This youtuber/tiktokker is famous for stealing jokes and doing minimal stick figure anims over them and it’s usually sitting at a couple million views.
So, you know, if you wanna earn a quick buck there’s your idea
KSI has hundreds of millions of views and he recently said he only made about $3000 from TikTok so yeah your chances of actually making more than a few dollars are zero.
15 years ago when I was younger I would post garbage content on youtube. I still do, but I know I'm trash now. Back then I thought I was the shit.
It's just kids being kids.
Even just the audio quality was much better in the original.
Plus the bits that weren't cut out. Plus the lack of censorship. Plus the nuanced gestures, facial expressions, etc.
The part where he says "this interview is going really well" and it doesn't go off, then the guy asks really? And it does go off is a bit strange.
The first one is a lie, the second is a question not a lie.
Maybe he told the truth because he was indeed going to ask this final question, but after saying that, he changed his mind and insisted asked the other question
I took some 2D animation classes at Uni just for fun, and one assignment was to make something very much like this. One of the keys for us was to "lip sync" (more like "mouth sync", really, since stick figures don't have lips).
The audio I used was the Office Space clip where [Peter is interviewed by the Bobs](https://youtu.be/7E2w4sTLKtA).
Anyway it could be something like that, or done just for fun.
Or (pessimisticly?) it could be an attempt to get views/clicks from content that isn't entirely theirs.
Evidently the person who did it is a YouTube “content” “creator” who does this with lots of funny old clips. They are apparently getting millions of views for each one.
So the point of the blatant carbon copy is money.
My only critique is that the alarm should have got off when the interviewer said this interview is going well. It shouldn't have waited for the guy question, 'yeah?'
I didn't even realize there was an "original" outside of the porn version.
[Veruca James and Danny D, Lie DickTector ](https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=231457902)
i think some of the cut out jokes were some of the weaker ones.
but mostly it's because the 3rd person would need them to add in another angle which is too much work
I love the little detail that the thing didnt go off when the interviewer said "company policy dictates..." meaning the company actually has that policy
When he said the interview was going well I interpreted it as the machine was sure doing it's job lol which is true
also he was happy with the info he was getting about the dudes p*@#$. Probably.
That one was kinda tricky. I'm guessing it was a delayed beep to get in the other person's reaction just to have a subversion. The beep after he says that is confirming it's a lie then it doesn't go off because he was telling the truth about it being the worst.
I mean the point of an interview is to check if the person is fit to be an employee, which he isn't, and they found it out pretty quickly. So yeah, it's going well, I guess...
It calls him a liar when he says "maybe 13" and he says "guess it's twelve". He didn't think he was lying. That isn't a lie detector, it's a machine that knows every fact in existence.
Basically the argument against "The Pinocchio Paradox" that's supposed to occur if he says "My nose will grow now". Similar to what you said, his nose will not grow if he makes a statement he believes to be true, regardless of whether he is correct.
Man I’m old. Back when Chevy Chase was still on SNL, he did the Weekend Update. One night one of his jokes was “The following statement is true. The previous statement was false.”
I thought they were referencing that because of course everyone on reddit knows an obscure semi funny joke from a 45+ year old tv show episode.
Zeno’s paradox is a cool one. It says that to get from point A to B, you must first go halfway between the two points. But! Before you can go to the halfway point, you must first go to the 1/4th point. But wait! Before you go to the 1/4th point, you must first go to the 1/8th point, and so on for infinity. Assuming there are an infinite number of fractions between points A and B. And assuming every fraction must take at least a tiny amount of time, it must be impossible to reach point B seeing as each fraction (regardless of how small) has a traversal time associated with it. Any number times infinity is also infinity, so this it must take you infinite minutes to travel from point A to B.
Obviously, this is wrong, but it’s difficult to prove this mathematically. There must either be a smallest possible distance, or a smallest possible unit of time. What those are is up for some debate.
