Less time than you take to discredit this can copy/paste the search terms yourself and choose

What the fuck are you even talking about? I provided the PC Gamer source because I personally have no trouble finding good sources but know some people do (nor should people have to go look for them in lieu of a content farm anyway), and the GameRant article linked in the OP credits PC Gamer as its singular source. I broke down why it’s preferable after reading both sources.

I don’t feel like being lectured on going out and finding better sources when 1) I did and 2) the lobotomist would’ve had to accidentally leave the ice pick in your head for you to be fucking stupid enough to find and present the LLM slop that you did. It’s pathetically clear you have no idea how to find good sources of information, and you should work on basic media literacy skills. (That’s a rude but real suggestion. If you want polite, you can start next time by not suggesting I have sinister ulterior motives for trying to help.)

This is transparently LLM-generated.

• I’ve never heard of this site. (I like to think that carries water given what I do for a hobby.)
• There’s no credited author on anything.
• There’s no source.
• The site name and layout are comically generic.
• The site churns out way too many articles per day for some no-name with no named authors.
• The prose itself is obvious, like:

“This decision could encourage more legal reforms and influence the strategies employed by law firms and corporations in handling patent disputes. As the legal community and the tech industry continue to navigate these challenges, the ruling in favor of Valve provides a noteworthy reference point in the evolving discourse on patent law.”

That’s 161 words straight of unadulterated “oh fuck, the deadline is in ten minutes and I haven’t reached the word count.”

Your call, OP, but it might be worth linking to the PC Gamer article that this GameRant article parasitizes and faintly credits as their lone source at the end. (“Valve wins lawsuit against Rothschild and associated entities, with a jury agreeing they violated an anti-patent troll protection act”)

• There’s no telephone game.
• The original author gets the credit.
• GameRant’s interface is obnoxious.
• GameRant is a content farm of dubious reliability. In Wikiproject Video Games on Wikipedia, we try not to use them in favor of other sources where possible.
• Giving GameRant clicks helps them on their race to the bottom – dragging everyone else along.

Edit: Rad.

I think you’re in the same boat I am where I fucking haaaaaaate the culture on link aggregators (and probably other social media) where people will bitch and moan to no end that their preferred format (publicly reacting to disconnected headlines whose articles they haven’t read) isn’t giving them literally all the information they need to form a cogent opinion.

• “I had time to write a 300-word short essay about this headline, but I’m going to whine if I get called for something in the first paragraph that invalides everything I said.”
• “I can’t believe this headline mentioned a pretty common thing I’m not personally familiar with but the publication’s target audience obviously is.”
• "Headline didn’t answer every single question I could possibly wonder? Uh, clickbait much?
• “The headline writer didn’t account for this batshit non sequitur I drew from it, so they’re basically lying.”

They genuinely think that the article body should be effectively superfluous to the headline – not just to have a basic gist of but to discuss and debate current events, which is insane. It reminds me of people who think they can learn math and physics by passively watching somebody else do it – which is true only to an utterly incosequential extent.

Speaking as someone who’s read thousands of articles for research, I feel confident saying that reading the article is an insane force multiplier to understanding. Any time you spent reacting to the headline would’ve been 3x as effective put into reading even just part of an article. This doesn’t just apply to current events, and even I haven’t thoroughly learned this lesson; so many times I’ve been editing Wikipedia and arrived at a point where reading one goddamn article for three minutes would’ve saved me half an hour of fucking around (“two hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading the documentation”).

This is my way of pleading with you (you, the non-CombatWombat reader): it’s enriching once you can steel yourself and work through the initial dopamine drought, and it quickly becomes enjoyable. It’s not your fault it’s so hard psychologically; this was done to you by formats that value engagement with the platform over engagement with the material.

But if you don’t, please at least accept that headlines cannot always contain everything you want.

Yeah, there’s no fucking way “Well Grok told me these are the prompts they used” would be admissible as evidence of any kind.

