IDB

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:27 pm**

alittledizzy wrote:19:40 - An actual video game boob mention and Dan restates twice "I'm not being weird, am I?" and still doesn't sexualize them.
20:09 and 30 seconds later they're both leaning into the screen to study naked Dil in the shower and see if he has abs.

This, and the complete lack of reaction to seeing the girl's pants in Yandere Simulator, other than saying that people should wear whatever underwear they want to.
I don't care whether it's because neither of them is actually attracted to women, or that they're conscious that they're being watched by thousands of impressionable teenagers, many of whom are girls, it's really nice to relax and watch them without them being creepily sexual towards women. I infinitely prefer this Dan to the 2012 fuckboi.

character development

eevee wrote:
BisexualShoeMarriage wrote: The challenge description on the website is a bit ambiguous, but that's definitely not how it worked in my game. Between the 4th Oct and the 4th Nov, random npcs (non-playable characters) would wander around wearing Day of the Dead costumes and makeup. The challenge was to ask them for sugar skulls until had at least one of each of the 10 designs. If a sim you were controlling managed to collect all 10 designs before the 4th November, sims in that particular household gained the ability to change into Day of the Dead costume and makeup at any point in the future. But after the 4th November, the challenge ended. The sims wandering around randomly in costume were part of the challenge. Now that the challenge has ended, npcs no longer wander around randomly in Day of the Dead dress, and the Day of the Dead costumes are unaviliable unless that sim's household completed the challenge. NPCs cannot autonomously collect sugar skulls, and even if they could, no sim can autonomously change into Day of the Dead costume. They were either put in it temporarily by the game so that they could give out sugar skulls Oct-Nov 4th, or they are put in it by a player who has gained them that ability.

I don't know what was going on in Dan and Phil's game, but if there were npcs wandering around in Day of the Dead costumes after 4th November that's definitely not how it's supposed to work. If lilMango is right about them having a game version released on 1st Dec then that's really quite weird, because on 4th November there was a game update which ended the Day of the Dead challenge. Maybe they somehow skipped the 4th Nov update when they did the 2nd Dec one, and are now permanently stuck with Day of the Dead npcs?
Is it possible to set the in-game date to a time in the past? For example, Animal Crossing uses real time and dates, but if you change the date and time on your 3DS it affects the game. Is there a way to do this in the sims?

I don’t think so, at least not in the sims 4. The sims 4 is based almost exclusively on in-game time. Real time is only relevant for seasonal challenges like the Day of the Dead challenge. Those are started and ended with updates, so most of the time the game doesn’t need to know what the real-time date is. However, while you are participating in a seasonal challenge, a countdown clock appears in the top-left of the game screen, which counts down in real time to show how long you have until the challenge is over. I don’t know how the game detects real time for this purpose, or how easy this would be to manipulate. However, I don’t think Dan and Phil would have deliberately messed with in-game time because the only benefit would be to give them extra time for the Day of the Dead challenge, which they seemed to have no interest in.

If the game detects real time when the update at the start of the challenge is installed, and counts down from there, maybe it would stop counting down if the computer was totally powered off for a while?

I still think the most likely explanation, if they have the 2nd Dec update version, is that they got some kind of glitch from skipping an update or installing multiple updates at the same time.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:38 pm**

lol they really do look high on life! or illicit drugs i guess they are having a good time in sweden, that's good to know! maybe they are being emotional because these two days are their last tatinof ever well, allegedly anyway cause if there is one thing that is neverending it is this goddamn tour

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:40 pm**

the M&G pics are great.

And loved your timestamps alittledizzy.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:53 pm**

BisexualShoeMarriage wrote:This, and the complete lack of reaction to seeing the girl's pants in Yandere Simulator, other than saying that people should wear whatever underwear they want to.
I don't care whether it's because neither of them is actually attracted to women, or that they're conscious that they're being watched by thousands of impressionable teenagers, many of whom are girls, it's really nice to relax and watch them without them being creepily sexual towards women. I infinitely prefer this Dan to the 2012 fuckboi. character development

Yep, also fully behind this character development. I do think it's just personal growth and awareness of not objectifying women. I enjoy being a fan of decent human beings.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:00 pm**

BisexualShoeMarriage wrote:
alittledizzy wrote:19:40 - An actual video game boob mention and Dan restates twice "I'm not being weird, am I?" and still doesn't sexualize them.
20:09 and 30 seconds later they're both leaning into the screen to study naked Dil in the shower and see if he has abs.
This, and the complete lack of reaction to seeing the girl's pants in Yandere Simulator, other than saying that people should wear whatever underwear they want to.
I don't care whether it's because neither of them is actually attracted to women, or that they're conscious that they're being watched by thousands of impressionable teenagers, many of whom are girls, it's really nice to relax and watch them without them being creepily sexual towards women. I infinitely prefer this Dan to the 2012 fuckboi. character development

Yesss, this is so nice to see! Tab's boobs being bigger was just an observation, not sexual, not being "weird." However Dil's abs are fuckin sexy yas Dil, work it. When did Dil go from their son/combination of them to the object of Dan's lust? I'm not complaining, though. Not at all.

alittledizzy wrote:Yep, also fully behind this character development. I do think it's just personal growth and awareness of not objectifying women. I enjoy being a fan of decent human beings.