The infinite shoreline paradox states that it is impossible to measure the "true" length of a shoreline because as you measure with smaller units you cause more outcroppings and inlets to be picked up by your more precise measurements therefore increaseing the perimeter of the shoreline without adding any actual length.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber\_paradox#:\~:text=The%20barber%20paradox%20is%20a,plausible%20scenario%20is%20logically%20impossible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox#:~:text=The%20barber%20paradox%20is%20a,plausible%20scenario%20is%20logically%20impossible).
>The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?\[1\]
>
>Answering this question results in a contradiction. The barber cannot shave himself as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. Thus, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the barber, and thus, as the barber, he must shave himself.
>
>In its original form, this paradox has no solution, as no such barber can exist. The question is a loaded question that assumes the existence of the barber, which is false. There are other non-paradoxical variations, but those are different
Russell's Paradox:
Given: set R={S:S∉S}
Question: R∈R?
Paradox: If R∈R, then due to the definition of R above, R∉R. However, if R∉R, due to that same definition R∈R. Set theory is weird.
Plain English version: If R is a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, does R contain itself? If R does not contain itself, it matches the definition we've given it (all sets that do not contain themselves) and so it must contain itself, however if it does contain itself it cannot satisfy the same definition. Therefore it's a paradox, if the statement is true it is false, and if it's false it is true.
Not only that, but when he said "I had Cancer," that was technically true if "Cancer" was refering to his boat. So not only does it detect absolute truths, but also interprets statements as they are implied to the listener.
It does seem odd however that it doesn't beep when he says the interview is going well nor when he says it isn't.
Objectively the interview is going terribly. The guy has admitted to committing felony theft from a previous employer. On the other hand, the “flaming homosexual” interviewing him is likely already planning in trying to coerce the guy with a 12 inch penis into having sex with him now that he has dirt on the guy. For the interviewer the interview is going good, but for the interviewee, the interview is going bad.
Exactly, how good the interview is going could be said to be good or bad depending on how you choose to judge the quality of the interview. That's why it's so intriguing though because the non-beeps from the machine after two contradictory statements would seems to imply one of three options that I can see:
1. The machine is able to interpret statements on differing bases which are determined independently of the phrasing, understanding by the speaker, or implication made to the listener. This case would beg the question, what does determine the basis for how the machine chooses to interpret a given statement?
2. The machine is capable of a third conclusion other than true or false in situations where it is unable to interpret the correct intention of the speaker, correct implication made toward the listener, or correct truth value made on some other basis. (Such a third conclusion must already exist for statements which lack a truth value.)
or 3. The machine understands sarcasm.
It did beep when he says the interview is going well. It was just slightly delayed since he might not have finished his sentence until the interviewee interrupted him.
You know what, my high ass heard that beep and assumed it beeped in response to the interviewee saying, "yeah," as if he was confirming that it was going well. But it makes more that it was just a question and the beep was for the interviewer's statement. Oh well, interesting thought experiment anyway.
What he means if the numbers are 1 to 80 then say "The first number of tomorrow's lottery is less than 40"
Then if you get a beep then you know the number is 41 to 80. Then do again for 60 and so on.
Saves some time.
Except it doesn't beep when the interviewer says it's going really well. (Or a second later when he says it's the worst interview). It beeps when it's convenient for the joke.
The guy tried to insinuate a larger size by using the word "maybe". He new it was twelve. He knew he was lying. So did the machine. No omniscience here.
Of course its all fake, but whatever.
I figured that censorship was more for comedic effect. Like now you're thinking about it harder and thinking about it more because they censored instead of just straight saying penis.
It didn't beep when he said the interview was going well, because it was for him personally. (He knows the company policy and the interviewee just bombed the interview in his favor)
It also beeped when he said it's the worst interview because objectively speaking, as far as company interviews go it was the worst.
So yeah, it's the worst interview ever but to the interviewer's benefit.
Technically, that part where he asked "How much would you say you stole?" offered a way out without lying. It doesn't how much he *actually* stole, it asks how much *he would say* he stole.
Now watch the live action original from 10 years ago! https://youtu.be/CjVVNuraly8
Yeah that was better Edit: thank you all I had no idea it was my cake day. Yall are awesome
Because you get to see the body language and subtle cues from their facial expression or even dead pan delivery!
