Because if the r/askreddit link, we’ve had a huge influx of new members today. Because of that, I’d like to make this thread to ask for ideas to improve the subreddit, and keep things interesting. We are going to try and make this a subreddit worth keeping in your feed.
We really aren’t sure what do do with the subreddit since it blew up like this, and would like to see what ideas you have. I’ve also added a few baseline rules since we had no rules when we started.
Edit: I would also like to clarify that this sub is intended to entertain. You shouldn’t take anything too seriously on this sub. We want you to be able to flex your creativity here and make others laugh.
We are normally pretty lax about what goes on in this subreddit as we want to let you guys decide what content you want to see by upvoting good content and downvoting bad content, but given the current situation we will be removing any posts related to Coronavirus.
You can help us with this by reporting any posts you see about the virus.
Slovenia, melania’s home country, not so coincidently owns the rights to the .si domain. Now that the official term for AI has been changed to SI tons of new .si domains are being made and Slovenia only stands to profit from this. This is microtreason at the highest levels and melania is working to influence the US government in ways that benefit her home country by persuading her dementia riddled husband to make the name change.
On 10/23, Cheesecake Factory stock hit a relative low right after it had climbed 8 points two weeks before. On 10/24, he made a jab at Trump's sense of taste and referred to the Cheesecake Factory. He knew this would make conservatives defensive of the long-standing institution of confused interior design that is that restaurant chain. And in their defensiveness, he knew conservatives would flock to defend and support the Cheesecake Factory. Clearly he has stock in the company and wanted to boost his net worth.
"I don’t do this with men very often. I started examining his body... And I looked and I watched up and down, and I looked at his ass..."-> he said this about John Husted
Trump is trying to change the algorithms so people don’t search up his gay quotes about men’s asses (or body)
So if anyone searches ‘trump ass’ it comes up with Nicki minaj rather than John husted
Even the most dimwitted person can tell he's a deluded fantasist with a persecution complex. Hearing his "theories" about archeology instantly imbues the listener with glee and an overwhelming feeling of "there's always someone dimmer than me". He was designed by boffins in a lab to make everyone feel better about themselves. Fact.
When humans invented antibiotics and started killing bacteria off en masse, the bacteria knew they had to do something to ensure their survival. We all think our consciousness is the human part of us....but for some, it's actually the bacteria who are running the show.
Lactobacillus is particularly good at controlling the human brain. Lacto-brains have invented delicious foods around the world that serve to both provide breeding grounds for bacteria and spread those bacteria to more people. Yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kimchi, sourdough, etc. In more recent years, they've invented their most effective route thus far: probiotics. They've gotten doctors, influencers, and grandmas to recommend them. They let bacteria repopulate people who've taken antibiotics.
Lactobacillus likes to be subtle, but Big Bifido loves plastering its name all over things. The recent popularity of prebiotics is thanks to Bifido. If lactobacillus is a shy dude sitting in the corner, Bifido is a big dude drinking soda and watching TV while he waits for the bus that'll take him to some old lady's intenstines. That's why prebiotic soda are all over the place lately. Bifido loooves soda.
That person you know who keeps talking about pre- and probiotics? That's not the human part talking, that's the bacteria ratatouille-ing them. Probiotics are a trojan horse they're using to reproduce and spread themselves to as many people as possible.
Scooby Doo has the ability to make all sounds in human language and he only talks like that to claim benefit of disability claims by pretending to be mentally not there. My evidence is that he makes every sound normally except at the beginning of the word. I think he hung around shaggy the most because like it’s in the most credit towards being an idiot. He’s also from an alien species that is able to create spaceships and shit so like how can he not say grapes without being arrested?
The French have spent centuries treating their language like a sacred artifact. The Académie Française exists specifically to protect French from “pollution.” They invent official replacements for every English tech word (courriel, logiciel, etc.). They’re extremely proud of how elegant and precise French is supposed to be.
