"Hey, buddy, how do I get this thing out of second gear?"

The question is essentially, "How would you, as an atheist, comfort yourself in the face of imminent death?" Neil described how he wanted to be buried. That's fine for what it is, but it does not answer the question.


In reply to this comment by steama:
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I would love to hear them give a proper answer.


How exactly is Neil's answer not simply perfectly proper and truthful? Your perspective escapes me.

The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return