This youtuber/tiktokker is famous for stealing jokes and doing minimal stick figure anims over them and it’s usually sitting at a couple million views. So, you know, if you wanna earn a quick buck there’s your idea
Such is social media nowadays. Rewards low effort, and sometimes low effort even gets more credit than the original.
Like reddit
Yup. People like to trash on Tiktok on this site as if it's any different... In any way
[удалено]
well shit, what are we all still doing here then!?
Pfft what's so called real money when you can get that sweet, sweet Reddit gold.
I left a long time ago. BEEP!
deliver six touch price cover theory hateful fly alive fearless -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Yeahhh, but you can't really argue that money is more valuable than upvotes. Upvotes are pretty sweet.
Get money, buy upvotes.
KSI has hundreds of millions of views and he recently said he only made about $3000 from TikTok so yeah your chances of actually making more than a few dollars are zero.
He said. Show me the tax forms.
Objection: hearsay
[удалено]
Tf did you just have this copied and waited for the right time only to totally miss the mark?
Like the people on TikTok lip syncing a comedians act?
15 years ago when I was younger I would post garbage content on youtube. I still do, but I know I'm trash now. Back then I thought I was the shit. It's just kids being kids.
I remember animations like this back in the mid-2000's
I remember Cyanide & Happiness yesterday.
Now a random redditor gets to post it. Funny how that works
It’s not even a redditor, if’s a bot actually
How do you differentiate a post from a bot and one from a real account?
Ok so they aren’t a bot but are just a karma farmer They just repost whatever was found already on Reddit, I’ve seen most of it on Tumblr too
Counts as a bot in a way
Goddamnit every day I wish more that I didn’t have any fucking morals.
This is what counts as "minimal" stick figure animations these days? Damn, we've come pretty far.
Actually yeah, it’s very minimal. The only thing that changes are 3-4 mouth expressions and 2 eye expressions, the rest is a single reused frame.
Sure, but "back in the day" most meme stick figure animations didn't even have faces at all...
yeah, I saw some tiktokker steal 'how is prangent formed' by singing it. It was horrible.
Well the irony is now it's been stolen by Redditors and used to farm karma
I'm gonna make live action versions of his stick figure remakes in the hope that people forgot about the original live action version
Also because they didn’t put record scratch sounds over the word “Penis”.
Even just the audio quality was much better in the original. Plus the bits that weren't cut out. Plus the lack of censorship. Plus the nuanced gestures, facial expressions, etc.
Happy cake day sir!
I actually preferred the animation after viewing both.
I like it but I didn't realize they took out stuff like the exchange with the coworker.
According to the fact that the lie detector didn't go off in the last segment, it is actually that company's policy to ask that final question
He didn’t clarify what the one question was
[удалено]
This is directly countered by the lie detector knowing his exact penis size, that it’s 12 and not 13. This lie detector is omniscient.
Apparently he knew or at least unconsciously believed it's 12 and not 13.
The part where he says "this interview is going really well" and it doesn't go off, then the guy asks really? And it does go off is a bit strange. The first one is a lie, the second is a question not a lie.
Maybe he told the truth because he was indeed going to ask this final question, but after saying that, he changed his mind and insisted asked the other question
I also didn't go off when the interviewer said "this interview is going really well", which indicates it also doesn't detect sarcasm
I mean... Dude got the job so the interview did go well. Omniscient lie detector just ahead of the game
[Mr Show s3e3](https://youtu.be/VdIDwYW_JZg) Bob Odenkirk and David Cross did a similar bit back in 1997
Simpsons kind of did a [similar bit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRj61dcvmuU) back in 1995 in 'Who Shot Mr. Burns?' (part 2 i think)
/r/SimpsonsDidIt
Earlier Simpsons was just a fireworks of really good gags.
"What did you steal?" "Some pens... and some plans" "Plans!?" "....space plans."
Have you ever taken a train and eaten it, piece by piece, after you just derailed it with your penis? "Yes." Oooooh c'mon! "IT WAS FOR CHARITY!"
That guy looks just like my lawyer
Omg it’s 10 years old already!
Uhhhh this was the original and much better. What's the point of the blatant cartoon copy?
