1042
Surprised Pikachu
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1042 points (96.9% liked)
Memes
45523 readers
1236 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If I learned one thing, when talking with people about stuff like that: Most people unfortunately don't care. Many don't even have an ad blocker to begin with.
ah, time for a re-watch I guess
What is this from?
The it crowd
Have a good binge
It's one of the last of the laugh track comedies. Wondering what kids of the future are going to think about shows like that.
they had a live audience. at least for the basement/office scenes
Laugh tracks and audiences are the worst.
If your show requires prompting on when to laugh, it's probably not as funny as you think.
Many shows just aren't that funny when you take out the laughing, and if you were to cut all the awkward pauses the show would be 7 minutes shorter.
"rolling laughter" is a technique you have to learn as a live performer for a reason. TV shows at the time had to bridge the gap as the 80s/90s invention of stand up as an art form set the tone for how comedy should be.
It's not that it was always bad, it's just that culture changed. Same as how a Jacobite audient would find it real weird we watch theatre inside(!), sitting down(!!) and not talking during the show(!!!).
there are shows where it works (Frasier) and shows where it's horrible (Frasier 2023)
The IT Crowd is objectively hilarious without the laugh track. It's a British thing. They have laugh tracks or studio audiences on most programs.
I know you are right about all of this, and yet I will still watch shows like the old Addams Family while I'm doing something else just to have a distraction
I still have a couple shows I enjoy despite the laugh track... Just in general I would prefer not to watch them, and I'm unlikely to give a new show half a chance if it has one.
Just maybe avoid watching it in a way that the creator profits from.
It doesn't seem to be streaming anywhere, so anyone who doesn't have an excessive amount to spend on a TV series won't be giving any profits to the creators.
Why’s that?
An episode of the IT Crowd had a B story that was kinda transphobic. It was minor enough and the show was popular enough he probably could've easily just apologized and that would've been that. But instead, in 2013 after said episode was brought up and criticized for being transphobic to the creator, said creator tripled down and became a full on anti-trans "activist" who makes even JK Rowling seem benign by comparison.
Ohh dang. Thanks for the explain. I’ve never seen IT Crowd, and now I have a good reason not to. Fuck that guy.
Graham Linehan is a prolific transphobe
He's also actively picking fights with supporters of trans and non-binary people, such as recently David Tennant of all people.
Look, I was among the glorious warriors who installed Firefox on his parents/grandparents PC and replaced its shortcut’s image with IE’s one (because old people hate changes and won’t accept it easily)
Anyway. We did it. We killed IE hegemony. It’s up to the new generation to take the baton and fight against the tyranny of Google.
The idea of installing Linux on a grandparent's computer is just asking for trouble. I convinced my father in law to give a Chromebook a try since he mostly just uses his computer to get online and boy, was that tricky. The average person has no idea what an Operating System is and will call you the minute they can't install a new program for some reason.
I had a very successful experience! My grandmother had no idea how computers worked at all, so I set up a very stripped-down Ubuntu that didn't even allow multiple windows open. I could easily remote in whenever she had an issue.
She used it to check her email, read the news, and watch Obama's weekly address until the week she died. (Unrelated to the computer)
I feel like there's a curve of where this could work. For the extremely technically illiterate or technically literate, you'd be ok. But for the middle chunk of the population, it'd be more confusing than it's worth.
It can be very good for folk who are too tech illiterate to install any program by themselves.
The people who don't care and don't have an adblocker aren't and weren't ever the target. The people who are being targeted have an adblocker, and they're all moving to FireFox.
What Google is getting out of this most of all is future compliance as new users coming to Chrome will never know a world in which ad blockers were freely available on Chrome, as well as dog whistling this to other corporate browser vendors.
Don't forget they're pushing chrome on the whole internet. Websites are already telling Firefox users to fuck off if we aren't spoofing chromium and it's only going to get worse after this.
Firefox is my daily and I very rarely encounter a site that specifically rejects it. Do you have some examples?
Seriously it's opposite for me actually. I find that websites tend to have issues on chromium but they don't on Firefox
I'd tell you but it'd dox me. I can't pay my utilities on Firefox.
Long term they will move to Firefox also.
Because people like us will continue to suggest they use Firefox as their "tech person".
It's just a little slower for the people that don't care.
That is exactly how Chrome took over internet explorer back in the day.
And many people also do use an adblocker https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users