(no subject)
Mar. 20th, 2008 06:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzNew internet rule - posting embedded videos requires a cut. Fo' serious, instead of quiz abusers my f-list is filled with video links. Some rare few are entertaining, but most of us with JOBS can't view videos at work due to BLOCKS on our access. So we just have big squares, and frankly...they're not that fucking funny.
In other news, SHUT UP about those shoes. SHUT UP about that jacket. SHUT UP about that outfit. None of those things will make you look good. If you shove a potato into sexy boots, fishnets, a corset, and teach it hot dance moves - it's still a potato. The only salvation for your appearance is in the gym. The good news is when you make your body look good, it doesn't fucking matter what you wear.
Edit: Starving a dog to death in a gallery is art. Seriously. Animal caring people, don't click unless you really need a reason to be outraged.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 11:49 am (UTC)You know what? Fuck you. That stopped being cute a long time ago.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:15 pm (UTC)Right hotshot, please feel free to prove this theory yourself by wearing your crew shorts and Buster Crabbe tee-shirt to that next big meeting at work.
I swear, if you were a woman I'd say you were PMS-ing. Lithium, much?
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:40 pm (UTC)Hmm. You might have a point. Perhaps that theory only works through my eyes.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 12:58 pm (UTC)I mean, really, it's not like you wear those tight shirts because you can't afford ones that fit.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 01:24 pm (UTC)There are two reasons to do an LJ-cut.
1) to preserve someone's employment, sanity or sensibilities (the SFW/NSFW dichotomy). This doesn't apply since all NSFW content I post is behind a cut anyway, so that *I* don't get fired.
2) to inconvenience myself (by LJ-cutting) to convenience my friends (if I have a series of huge images, a 20 page post, or a lot of content)
Let's take the second rule as the circumstance which you wish to enforce. NSFW doesnt come into play since all you see is a square that you do not interact with.
Here, you are inconvenienced by being forced to scroll past the content. The content you cite is a YouTube video, which is roughly 320x200 in size. Let's even be generous and say it is 640x480. On most monitors this can be bypassed by the following:
- one roll of the mouse wheel
- one click on the scroll bar
- one tap of "page down"
Total inconvenience time for you is approximately half a second to one second, assuming you are an able-bodied individual.
Whereas the inconvenience of clicking an LJ-cut to see a video is
- the time to click the link
- PLUS the time for the page (lj, headers, images, styles, Frank the Goat) to render
- PLUS the time to render the movie
On a fast connection this can range anywhere between one and four seconds, depending on the congestion of the Interblagtubes.
Now let us assume that it takes the same time to click a link and re-render the page as it does for you to scroll past a YouTube video -- which it almost certainly does NOT, but for argument's sake we will give you that benefit.
You are still asking a content poster to inconvenience many (my entire friends' list) to convenience one (you).
Versus you scrolling past YouTube content. This means inconveniencing one (you) to convnience many (the friends' list).
The latter scenario is more in line with the SPIRIT of what an LJ-Cut is about, which is ASSUMING THE BURDEN of an inconvenience on oneself, to convenience others.
When you now factor in the reality of the situation that it takes longer to click a LJ-cut link than it is to scroll past one or two videos, your argument seems more fallacious.
However, not all is lost. There are diminishing returns and your argument actually takes hold after, say, three YouTube videos. In other words, if I were to post three or more videos, it is actually to my benefit to put them behind a cut. I must admit I have been guilty of not doing this in the past, but I will do so in the future.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 01:46 pm (UTC)I know you secretly love my outfit
Date: 2008-03-20 02:15 pm (UTC)If that's too much work, get over thinking it's somehow beneath you and just take those people off your default view. You don't even have to *make* a filter, it's already there. Or just unfriend. Whatever. I don't believe you're being forced to read any of these journals.
The bad news is when you act like a petulant, whiny prick, nobody worth knowing cares what your body looks like.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 02:16 pm (UTC)Re: I know you secretly love my outfit
Date: 2008-03-20 02:21 pm (UTC)That, I consider, a slam dunk. Half way between a wow and a yeeeouch.
--k
Whay do you hate America?
Date: 2008-03-20 02:25 pm (UTC)Wait. I just re-read your post and you don't actually come out AGAINST dog torture.
Admit it, Jose, you hate imbedded video, fat people, dogs and apple pie.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 03:07 pm (UTC)that does just about sum up a lot of Amerika, doesn't it?
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 03:25 pm (UTC)Re: I know you secretly love my outfit
Date: 2008-03-20 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:04 pm (UTC)No, I mean you might want to see a medical professional about your moods. Really, self-medicating with exercise does not seem to be all that effective for you.
Hmm. You might have a point. Perhaps that theory only works through my eyes.
Indeed -- perhaps you need to stop masturbating in front of a mirror.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 04:25 pm (UTC)