He met the goal of conveying a lot of information. If he's only judged on what he said, and not how he said it, he did great. If I want to hear someone's voice, I'll watch YouTube.
> If I want to hear someone's voice, I'll watch YouTube.
I'm sure that in your head this is a witty rejoinder, but it really is quite a wild thing to say: that you place no value on the individual variations in how different human writers express themselves. It follows that you really don't care about voice on YouTube either, except in the most basic mechanical sense: you would be happy watching videos written by AI and narrated by the same monotone text-to-speech narrator, video after video, efficiently delivering that densely packed information you crave.
This is actually a thing, isn't it? Like those "shorts"
with the AI narration and matching subtitles flashing by in the middle of the screen. I guess you must love those---somebody does, probably a lot of people, or they wouldn't exist.
I'm tempted to frame this as a new kind of illiteracy. People whose brains are so addled by the modern media landscape that to get them to pay attention to anything at all you have to resort to tricks like this; god forbid they ever encounter a writer or narrator who speaks differently, sounds differently, thinks differently, frames differently. Nobody should be surprised, I suppose, that the ability to parse different levels of meaning in Content that falls outside the AI cognitive monoculture is a dying skill.
A generic answer to "Something is causing problems" articles: if more people have food, shelter, family, and happiness, it's good. If they have less, it's bad. I can't really tell, from inside my bubble, which is doing fine.
The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. Seems there's some reason the liability from the lawsuit doesn't transfer to the corporation.
> The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent.
This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story.
Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's starting to look like the lawsuit was against the former owners, contrary to the ragebait "Bricks and Minifigs stole..." title
I haven't watched this particular video, but I've read her 46 page suit. That's not the case that was lost. The case(s) that were lost are small claims actions made by the YouTuber and 9 of his friends, essentially. They got default judgments from the court on 10 claims each worth $10k. The previous owner's suit was just filed in March of this year, I believe.
Now as for the previous question of who was at the pointy end of those default judgments, I haven't been able to find that answer. I assume they should have named the local franchise as an entity and it's owners individually. Closing the store to avoid paying is arguably a fraudulent transfer of assets, but that would need to be taken to court in an enforcement action.
Oh yeah sorry, I misunderstood the suit the comment was referring to.
It is my understanding that BAM took direct ownership of the local store and therefore the small claims case was also directed against them, but at the moment I can't find where I've heard that so I'm not 100% sure.
According to the former store owner's lawsuit, and what comports with what I've seen in the original video, the store was seized by corporate and then sold quickly to the owners of the Eugene, OR BAM store.
reply