In summary: you have the cooperation of the parents, you cannot exclude the existence of a mental issues, and you are allowed to spray the item then. These are conditions I put ahead of any other suggestion.
FriendOfDeSoto
YT and TT are platforms that breed weird quirk uniformity. They all grab your attention with the same phrases ("you'll never believe ...", "what about [insert something outrageous]? Let me explain ..." etc.) For a while, everybody had the same Ikea shelves behind them crammed with shit. Then I think we moved on to neon signs. It used to be fashionable to show off your expensive big microphone, probably much to the delight of its manufacturer. And that's why I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the manufacturer paid some influencers to hold the tiny mike prominently in the shot like they would hold a dog poop bag filled with poop from a stranger's dog. And then it was copied.
I'm not talking about models. That in itself is not a YouTube competitor.
I'm not aware if they have announced a platform for this type of video. OpenAI and Meta have and that's what I meant.
I fear this will be an uphill battle for YT. I have this gut feeling that Meta and OpenAI here are employing the flooding the zone strategy to hurt and maybe displace YT. The sheer flood of slop with the occasional enjoyable nugget of content flooding YT from the pAIrates will be harder to filter out, clog up servers, and users like you and I will get annoyed and gradually consume less content. YT loses market share and some new platform can move in for the kill, operated by Meta, OpenAI and/or other such reputable companies. It's not easy to monetize this crap, which is a loss leader at this point. It doesn't look to me like enough people will subscribe to these services to be financially viable. They have to find other ways. So pivot to video 2.0 - this time with so-called AI! Sigh.
You are making assumptions here. Twenty-something year olds are allowed to date anyone older they like, the only restrictions that apply go the other way age-wise. And dating older people doesn't automatically lead to self-destruction. So what's your point?
You have to phrase it as a question to get the money. When you buzz in you get something odd like 7 seconds to answer the question. If you just say "Eiffel Tower" then Ken Jennings will now probably just stare at you expectingly to rephrase your reply in that time. I think in the past Alex Trebek may have prompted candidates to rephrase their non-question answers but I haven't seen that happening in a while (but I don't watch it that regularly either so 🧂).
The whole point of the show is that the standard quiz show mechanic question->answer gets put on its head. The clue on the wall is the answer and the candidates have to provide a question it answers.
Since you referenced "trash mods" on reddit in this thread: I have a feeling your post may also fall foul of forum rules here. There is a question in it but most of the post isn't about that. So don't be surprised if a non-trashy lemmy mod comes in to mod it away.
This is not criticism; I feel very similarly about the big picture to what you wrote. Trump is not a Mao lover. He would have to know who that was first. And I think communist Chinese history is one of his many blank spots.
I don't think so, I have witnessed so.
My word choices have given you the impression of a scheming Machiavellian teacher who reenacts the Spanish Inquisition on the boy until his classmates pelt him to death with rotten eggs. That's on me, it's not what I meant. I think I've added enough clarification in this thread at this point. So I won't go into it again.
The opinion of one teacher, one that due to the question they asked initially and the forum they asked it in, and a few down votes are, I feel, not enough to call my argument dumb. Never mind the more personal attack that followed. Tackle the ball, not the player. If you want me to change my mind, that is.
There is a whole field of study for this, pedagogy. I am sure the first chapter of the book isn't "kids are ruthless. The end." I remain unconvinced that my approach, where my suggestion was preconditioned on many things to have happened first, is the worst one until I hear something that isn't that or teetering on the edge of name calling.
There is a process called reconciliation that gets triggered in the senate in a budget impasse situation. I would say it typically involves a whole lot of horse trading but at the end is a bill that can pass with a simple majority. So I don't think either party will be able to drag this out indefinitely or just to the midterms.
Dragging this out generally is a bad idea for Democrats. The cult following of stable genius is going to accept the negative consequences longer as long as they get fed a narrative along the lines of "we prevent immigrants from getting health care and drain the swamp of lizard people." Or whatever. The Democrats will feel their feeble support dwindle when unpaid government workers are done with their savings, which will happen before the cult runs out of patience. The whole battle is mainly fought on the backs of people whose only fault was choosing a career in government. The Democrats will take pity on them and eventually agree to the least dehumanizing compromise you can negotiate at the "12th" hour.