Then along comes the most culturally dominant AI product of the decade and they call it… **ChatGPT**.
In French, “j’ai pété” literally means “I farted.”
So every single time a French person says the name of the tool out loud, they are forced to announce that they just farted.
This cannot be a coincidence. Sam Altman is not that careless with branding. They could have called it ChatAI, OpenChat, Athena, Hermes, literally anything else. Instead they chose the one combination of syllables that forces the most linguistically proud nation on Earth to repeatedly say “I farted” in polite company.
Still think it's just a coincidence? That one language was just an oversight? Consider this: French is the 4th most widely spoken language in the world!
It’s not about the technology. It’s a precision strike against French linguistic arrogance, executed with surgical cruelty and zero actual stakes.
[And I suspect it's to make Pokemon seem larger than it is]
I see it all the time. Movie threads. Listicles. Diagrams. Gaming articles. Gemini. It’s always the same.
“Pokemon is the largest IP in the world!”
Which everyone loves to trumpet about – that this IP has dominated the charts in a way that no other IP on the planet ever has.
Except that’s a lie. You have been lied to.\*
Pokemon is almost certainly not the largest IP on the planet and every single source out there on the internet is quoting either a)nothing at all or b)the same Wikipedia page with the world’s worst comparative sourcing.
Where do we even start? The offending article in question then.
Let’s take a look at merchandizing, by far Pokemon’s bulk of revenue.
If we follow [b], it brings us to the source for 2026 numbers, [25].
The ultimate source for these numbers is “License Global Magazine”(LGM). And what do these 2026 numbers say?
THESE ARE WHAT THE POKEMON NUMBERS RELY ON. IT IS NOT MY CLAIM THAT “DISNEY” IS AN IP
Hey’re number 6, with a mere 24.9% that of Disney. Why wouldn’t Disney IPs get counted for this? Well, Disney doesn’t break it out on a per-IP basis. But already we can see the issues; using a source which *only* counts revenue for one IP is immediately, obviously a wrong way to get a comparison \across** IPs. As the Boondocks put it, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Added edit: No I am not saying Disney is an IP. They have IPs. Some portion of that $63B is attributable to each IP. Us not knowing what that % is is the whole issue. It does not mean that % is zero for each IP, nor does it mean that “Disney” is an IP. I am not claiming Disney is an IP. Disney is a licensor of IPs. Im begging you, please actually read before rushing in to make the obvious claim that Disney is not an IP.
So what do Disney IPs use as a source of revenue for 2026 numbers? The Wikipedia article doesn’t have a source for Disney and doesn’t count merch sales past 2018. Are we then to believe that, say, Disney Princesses, the 5th largest IP out there, constitutes none of that $63B and hasn’t since 2018? According to Wikipedia, this is exactly how it’s done.
Yes, per wikipedia, since 2018, not a single one of the merchandize counts for Disney Princesses, Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse, Spider-Man, MCU, Avengers have been updated. Not a single update across all of those brands, despite their parent company generating hundreds of billions in merchandizing revenue, per the same source that Pokemon uses to place up the rankings. Are we then to believe that it’s some other mysterious Disney property which is racking up all of this merchandising? Somehow, only Pokemon gets merchandizing revenue, and all other revenue simply counted as Disney…vanishes. Goes to no IP. The parent company is producing $63B in merchandizing revenue which is attributable to no one.
This approach is so, so, so obviously absolute nonsense. Clearly, just because you can find numbers for one doesn’t mean that numbers for the others don’t exist. Let’s start with Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse, which – again – has not updated their merchandizing counter since 2018, hasn’t grown at all?
What about for the fact that Mickey Mouse made more money in merchandizing in 2018 than Pokemon did?
The only one with a full merch spread for every year - or an "until X" entry
Yup. This Disney IP – the one without big movies, or big stars, or big games – made more money via merchandizing in 2018 than Pokemon did. In fact, Mickey made more money in merchandise than Pokemon did in 2018, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010 (by a 3.6x multiple). Somehow amidst all that though, Mickey sold 0 in 2009, 2008, and 2006 – very embarrassing for him.