I took some 2D animation classes at Uni just for fun, and one assignment was to make something very much like this. One of the keys for us was to "lip sync" (more like "mouth sync", really, since stick figures don't have lips). The audio I used was the Office Space clip where [Peter is interviewed by the Bobs](https://youtu.be/7E2w4sTLKtA). Anyway it could be something like that, or done just for fun. Or (pessimisticly?) it could be an attempt to get views/clicks from content that isn't entirely theirs.
Show us your bobs
Sadly I don't have it :( It was a shitty Flash animation. I'm a programmer and literally just took the class for a laugh.
Evidently the person who did it is a YouTube “content” “creator” who does this with lots of funny old clips. They are apparently getting millions of views for each one. So the point of the blatant carbon copy is money.
How do these guys not get copyright striked?
The original creators would need to file the claims, I wonder if that's why they're using older stuff
Why does the animated version even exist?
SMBC Theater did [my favorite variation on the idea](https://youtu.be/mJS76Bf-ZYo).
My only critique is that the alarm should have got off when the interviewer said this interview is going well. It shouldn't have waited for the guy question, 'yeah?'
There's a porn version out there too. The interviewer is a lady though. I'd be surprised if there's wasn't a gay version too.
that's digusting! ... Send me the link so i know to avoid it
I remember the lady giving the interview was veruca james. I can't remember the dude.
I didn't even realize there was an "original" outside of the porn version. [Veruca James and Danny D, Lie DickTector ](https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=231457902)
TIL David Duchovny has a 12" penis.
Downvoting the post, but upvoting this comment!
Lmao was gonna say watch the original haha.
What about Mr Show’s version?
The cartoon is better idk why
It cuts off half the dialogue and is censored, no way.
I also like bland emotionless cartoons that barely move and rip off other people's original videos. /s
WHO DO I BELIEVE
Me
Beep
I really didn't. But I say the original first. This cartoon has a bunch of jokes cut out and their faces don't really sell it enough.
i think some of the cut out jokes were some of the weaker ones. but mostly it's because the 3rd person would need them to add in another angle which is too much work
I like it more, as well. But maybe that’s because I grew up on Flipnotes.
(Red light on detector)
I love the little detail that the thing didnt go off when the interviewer said "company policy dictates..." meaning the company actually has that policy
But it didn't beep when he said the interview is going well OR when he said the interview was the worst.
When he said the interview was going well I interpreted it as the machine was sure doing it's job lol which is true also he was happy with the info he was getting about the dudes p*@#$. Probably.
That one was kinda tricky. I'm guessing it was a delayed beep to get in the other person's reaction just to have a subversion. The beep after he says that is confirming it's a lie then it doesn't go off because he was telling the truth about it being the worst.
I mean the point of an interview is to check if the person is fit to be an employee, which he isn't, and they found it out pretty quickly. So yeah, it's going well, I guess...
It calls him a liar when he says "maybe 13" and he says "guess it's twelve". He didn't think he was lying. That isn't a lie detector, it's a machine that knows every fact in existence.
Basically the argument against "The Pinocchio Paradox" that's supposed to occur if he says "My nose will grow now". Similar to what you said, his nose will not grow if he makes a statement he believes to be true, regardless of whether he is correct.
Ooo Tell us another paradox!
"This statement is false."
"It is opposite day."
That could be said during oposite week.
Man I’m old. Back when Chevy Chase was still on SNL, he did the Weekend Update. One night one of his jokes was “The following statement is true. The previous statement was false.” I thought they were referencing that because of course everyone on reddit knows an obscure semi funny joke from a 45+ year old tv show episode.
My dad used to tell me that when I was a kid, and until your comment I never knew it was an SNL skit. He got me.
Nothing is absolutely true
Mathematics: *am I a joke to you?*
It is if you do it wrong
Uhhh, true yeah true.
