore stonden. Ac þe Maister, þe uuraþþe Maister, he flaȝ awei in þe deorcnesse and was iseon namore.

Here I can gather a lot more but I'm guessing a lot:

She slayed the heathen man who pained me, slayed him and felled him to the ground. There was a lot of blood and bile and he fell and lay still. For he had no more might to stand. And the maister, the wrathful maister, he fled into the darkness and I saw him no more.

Ic seide hire, “Ic þanke þe, leoue uuif, for þu hauest me ineredd from dæðe and from alle mine ifoan!”

I said to to her "I thank you, lovely waif/wife/witch, for you have saved me from death and from all my (?)"

And then from 1100 I can gather that the waif/witch/woman replies to his thanks and introduces herself as Aelfgifu, which I incidentally know is an old English female name meaning Elf Gift

Any further help?

surely "paining" is the easiest way to comprehend it

If I were an intelligence agency wanting to throw people off my scent, maybe I'd set up or pay off a blogger to track down my site's "owner" and then do some immature shit in response to absolutely confirm forever that the blogger was right.

Not saying this is true, just saying it could be

They could just buy Sponsorblock

I could be wrong, but I think I've seen it fail on more obscure sites. But yeah it seems unlikely they're maintaining so many premium accounts. On the other hand they could simply be state-backed. Let's say there are 1000 likely paywalled sites, 20 accounts for each = 20k accounts, $10/month => $200k/month = $2.4m a year. If I were an intelligence agency I'd happily drop that plus costs to own half the archived content on the internet.

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to test. Just set up an unlisted dummy paywall site, archive it a few times and see what the requests looks like.

I never said that modding isn't important, I said that it's not as important as people in this thread are making it out to be

These are minor tweaks. You could remove these and the speedrunning community/HC would lose little. A second account in spectator mode is a slightly less convenient version of freecam and the speedrunning community is kidding themselves in the first place allowing any tweaks to RNG whatsoever. They could ban that tomorrow and there'd be some grumbling but nothing would change viewership-wise

Also redstone is different, there's no F3 menu, generally far less vanilla customisability, far more micro-transaction prompting, far fewer commands and I'm sure 20 other things that someone who has actually played Bedrock recently could name

This thread is quite weird to me. People are massively overstating how important modding is and understating the strength of vanilla Java. Minecraft is not Skyrim

Speedrunning, anarchy servers, parkour, technical farming, server economy destruction videos and other primarily vanilla Java content forms are as popular as ever or more. Alongside the newer content creators, Hermitcraft is still growing somehow, as is Etho. Besides anarchy a little bit, none of this is reliant on modding

There are significant updates every year and many people, including me, install them every time they come out and play them in vanilla.

(Not saying you are but) I think people here are overstating modding and understating Bedrock's inferiority for content creation. The bugs, the differing technical surface and redstone logic, the basic missing key technical features from Java, like the F3 menu. Yes modding is a huge factor, but even if they released an amazing Bedrock modding API 3 years ago, Java would still be dominant in the content creation community and therefore still be the lifeblood of the game.

Bedrock is aimed at kids and they've never made any real effort to supplant Java with it. It's just a very effective way of hitting different target markets

Put more simply, a large proportion of the existing playerbase, including most large content creators, despises Bedrock.

or potentially the account posting it

Do it

What percentage of YouTube's revenue do you think is from subs?

The slop is already there. Even without the slop, which it would be borderline impossible to identify en masse, the hosting costs are still astronomical. I appreciate your idealism, but Youtube without advertising revenue would be a financial black hole, and even if it survived, creators would simply be the ones taking the hit

Unless you're suggesting Youtube would just start again from zero, in which case it would just fail and it might as well be the same as dying

It would be dead. Google would shut it down or sell it, but who is going to buy billions of dollars a year in costs for no advertising revenue in return? Youtube's hosting costs would put a massive dent in even some hypothetical really nice billionaire's wallet. Apple could afford it and they'd run it a million times better, but would they even consider putting so much loss on their books for the sake of ... PR?

It's the eternal hacker news debate:

"let's regulate x"

"but surely we can't regulate x because defining x is complicated"

"plenty of things are complex and are regulated, also here is a definition that covers almost all cases and the rest can be left to judicial nous"

"but people will just evade the law anyway"

Honestly pick a post about the EU at random and you'll be able to find some variety of this chain of conversation. It's so general an argument that it could be made about literally any law that's ever existed, making it entirely null if you believe in any regulation whatsoever

And it's part owner of the forces keeping fundamentalist religion under wraps too. Why fight over god when you can fight over your football team or your games console or your phone brand or your car

The major loss would be Youtube. Youtube is possibly the greatest educational tool the world has ever seen. Yeah there's some bad stuff, but you want to know how to do almost anything from tying your shoelaces to building a mega laser first-hand from an expert, and watch it be done? It's on Youtube, for free. Remove advertising and it dies and all of that goes with it. Even if the EU, say, buy it off Google and take it into public ownership, which the US government very probably wouldn't allow and also isn't really part of the EU's philosophy, you're still going to have to continuously pay creators for their work and hosting costs, forever. Otherwise I think it's a great idea. Maybe just carve out an exception for educational content