Mickey himself beats Pokemon on a merchandise basis 8 times out of 9 for years we can actually compare, with only a *single year*(2017) being smaller than Pokemon on a like-to-like basis, and even then by a mere 0.267M. Meanwhile, Mickey routinely generates $1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6B more in merch revenues! Even in just these fragmented years, even including the missing years and the gigantic, improper, and incomparable chunk of “until 2005”, Mickey made $9.186B *more\* than Pokemon in merch sales – $60.67B vs $51.48B. If we only look at like-to-like years(‘07, ‘10-‘18) we can directly compare, Mickey made *$22.54B* more than Pokemon.
Source: My excel, pulled from this same Wikipedia page
Yet somehow, Mickey merch sales end flatly at 2018. Not only that, but apparently he didn’t sell anything at all before 2002, whereas Pokemon gets a great big chunk of “before 2005” revenue. Sure. This article is claiming that Mickey Mouse, the globally recognized IP which has existed for ninety eight years, through the toy crazes of the 60s, 70s, and 80s – before Pokemon ever existed - only started to make any merchandizing sales in 2002. This article is claiming that all of a sudden, in 2002, this otherwise apparently-no-sales IP suddenly generates $4.7B in merchandise sales, hit banger after banger until 2018, and vanished into the sunset. Somehow, this phenomenon didn’t happen to Pokemon.
Are you kidding me? Is this Wikipedia page insane?
If we dig deeper we can see even more issues. Let’s check 2018 for both of those, so [18] for Pokemon and [43] for Mickey.
[18] is an article titled: “Disney Consumer Products Hits $54.7B in Retail Sales as Top Global Licensor of 2018”. In it, we see no revenue for Mickey Mouse, although it does call out
23rd to 1st seems reallllly sus for #1, doesn't it?
Beyond that fun footnote(23d place!) though, nothing about Mickey. Once again, zero basis for comparison; once again, something to suggest Pokemon is absolutely nowhere near the top.
[43] is much more helpful, which might be why so many characters have their merch sales only up to this point. This is a PDF titled “Retail Sales of Licensed Merchandise Based on $100MM+ Entertainment/Character Properties”. *Finally*, we see IP fully broken out, with Mickey right there at #1 at $3.265B…and Pokemon at #25 with $0.497B!?
And then on a whole seperate page
This could be a lot of things. [18] draws from LGM, which is a big-picture industry magazine resource, better for marketing, brand launches, and category reports for people inside and outside the industry. [43] is “The Licensing Letter”(TLL), which has a much deeper dataset, much deeper analysis on deals and royalties, and is used by people in the industry for actual specific coverage.
[43/TLL] says their number excludes content:
Oh huh so everything else drawing from TLL excludes video-games. Yet [18/LGM] very much includes video-games. If you make an account there and go to the actual 2018 TLM report (which, crucially, is for 2017 data; 2018 actuals released in 2019 are not available on the site anymore) it says this about Pokemon:
Look like it includes video games in this discussion, which is weird, as Pokemon very much *also* counts video-game (specifically mobile) games as a separate part of their total, so this is getting double counted in their merchandise metrics:
Whoever did this shoddy Wikipedia article is drawing from a less precise dataset(LGM vs TLL), is *including* sources which other IPs are excluded from(like video games), and then *double-counts* it. This isn’t even getting into whether to count theme parks and cruises (where Disney/Mickey has an absolutely colossal retail presence).
So never mind that Marvel is scattered across a million listings like Spider-Man, X-Men, MCU, Thor, Iron Man. Never mind that the *single* X-Men merchandise number is from 1994 without any updates in the last 32 years:
That's right. It only has numbers for a single year.