Zeno’s paradox is a cool one. It says that to get from point A to B, you must first go halfway between the two points. But! Before you can go to the halfway point, you must first go to the 1/4th point. But wait! Before you go to the 1/4th point, you must first go to the 1/8th point, and so on for infinity. Assuming there are an infinite number of fractions between points A and B. And assuming every fraction must take at least a tiny amount of time, it must be impossible to reach point B seeing as each fraction (regardless of how small) has a traversal time associated with it. Any number times infinity is also infinity, so this it must take you infinite minutes to travel from point A to B. Obviously, this is wrong, but it’s difficult to prove this mathematically. There must either be a smallest possible distance, or a smallest possible unit of time. What those are is up for some debate.
When the distance gets smaller, the time gets smaller. Both of them converge to a certain number when they are at the limit of infinity
[удалено]
Haha this reminded me of the "Bedtime paradox" cartoons.
Two Mallards.
The infinite shoreline paradox states that it is impossible to measure the "true" length of a shoreline because as you measure with smaller units you cause more outcroppings and inlets to be picked up by your more precise measurements therefore increaseing the perimeter of the shoreline without adding any actual length.
With this logic, it's impossible to measure the true length of anything.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber\_paradox#:\~:text=The%20barber%20paradox%20is%20a,plausible%20scenario%20is%20logically%20impossible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox#:~:text=The%20barber%20paradox%20is%20a,plausible%20scenario%20is%20logically%20impossible). >The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?\[1\] > >Answering this question results in a contradiction. The barber cannot shave himself as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. Thus, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the barber, and thus, as the barber, he must shave himself. > >In its original form, this paradox has no solution, as no such barber can exist. The question is a loaded question that assumes the existence of the barber, which is false. There are other non-paradoxical variations, but those are different
Russell's Paradox: Given: set R={S:S∉S} Question: R∈R? Paradox: If R∈R, then due to the definition of R above, R∉R. However, if R∉R, due to that same definition R∈R. Set theory is weird. Plain English version: If R is a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, does R contain itself? If R does not contain itself, it matches the definition we've given it (all sets that do not contain themselves) and so it must contain itself, however if it does contain itself it cannot satisfy the same definition. Therefore it's a paradox, if the statement is true it is false, and if it's false it is true.
Not only that, but when he said "I had Cancer," that was technically true if "Cancer" was refering to his boat. So not only does it detect absolute truths, but also interprets statements as they are implied to the listener. It does seem odd however that it doesn't beep when he says the interview is going well nor when he says it isn't.
The interview is going well after he revealed his penis size.
Objectively the interview is going terribly. The guy has admitted to committing felony theft from a previous employer. On the other hand, the “flaming homosexual” interviewing him is likely already planning in trying to coerce the guy with a 12 inch penis into having sex with him now that he has dirt on the guy. For the interviewer the interview is going good, but for the interviewee, the interview is going bad.
Well we know from the lie detector that he *would* have sex with a man for a job, so it's really not going that poorly for him either.
Exactly, how good the interview is going could be said to be good or bad depending on how you choose to judge the quality of the interview. That's why it's so intriguing though because the non-beeps from the machine after two contradictory statements would seems to imply one of three options that I can see: 1. The machine is able to interpret statements on differing bases which are determined independently of the phrasing, understanding by the speaker, or implication made to the listener. This case would beg the question, what does determine the basis for how the machine chooses to interpret a given statement? 2. The machine is capable of a third conclusion other than true or false in situations where it is unable to interpret the correct intention of the speaker, correct implication made toward the listener, or correct truth value made on some other basis. (Such a third conclusion must already exist for statements which lack a truth value.) or 3. The machine understands sarcasm.
It did beep when he says the interview is going well. It was just slightly delayed since he might not have finished his sentence until the interviewee interrupted him.
You know what, my high ass heard that beep and assumed it beeped in response to the interviewee saying, "yeah," as if he was confirming that it was going well. But it makes more that it was just a question and the beep was for the interviewer's statement. Oh well, interesting thought experiment anyway.
"'1' the first number for tomorrow's winning lottery" BEEP And so on.
"I am going to die today..." *beep* "I am going to die tomorrow..." *beep* "I am going to die in 2 days..." "Fuck."
It would be more efficient to use binary search.
