What do you think the word “titular” means?

Do note that this is in my “All” videos recommended feed, not just filtered for music

Here’s the full text of the disclaimer on the channel’s “About” tab as of present:

“Disclaimer:

Popsie Funk is a fictitious creation. The tracks are A.I. generated from lyrics and musical compositions that I have created. The A.I. samples are then mixed and edited by me.

I am adding this disclaimer due to repeated questions about the genuine authenticity of Popsie Funk and his music.

While being asked the same question dozens of times can be taxing, I take confusion as a huge compliment!

After all, if you can’t tell by ear that my music is A.I. generated, then I’m doing my job right!”

The channel owner directly states that it is their intention to mislead. I did see the disclaimer on the channel after looking up the “artist” and before making this post, but that disclaimer is not visible on the thumbnail preview and the video description omits any reference to it. The inclusion of the year in the video title as well as the hashtags all attempt to work their way into the feeds of those not in the know to convince them that it is legitimate.

The channels that are not upfront are even worse.

When I am using my phone as opposed to a desktop, I watch YouTube videos in the phone’s built-in browser so I can refresh the page to skip any ads before the video. I typically don’t have the patience after watching the video to open the YouTube app and wait for an ad to load and then wait to swipe the ad out of the way just to “Like” or “Dislike” the video. I may glimpse through the recommended page on the chance there is anything that I may have missed, or that may have been a surprise upload, or that may be adjacent to videos/channels that I’ve already watched and which may be of interest to me.

Conversely, I still need to make and receive important phone calls even though the vast majority of calls I receive are spam

Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument

Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

I wouldn’t count anything that isn’t at least arguably as long as a movie. Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out and the SpongeBob episode “Gary Takes a Bath” otherwise would count as well. There’s probably an otherwise qualifiable clone-focused episode of The Clone Wars, too.

Wikipedia says All is Lost has only 1 character, but I did find a SPOILER scene that shows Redford by someone else’s arm for only a couple of seconds. I’d figure this is the only scene with anyone else onscreen.

Bo Burnham: Inside?

In this case, no. This is the only version of this album, i. e. there wasn’t a revised version that would amend this error and force this version into relative scarcity. The band also isn’t popular enough for there to be much of a demand for anomalies such as a rare misprint. It’s really just the distributor being sloppy/lazy.

Unfortunately, it’s legit. Here is the Discogs page for the release and here is the album on Apple Music with the same labelling error.