[eth0up]

ESL?

Allow me to explain the theory behind the humor...

Grok's art had heavy use of what strongly resembles a permanent marker with lateral-ish scribbles similar to what one might see when someone is trying to mark something as discarded. Documents, especially those procured by the US government when responding to FOIA requests, contain many 'strike-through' style black marks resembling bold permanent-marker lines, which obfuscate the words they wish the reader to remain ignorant of. In many cases, this is the entire document, especially where unredacted words might otherwise serve in any way to clarify the nature of the FOIA inquiry, i.e. answer the question.

Grok's art, resembled to me, and others potentially appreciating the joke, redactions more than art. In some forms of humor, the presenter of the joke feigns obtuseness, or a mildly self-deprecating, stupid perspective. But the stupidity of the perspective actually reveals a relevant concept, or idea.

Often, such jokes can be deciphered using common sense, or various razors, including both occam and hanlon, the former self-suggesting that the joker is probably not so stupid as to think Grok was really redacting anything, and the latter self-suggesting that there was probably no malice involved.

[vidarh]

It doesn't get any more funny when you try to explain something that wasn't funny in the first place.

Hence, I can't be bothered to read any of this.

[eth0up]

Then why pretend the question in the first place? Is that how you worked your way up to 40K karma tokens? Low hanging fruit harvests?

Look at the sequence: You inquired. I answered. Not finding something funny is not really a good reason to fake a question you never intended to really have answered. You are kind of admitting that you knew it was humor but decided to approach it deceptively, or manipulatively, as if I am the only one ever to make a joke that wasn't universally appreciated.

I think that makes you a prick, with a lot of karma-tokens to play with.