ALSO THIS

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:18 pm**

I understand differing social background ebtween objectifying men and women, but stanning Dan for paying no attention to female's attractiveness while straight up YASsing at him ogling naked pixel butt and abs (yeah in half joking way but I assure you most youtubers commenting on Yandere-chan's panties are also joking) seems odd to me. Just me again?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:22 pm**

Just gonna say that it's already 2:20 AM here, and yet I'm still here instead of doing my presentation that is due today. Oh well, who cares about grades, right? *wallows in misery*
Anyways, I'm glad that they didn't paid much attention to the panties, and Tab's breasts seems off... Don't worry, Deppy, you're not being weird. Well, I'll just wish them luck if Dil and Tabitha will have twins or triplets or quadruplets. I wonder if they'll give up the game though

I'm not a fan of Undertale (too long

), so I'll just check on IDB when Undertale Week happens

Well, I'll finish my presentation now and go back to lurking for a few days.

Edit: ...Maybe it's because it's easier to make songs about mirror-butts? I mean... Without offending anyone?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:44 pm**

Deppy @ 0:05

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:48 pm**

malday wrote:
Deppy @ 0:05

I wonder who are they cosplaying as, I have absolutely zero clue

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:49 pm**

Re: Rewind
Doesn't usually the biggest youtuber of the year open the rewind? Like 2013 it was PSY, 2014 Pewds, 2015 SuperWoman? That seems like a huge honor.

OffTopic, but: this dude has a plausible theory on what's happening with the algorithm (4:05 forwards, specifically 5.50).
Basically, he thinks that for the first time yt counter is showing only the monetized views, meaning only the ones who have had ads running on them are counted as view. That explains why their views have not dropped that much compared other people's - the more viewers you have, the bigger number of people will have adblock enabled. If 30% of viewers use adblock, that would be a significant drop in views for a youtuber that usually pulls 3 million people (about -900 000). Since DAPG usually pulls around 1.2 million that's a loss of about 350 000 people so that's why they hover around 800 000 - 900 000 views. Anyone thoughts? (um I'm calculating this in my head and I'm not good at maths so sorry if my estimates are off.)

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:53 pm**

malday wrote:
Deppy @ 0:05

I feel sad.

Because I know that's their ears.

And they're cosplaying as Stranger Things.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:58 pm**

swofro wrote:
malday wrote:
Deppy @ 0:05
I wonder who are they cosplaying as, I have absolutely zero clue

I saw a tweet saying it's from Stranger Things.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:02 pm**

000dia000 wrote:
malday wrote:
Deppy @ 0:05
I feel sad.

Because I know that's their ears.

And they're cosplaying as Stranger Things.

Which characters do you believe they're cosplaying?

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:04 pm**

I guess they are cosplaying as stranger things? If they are they are, then they are playing brothers again

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:06 pm**

malday wrote:
Deppy @ 0:05

I'm excited for this. Hope have a good part.

sentinel wrote: OffTopic, but: this dude has a plausible theory on what's happening with the algorithm (4:05 forwards, specifically 5.50).
Basically, he thinks that for the first time yt counter is showing only the monetized views, meaning only the ones who have had ads running on them are counted as view. That explains why their views have not dropped that much compared other people's - the more viewers you have, the bigger number of people will have adblock enabled. If 30% of viewers use adblock, that would be a significant drop in views for a youtuber that usually pulls 3 million people (about -900 000). Since DAPG usually pulls around 1.2 million that's a loss of about 350 000 people so that's why they hover around 800 000 - 900 000 views. Anyone thoughts? (um I'm calculating this in my head and I'm not good at maths so sorry if my estimates are off.)

I guess this could be it, does make sense to me.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:07 pm**

Laney wrote:
I guess they are cosplaying as stranger things? If they are they are, then they are playing brothers again

I just realized that they probaby have the same age difference if even more than the brothers from Stranger Things that's a mind fuck

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:13 pm**

2017 rebranding: they are FINALLY ready to admit they are like brothers to each other

i remember dan used to be grossed out by that idea lol

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:21 pm**

papierklemmen wrote:2017 rebranding: they are FINALLY ready to admit they are like brothers to each other

i remember dan used to be grossed out by that idea lol

Ah, yes. brotherly love.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:22 pm**

sentinel wrote: OffTopic, but: this dude has a plausible theory on what's happening with the algorithm (4:05 forwards, specifically 5.50).
Basically, he thinks that for the first time yt counter is showing only the monetized views, meaning only the ones who have had ads running on them are counted as view. That explains why their views have not dropped that much compared other people's - the more viewers you have, the bigger number of people will have adblock enabled. If 30% of viewers use adblock, that would be a significant drop in views for a youtuber that usually pulls 3 million people (about -900 000). Since DAPG usually pulls around 1.2 million that's a loss of about 350 000 people so that's why they hover around 800 000 - 900 000 views. Anyone thoughts? (um I'm calculating this in my head and I'm not good at maths so sorry if my estimates are off.)