Referencing this article:
Ah, Roanoke Times - definetely as valid a source as industry citations
Never mind that hey wait a minute, that’s not just X-Men!
These sources are a joke. This list is the least reliable source I could have possibly even conceived, much less have actually put together. Pokemon uniquely counts spans of time which other brands do not, actual 1:1 comparisons are essentially non-existent, and not a single real primary 1:1 source anywhere has Pokemon anything at #1.
The talk page has been filled with people noting this over the years - with several noting that it seems suspiciously targeted to make Pokemon seem bigger than it comparatively is.
And still, articles (and AI about those articles!) about Pokemon being the biggest keep referencing either nothing at all or this absolute garbage fire.
Hey it's the wikipedia article! Hey it's LGM!
Beyond Wikipedia and occasional lucky call out to LGM, not a single one of these awful, awful, awful articles has any sourcing of any kind besides literally "trust me bro". This includes Guinness, a marketing company which has no ability to get any more industry insight than any other web-bound layperson and which uses "estimated" and "thought to have" more than an actual quantiative comparison demands.
If I'm to give the Wikipedia article any credit at all (kill me), at least it draws from actual industry-caliber accounting, not grainy-ass self-made diagrams or obama-giving-himself-a-medal caliber nonsense. Of course, the Wikipedia article is pure trash, but at least it leads somewhere.
So, at the end of this? No sir I don't like it. Not for one single shining second do I believe that Pokemon is the biggest IP in the world.
TLDR: It's almost certainly not the largest IP. The sources are complete garbage; there's fragmenting all over the place; there's double-counting; there's talk that this was done intentionally but it's too enmeshed to clean up fully; nothing else has any sources at all; other IP consistently has much more presence
\Lastly, I know I've come in hot here.* Maybe it is Pokemon. If it is, there isn't a single actual industry source out there which supports it, just fan reposts, poorly sourced citogenesis articles, and thisunbelievablybad Wiki article. But maybe? In my eyes though, Pokemon is almost certainly not the largest IP in the world. What is? It’s hard to say – Disney doesn’t split up by IP. My guess is Mickey Mouse. Perhaps Marvel. But all these breathless proclamations about Pokémon at the undisputed top? Absolutely not.
Edit***:*** Apparently this needs clarification, despite it being incredibly obvious.
It is not me who is saying “Disney” is a franchise IP. That chart? *That’s the source that the Pokemon source uses\*, LGM. Disney is a licensor of IPs. These IPs include the Marvel, Mickey Mouse, Disney Princesses, Simpsons, and others. Those are the IPs. Disney is the licensor of these IPs. In doing so, Disney is able to make $63B in licensing. Disney is not the IP itself, but of that $63B, it gets attributed to IPs. Which ones? It doesn’t say. But that does not mean that none of that $63B is attributable.
Again: No, I am not saying Disney is an IP. I am not the entity making the claim using the chart with Disney on top. *That is the source the Pokemon numbers use*, something I clearly say.
Edit Edit: Seems I’ve riled up the Pokemon crowd. No, I don’t care that Pokemon did $XB of merch revenue in some year where we don’t have numbers for other IP. \Unless you know how much other IP made that year it does not matter\. It does not matter that you like Pokemon more. It does not matter that you see Pokemon Halloween costumes locally more. It does not matter that Pokemon sold Y billion cards. **It does not matter if one side accelerated if you can't see the other side, because the point here is comparative. In every single year where we are able to make actual comparisons, using the same source - the most granular of which is TLL, which breaks out by IP and region - Pokemon is nowhere near the top. Again: Every time we have actual IP-level(Marvel, Princesses, Mickey, Hello Kitty, etc.) comparative data for merch, Pokemon is nowhere near the top. There is nothing to suggest this changes, so even if Pokemon makes billions in some year, unless we can also see how much the likes of Marvel makes, then it's a useless point of comparison. If we have, for instance, 10 years where Pokemon is not on top, and 20 years where Pokemon is the only number we see, the way to assess that is not “oh wow it’s so high that could never be surpassed did you see how Walmart was sold out” .