I'm sure this is part of it, but I suspect it goes deeper than that. I'd guess they probably have some kind automated categorisation algorithm that can extract features from the videos

I absolutely get what you're saying in theory--discussions about how and why are far more valuable than dialectic no yes no yes no yes debates--but in practice for this case, I feel like those how why conversations would perhaps feel a bit redundant? I think almost anyone on the site could quite easily come up with an effective legal method for reducing the addictiveness of short form videos. The issue lies more in the action/inaction of regulators than the makeup of the actions they should take. Then again, this is all recreational anyway, so why not see who can optimise for the absolute best method?

I also wonder if these discussions are going on, just further down the thread

And yet consistently the arguments you hear against regulation are these "let's pretend there's no such thing as nuance, how can we ever regulate an extreme case of something when we don't regulate minor cases?" arguments that act like no law has ever successfully regulated a nuance and improved people's welfare. Should we also allow heroin in baby food because cliff-hangers are allowed in films? Don't restrict my personal freedom to choose to be addicted to heroin from day 1!

I'm not saying these feeds are as bad as heroin for your health, but the difference in addictiveness between cliff-hangers in film and tiktok on your phone is about as big, and I equally think nicotine should be heavily regulated for similar reasons

The secret is how it chooses videos to recommend, not the tech stack it uses and how fast it is

I'm sorry to point out the obvious here, but who is going to perceive their recommended feed as slow or unfresh if it doesn't learn from exactly the last video you clicked on within 1 second? The bar simply is not that high. The special sauce of TikTok is how it chooses the videos, not the speed it does it at. I'm sure the speed helps to give it that "spookily intelligent" feeling, but that's a cherry on the recommendation cake, a cake which is already twice as good as the nearest competitor. I'm sure your talk goes deeper than this, but if this is the main focus, then you've missed the point.

You think that that's not been the case for the entirety of human history?

Read the comment and then reply.

There are some countries in East Asia that would be able to disagree with this

What is a rhetorical game if "ignoring the entire comment and then complaining you didn't answer one question that's entirely irrelevant to the central point" isn't? Read the comment again and try to figure out why it's irrelevant. I'll give you a hint: read the last paragraph. Once you've done that I may continue speaking to you.

That's simply a logical conclusion from your own thought process. You keep saying that any job is okay if the person is desperate. i.e. it's okay to force people to do what you want if they've got no other choice

Your perspective is consistently too black and white. No one in this comment chain has once said that this should not be allowed. At most it's been said that paying poor people to take trauma is concerning. Your response has consistently been "How dare you say poor people shouldn't have these jobs? These jobs are great!". You're trying to make it black and you white, when it's neither.

If your argument was "These jobs probably will scar some people for life, and that's troubling, but I do think the overall gain in welfare will likely outweigh that", then no one reasonable would be arguing with you. As it is, you haven't bothered to include this nuance, or even once admit or consider that some people could be made worse off overall by these jobs, even if perhaps most aren't. It basically just sounds like you want to see fewer "low IQ" poor people and you aren't really bothered how they feel afterwards. I'll say again, exceedingly many people have all the things you said are required for happiness, and still aren't happy. And that is usually due to trauma, the very thing we're talking about.

>Have you considered that I have more knowledge of poverty, not because I have experienced it, but because I have spent time understanding it?

If this is true, you haven't shown any evidence of it.

>Lets make it clear here: people are either unhappy because of material poverty like lack of money/food or because of higher level needs like love, safety and in this case - not watching abusive videos (so ridiculous that I even have to compare this).

Again you're making a value judgment and not providing any evidence besides saying it's true. Happiness is far more complex than this, and exceedingly many people who do have all the things you just stated are still unhappy, and very very often that's due to trauma.

>Do you genuinely want to challenge me in claiming that people are more unhappy by watching abusive videos than because of material poverty? Really?

My friend, you are consistently failing to understand nuance. This isn't a contest, no one is "challenging" you. Maybe what you said here is true, maybe it isn't, let's discuss the "why"s and the justifications and the evidence, but all you seem to be able to do is say "this is true and it's true because I say it's true, and also maybe suicides but with no evidence".

>Yes I would? ... 3. this means the overall story is a net positive for everyone and your moral grandstanding has no place here

This entire section boils down to an argument that could equally made for slavery. Well if they have a roof over their head and food, why not have slavery? At least they're not starving, right?

The funny thing is that there's absolutely nothing unjustifiable about your position. I actually genuinely don't disagree that people should be able to have these jobs. I'm bringing all this up because your justifications and motivations are completely immoral and illogical. Of course I would take the choice to do this job, but equally I would take the choice of slavery if it stopped me from starving. That doesn't make it right or a good thing for society.

He likely betrayed his real motivations a few comments back. He's annoyed about candidates getting elected by "low IQ" voters, and he wants them to get smarter by eating more so they can vote for the right people.