[offtopic]but if we go by this logic, won't unmonetised video ie fan phan vids won't have view listed on it? Or is that just a different category altogether?[/offtopic]

Ah, I have never seen stranger things, hopefully I won't be that lost person who has no idea what's going on. Thanks everyone for answering

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:28 pm**

Love black-out Dan... but his forearms are blinding me!

In other news, My Advent Calendar has arrived! My Advent Calendar has arrived!

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:30 pm**

sentinel wrote: OffTopic, but: this dude has a plausible theory on what's happening with the algorithm (4:05 forwards, specifically 5.50).
Basically, he thinks that for the first time yt counter is showing only the monetized views, meaning only the ones who have had ads running on them are counted as view. That explains why their views have not dropped that much compared other people's - the more viewers you have, the bigger number of people will have adblock enabled. If 30% of viewers use adblock, that would be a significant drop in views for a youtuber that usually pulls 3 million people (about -900 000). Since DAPG usually pulls around 1.2 million that's a loss of about 350 000 people so that's why they hover around 800 000 - 900 000 views. Anyone thoughts? (um I'm calculating this in my head and I'm not good at maths so sorry if my estimates are off.)

You're right, about 30% of YT viewers use an ad blocker, apparently which is surprising to me honestly, I thought it would be a higher percentage. And according to this youtuber, Youtube does indeed know how many views were watched by someone with adblock and how many were not. so the theory makes sense, although sucks. Swofro brings up a good point though, what about videos that have no ads at all? Maybe they're an exception... anyway, I recommend watching the video though, it's pretty interesting. Except in the beginning he goes on about not relying on the buggy subbox to see new videos...we know...

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:31 pm**

eevee wrote: Yesss, this is so nice to see! Tab's boobs being bigger was just an observation, not sexual, not being "weird." However Dil's abs are fuckin sexy yas Dil, work it. When did Dil go from their son/combination of them to the object of Dan's lust? I'm not complaining, though. Not at all.

Well, Dil is half Phil

, and Dan's been getting more confident in showing off his own attractiveness lately, as demonstrated in recent instagram posts.

gnostic wrote:I understand differing social background ebtween objectifying men and women, but stanning Dan for paying no attention to female's attractiveness while straight up YASsing at him ogling naked pixel butt and abs (yeah in half joking way but I assure you most youtubers commenting on Yandere-chan's panties are also joking) seems odd to me. Just me again?

I do see your point, and I think it's a valid one. For me it is partly the general social context of a lot of men objectifying women so it being refreshing to see some men not doing that, and also that I'm more comfortable with people sexualising members of their own gender. It does make me uncomfortable, for example on Strictly Come Dancing, when the female hosts repeatedly make unnecessary comments about the attractiveness of a male celebrity or professional. You could argue that I'm just uncomfortable with heterosexuality, but at least consciously, I find it less problematic when people enthuse about the attractiveness of members of their own gender, because they aren't diminishing the value of the entire group, since they are part of it. Does that make sense? I'm aware that the logic of all this isn't really watertight. It's more a general sense of how I feel.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:38 pm**

000dia000 wrote:
Laney wrote:
I guess they are cosplaying as stranger things? If they are they are, then they are playing brothers again
I just realized that they probaby have the same age difference if even more than the brothers from Stranger Things that's a mind fuck

No no no my brain is not ok with this

But im still excited for today's video and rewind on the 7th

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:42 pm**

I've seen some people freaking out on twitter over them possibly playing brothers in YouTube rewind this year. But yet they played brothers last year with the whole "Charlie bit my finger" part and nobody had an issue then? I don't get it, it's just acting, it doesn't have any significance to their actual life in the first place.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:43 pm**

BisexualShoeMarriage wrote: I do see your point, and I think it's a valid one. For me it is partly the general social context of a lot of men objectifying women so it being refreshing to see some men not doing that, and also that I'm more comfortable with people sexualising members of their own gender. It does make me uncomfortable, for example on Strictly Come Dancing, when the female hosts repeatedly make unnecessary comments about the attractiveness of a male celebrity or professional. You could argue that I'm just uncomfortable with heterosexuality, but at least consciously, I find it less problematic when people enthuse about the attractiveness of members of their own gender, because they aren't diminishing the value of the entire group, since they are part of it. Does that make sense? I'm aware that the logic of all this isn't really watertight. It's more a general sense of how I feel.

Kind of like when girls saying compliments about you (assuming you're also a girl) is less weird/creepy/threatening than a guy saying the same things? Maybe it's just that I've had bad experiences with guys complimenting me because it always goes into a gross direction

Not sassing you, genuinely trying to add to the conversation

IDB

Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was

Re: Dan & Phil part 32...and what a thicc thread it was