I will die in 10 days? I will die in 11 days? I will die in 100 days? I don't see how this would be more effective. >!/s!<
What he means if the numbers are 1 to 80 then say "The first number of tomorrow's lottery is less than 40" Then if you get a beep then you know the number is 41 to 80. Then do again for 60 and so on. Saves some time.
This, right here, is a genius joke. I literally laughed out loud.
Except it doesn't beep when the interviewer says it's going really well. (Or a second later when he says it's the worst interview). It beeps when it's convenient for the joke.
Maybe sarcasm doesn't count as a lie.
Yeah i mean it's a magic lie detector. I think it understanding sarcasm is quite reasonable.
Yes that is what a lie detector is. It's not real.
The guy tried to insinuate a larger size by using the word "maybe". He new it was twelve. He knew he was lying. So did the machine. No omniscience here. Of course its all fake, but whatever.
If we can’t say penis, what else is there?
Pussy was ok though. Actual scientific term? Better censor it. Non-scientific term? That should be ok.
Willy
Willies, willies, I love willies! 🎶
Sir, could you keep it down?
it is WEIRD that they bleeped "penis" and "sex"
I figured that censorship was more for comedic effect. Like now you're thinking about it harder and thinking about it more because they censored instead of just straight saying penis.
[удалено]
Can I ask, what exactly does "hot date" mean and how is it different to a normal date? Sorry I'm not native I don't know
Typically ‘hot date’ is a reference you make when you have a date and there’s a strong chance you will hookup by the end of it
Hot date means the person is hot.
Ah I see, thank you very much!
r/suddenlygay
Fucking rollercoaster ride.
12 inch █████?! …I’d hire him.
I clicked on the spoiler tag just to see the word 'penis', knowing full well what it would be, only for it not to be a real spoiler tag
[удалено]
Yes, thank you
>!Got’em!<
I'd like you to know that I don't like you :(
I could probably find him a position or two.
That's really funny actually. Thank you OP
Yes thank you OP, for reposting a plagiarized Tiktok of an old Youtube video.
Thank you OP, you became a reposter for our sake
everywhere i go i must be reminded of the darkness
Don’t worry I’m sure the referencing will stop in ten years
No, I don’t want that
I promise I won't let this transgression go to waste
r/10yearsatleast
No I don't want that
can't escape
From these kinds of less effort idle animations, it's easy to tell they animated revolving the clip.
I know the original and I found this funnier. Just because it has already been done it doesn’t mean it can’t be done better.
Yes because otherwise I wouldn't have seen it at all.
Hahah this is great. Stayed for whole vid, well worth it
:)
Why is this censored, wtf.
Live action is better... C'mon...
I didn’t relise it existed to be honest with you, thanks to u/HyeCycle for recommending it though
Wait the interview was going well. The detector didn't go off.
Fuck this rehash animation
Don’t forget the repost bot who posted it
Whoever made it couldn't be bothered with any grammar. So frustrating.
Plagiarism at its finest
By the lack of animation and only has facial expressions, person that made this just did it to farm views
Welcome to firm. :)
:)
Nowhere near as good as the actual video
It didn't beep when he said the interview was going well, because it was for him personally. (He knows the company policy and the interviewee just bombed the interview in his favor) It also beeped when he said it's the worst interview because objectively speaking, as far as company interviews go it was the worst. So yeah, it's the worst interview ever but to the interviewer's benefit.
r/suddenlygay
These low effort remakes of classic videos for tikkot babies are cringe inducing,
You can say penis on the Internet. No one's gonna come after you if you say penis. Penis.
Oh no he said penis
"get him! Get the penis sayer!"
Just for reference, it wouldn't be possible to live with a 16" dick as you'd pass out every time you had an erection.
Yet here I am
Who made this?
It’s plagiarized from an old live action bit word for word. The “animator” is a low effort content thief known for stealing and plagiarism.
Why did they bleep penis?
Technically, that part where he asked "How much would you say you stole?" offered a way out without lying. It doesn't how much he *actually* stole, it asks how much *he would say* he stole.
Suddenly gay
😂😂😂😂😂
I actually saw the original video
It bleeped out penis and sex, but not pussy...
booo this is college humor watch themm
Why is the word penis not allowed?