The way to assess that is to not rely on anecdotes and years with incomplete data. I am baffled that I need to elaborate on this obvious point but I’m turning notifications off, as I’ve responded to this faulty reasoning ad nauseam.
Edit 3: No, it is not ”intellectually dishonest” to want clean numerical comparisons between years to include that in a sum between two things. Intellectually dishonest would be, for instance, leaning towards arguments like “Pokemon has gone up so much there’s no way it didnt surpass [other IP!]” when we have no idea how much other IP changed in an aggregated licensor split but had seen that this never held true before in years when we had the data. Intellectually dishonest would be totally failing to mention how Pokemon has a “Until 2005” line but the decades and decades of merch sales other IP had before then which somehow doesn’t get counted. Intellectually dishonest would be holding up the most recent year and acting as if because we can’t find an IP now which makes more than Pokemon did in 2026, then surely it couldnt possibly be surpassed, despite the fact that this happened, recently, for years and years and years by a dozen plus IP for which we have the most granular industry data - and then this is indicate of a cumulative supremacy across years. Intellectually dishonest would be not even considering IP attribution of parks or cruises data while taking no umbrage of a wiki entry which gets as granular as jet livery for a single franchise but not others. Intellectually dishonest would be making a claim that something *must* be bigger when that was essentially never the case in instances where we can actually draw comparisons.
The theory that the Earth is Round was made up by big globes to sell more globes and the theory of flat Earth was made up to sell more maps. In reality they are both wrong, we live on a dinosaur shaped Earth
Supermarkets are about to get their huge deliveries of Christmas stock. Before they re-merchandise, they need slow-selling food cleared away. Perhaps a lobbying group called in a favour.
just spitballing here. what if the elites and ultrarich billionares and such arent the problom.
yes a problom.
but what if its more of a "hate us so you dont look up"
what if every conspiracy, every life lost, every dollar turned, is just a distraction from something cosmic.
in the movie smallfoot. the yetis have a structred reality built on conplete lies.
the rituals they perform is to put an ice ball in a chute to stay alive.a they have rules written in stone. fundamental laws to keep things making sense for the most part.
but the ice balls in the movie just turn into a steam machine to keep the yeti mointain hidden. the rules are almost never truez they just make the "crazy" yetis more angry, and the "normal" yetis stay productive and ignorant?
what if its similer? the billionares, and cults "running the show" are just scaoegoats taking the blame so thst we stay in line, stay sanez and dont go looking for the snallfoots (a possible even worse threat than anyone can imagine)
everything is put in riddles and red herrings to keep us guessing and afraidz and fighting, it makes the earth seem small, and the earth the only real thing to worry about, the laws we "know" to be true, that may just be comolete fabrication. all the high societys and such, they say if you know a name its not the top level, what if the tip level is the threat the small fries want to keep out?
the hate the billionares get is the smoke keeping the mountain contained.
we riot over their greed, when in reality they know as well as we do the end game has no real end. the money is just paper, there is no point.
its just a hate generator so that we dont find a worse threat, that is unimaginable.
its causing hysteria to prevent mass hysteria.
am i talking out of my ass or do i have a point? idk id like to hear what you think.
A lot of autistic people are way too anti-hierarchical and too anti-tribalism for them to be propped up in mainstream politics like that. As a result, the powers that be continue to make sure that autism advocacy is suppressed as much as possible by taking away good publicity of the cause and using social engineering maneuvers to ruin the PR outlook of autistic people by always showing the worst incidents and acts of autistic people misbehaving, and it's working sadly perfectly well.
I think this may also explain why outside of corporate and academia, autism struggles to get good image for representation in other domains, such as sports, the arts, creative work, blue-collar jobs, etc. Even though somebody who's autistic could thrive in those environments just as much as normies, especially with the hyperfocus element.
