I haven’t argued any of these are “coincidences.” For this one, I expect that someone in your household googled something about walnuts after the conversation occurred. You don’t have to google it for it to pop up for you - the online actions of those closely connected to you spill over into your advertising profile.…

It’s not worse, because we’ve opted in to most location tracking. They tell us exactly when software is gathering your location. Websites warn you all the time about cookies. And Google is essentially banning cookies. But the debate is happening in public, and the market is reacting to it.

I can flip your argument around: why is the pajamas the only time their purported (and very illegal) listening program has actually occurred? Why aren’t you constantly getting surreal non-coincidental ads? You think they spent all this money to listen to you all the time just to serve you a SINGLE ad for pajamas?

Combo of #1 and #2 explains this perfectly. Ad networks know you’re partners. They showed her an ad for pajamas (probably a bunch of them) and at least one of those times, she lingered slightly too long looking at it. No need to click on it - just stop and look at it for a few extra seconds. They consider that a hit,…

“The brain is a horribly unreliable narrator.”

The fact that you can’t see how circular this is honestly blows my mind. Statistically, you have to think about how many artists are on your playlist. If it’s one you’ve made, it contains all artists that you think / talk about anyway. It’s not that crazy that you might discuss an artist you like, and then have that…

The point is that your assertion that you’ve “never seen” something on your Facebook feed is a) unverifiable but also b) almost certainly false. Your brain filters an unfathomable amount of information every day and rejects almost all of it without it ever reaching your conscious perception. The idea that you are…

What’s your explanation for why not a single person has EVER found a shred of proof when they actually study the issue? You’re also suggesting that thousands of employees at these companies have perfectly kept a secret about massively illegal behavior at these companies for a decade or more. Why would they do that? You…

There are more answers than just “you search for more than you think you do” to explain eerie ad appearances. I expect people will also reject these explanations, even though there’s never been even a single instance of a substantiated claim of “listening” advertising:

I spend most of my spare time hanging out with comedians and improvisers and I don’t know a single person who doesn’t roll their eyes at Jost and Che. They’re like... infamously reviled. But I’m glad they’re entertaining someone!

Ahhh, I see where we diverge now. WU is by far the worst part of modern SNL - Jost and Che are the absolute hackiest ones on the show. Bowen Yang’s Titanic iceberg desk piece was the best thing on WU in years.

Sounds like you only watched her first special, and you’re misrepresenting even that one. I’ve seen her live twice - she didn’t once yell at us. I’ve seen a lot of stand-up live, and her shows had the most laughs of any I’ve ever been to.

I do! It’s exactly what I was looking for - hadn’t seen the zoom-in on Yang and Sherman yet, wanted to see people fighting in the comments. A+ post.

If you know how it works, why’d you complain? Every comment is a vote for more! They don’t read the comments. They never have. So by continuing to comment, any rational person has to assume you actually love this article. Engage, engage, engage! Vote for more!

Congratulations: by commenting (and clicking in the first place), you’ve voted for more of this exact style of content. Management doesn’t care if you’re angry or happy, as long as you click.

I hardly think the cast of SNL is made up of the funniest people on TV right now, but Bowen Yang and Sarah Sherman are easily the two funniest ones on the show. Sorry your taste is so bad. Thoughts and prayers, etc.

I’ll bite: Hannah Gadsby is ten times the comedian modern Dave Chappelle is. There’s absolutely nothing interesting or complex in what Chappelle puts out these days. It’s essentially just the worst parts of Twitter, but up on stage being regurgitated by a bitter, aging rich guy. Gadsby, on the other hand, is in her…

There’s a great article about this from the Copyright Alliance:

The fact that you’re too narrow-minded to imagine a reason other than greed doesn’t mean that’s the only reason that exists. You could learn more by actually listening to other people, but I kind of doubt you’re into that either.

First off: his act is copyrighted, so you (probably) can’t feed it to an AI model to create a work based on it to put in the mouth of a digital avatar that’s an exact copy of him. I don’t think the courts have ruled on this exact style of infringement yet, but they will soon.