Lady @Lady@cat.family

@witchfynder_finder anyway more to your point it's impossible to draw conclusions from that kind of data because you are very much not an average youtube watcher for other reasons

@witchfynder_finder from a creator perspective i think the question is whether you want randos or fans

the people who click on those videos are the epitome of randos, looking for ways to waste their time, of which there are a lot on youtube

it's an active detriment to branding or building an active fanbase though

@noelle this is also where signing letters with XX comes from!! people would kiss the X as a sign of a sworn oath, so it came to mean kisses

it's XOXO in the US possibly by jewish influence

@aescling https://medium.com/thsppl/you-dont-have-to-apologize-for-being-white-12a3018d5abc

@aescling like for real kids are really good at taking random shit and slamming it together and getting something new but oftentimes that isn't actually … a good way of thinking about a problem

@aescling there's more to thinking than inspiration

a lot of thinking is just familiarity with good processing algorithms

@nex3 @noelle i just wanted to make sure that was what you meant and not `array.forEach($ => $.add())`

there is currently a proposal for a :: operator which does binding (link: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-this ), but afaict it doesn't do property access (so you would still need other::other.add). it's also Stage 1 which means it is mostly exploratory and may never get added to the language.

i think in most real JS code, one should EITHER:

1) be calling a function from a prototype, e.g. `Set.prototype.add.bind(other)` (i would love a more convenient way of saying this), or

2) be calling bare functions, like `add.bind(other)`, possibly destructured like `const { add } = other`.

the cases where i actually state something like `other.add.bind(other)` are pretty small and usually can be avoided with good API design (`other.add(...array)` or `new Other (...other, ...array)`). not saying it never happens! but i don't think reducing that particular bit of wordiness is necessarily a high priority? in your example i’d probably honestly use a for...of loop because it’s much more readable.

@packetcat myself too if i’m being honest