Yes, and my comment was assuming the partner washed as a baseline – unless it’s to the standards I wash my fucking toilet bowl with at least.

Washing helps remove fecal matter, but anyone giving analingus is still lapping up microscopic shit particles off of someone’s asshole.

Agreed. Armpit fetishes are weird and gross to me, but they’re a distinct rung down from “I want to shove my face between someone’s asscheeks and aggressively mop up microscopic flecks of their shit with my tongue.” I’m giving ass-eating people the side-eye if they make fun of armpit people.

Raiden, turn the game console off right now.

I’ll be the one buzzkill here and link to the European Space Agency’s press release and the corresponding open-access paper.

You can pretend this comment is a South Park reference instead if that helps.

Can’t want to see this portrayed in next week’s episode.

Nope. It comes from Flickr around nine years before being uploaded to Commons. The Commons description “My cat loves styrofoam peanuts” is likely lifted verbatim from the Flickr post, as we tend to do this with other such descriptions.

Cat’s name was Cooper, by the way.

And to be fair, “Getty” isn’t unbelievable at all for the given name of a Founding Father:

• Gunning Bedford Jr.
• Elbridge Gerry (fuck this guy in particular btw)
• Button Gwinnett
• Titus Hosmer
• Francis Lightfoot Lee
• Gouverneur Morris
• Robert Treat Paine
• Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
• Richard Dobbs Spaight

And plenty of non-Founding Fathers had similarly peculiar names. If “Images” weren’t such a common English word, I’d say even that would be arguable.

Not a shitpost, OP. Correct me if I missed something.

I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn’t be an article like “a” or “the” before “possibility”. It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent “legalese” phrasing.

No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:

which, unknown to them threatens,

The comma should go after “them”, because “unknown to them” constitutes the entire aside.

If you delete the aside in this, it reads “which national security”, whereas it should read “which threatens national security”.

This is just the first one I found; I didn’t go hunting for them. It’s one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.

deleted by creator

Is the issue that there are people paying for YouTube Premium?

Okay, so draw on your expertise™ to explain for the class how:

• Fandom wikis are “non-genuine” despite them meeting every criterion for one and despite by far the most prolific wiki in history detailing forward and backward how they are wikis.
• “Powered by MediaWiki” is representative of indie wikis and not of Fandom wikis to anyone who knows anything about either.

You can’t, because both are bullshit, but if you want to act like a clown, here are your unicycle and juggling pins.

There is no gatekeeping

Definitionally there is, because you called Fandom wikis “non-genuine wikis”. “genuine wikis provide a much nicer user experience than Fandom wikis”. That’s quintessential gatekeeping, and it’s incorrect gatekeeping at that, because they provably are.

just a statement of a preference, as a user.

We both agree here. You are correct to want to use platforms other than Fandom. Fandom sucks for editors, sucks for readers, and sucks for fan communities; I could write an essay explaining why. I understand the sentiment behind the meme completely; it’s the way it arrives at the sentiment that’s totally nonsensical. You’ve made no coherent point and spread misinformation. You don’t have to make a point to express your opinion, but it’s clear you tried to.

Your comment is like if someone said “You should use a Linux phone to get away from Google and Apple” and you responded with “Android uses Linux”.

I promise as someone extensively familiar with MediaWiki who even administrates an indie wiki that this comparison makes absolutely no sense, and I think you’re reaching to make the OP’s meme make any actual sense when it clearly doesn’t. If we’re reaching into Linux, this is more (still somewhat tenuously) akin to someone telling Ubuntu users that they’re not using “real Linux”. They lack the language to express Ubuntu’s actual problems which really exist and so resort to vacuous gatekeeping instead.

Edit: Actually, the analogy doesn’t even get base enough to describe that. It’s like a meme where Geordi rejects the Ubuntu logo and accepts the Tux logo, and then under that is the OP trying to argue that Ubuntu isn’t a “genuine” operating system.