Yep.
Yes. And there’s not much more to that portion of the puzzle.
I bored everyone and killed the thread. 
Oh well, if there aren’t any more questions, I’ll post the full solution tomorrow.
During the XXXVIII superbowl half time show in 2004, the breast of Janet Jackson is momentarily exposed in what is generally regarded to be a deliberate stunt*. The lyrics near the end of the song when it happens are “Let’s make a bet…'cause I bet I’ll have you naked by the end of this song.”
TiVos and other DVRs being available at the time, but not yet completely widespread left many viewers wondering if they had really just seen what they thought they had seen. Viewers including Jawed Karim, one of the co-founders of Youtube, who claims that the incident was the inspiration for the website when he had trouble finding a clip of the incident online afterwards.
Fast-forwarding to 2017, Youtube is not only responsible for hundreds of petabytes of internet network traffic, it is responsible for hundreds of petabytes every month.
Thus, Janet Jackson’s nipple caused the creation of the $30 billion dollar youtube behemoth.
*While the performers have maintained it wasn’t supposed to go as far as it did, it was at least supposed to reveal some of the breast in a lace bra. The associated lyrics cast some doubt on the bra thing. Also, there was a suspiciously decorative nipple adornment…
Ah, OK, I thought that petabytes seemed awfully high for that incident. I hadn’t realized that it was one of the inspirations behind YouTube as a whole.
This question is easy to Google, and some people here will already know the answer. If you know it, don’t spoil it.
Gilbert & Sullivan’s first collaboration was the opera Thespis. It opened to mixed reviews. It ran too long, and the performers were under-rehearsed. G&S tweaked it a bit, removing some of the flaws. After their improvements it was better received. It then had a fairly successful run, being more profitable and running longer than the majority of plays released that season.
It is hardly ever performed these days, and never in the original/tweaked form. Why not?
Is there something people today might consider offensive in the opera?
No.
Were there legal troubles concerning the opera? (for instance, a claim of plagiarism)
Does the script still exist?
Did either of the authors express a wish that it not be performed?
More generally:
Would it be physically possible for an opera company to perform the original version, if they didn’t care about the consequences?
Would there be legal consequences to performing the original version?
If the original were performed, would it be likely to sell a significant number of tickets? (keeping in mind that G&S completionists would probably want to see a “lost play”, regardless of quality)
Were there legal troubles concerning the opera? (for instance, a claim of plagiarism)
- No
Does the script still exist?
- I’d have to say yes.
Did either of the authors express a wish that it not be performed?
- certainly not
Would it be physically possible for an opera company to perform the original version, if they didn’t care about the consequences?
- Nope.
Would there be legal consequences to performing the original version?
- No
If the original were performed, would it be likely to sell a significant number of tickets?
- Who knows?
Does the work require a castrato singer?
Does the music (score?) still exist?
I thought of this possibility right after I went to bed.
No
Mostly, no. It’s lost. Only three pieces survive.
It is speculated that Sullivan reused some of the music in later works, but nothing is known for certain. There have been attempts at reviving the show using the existing script and Sullivasn’s other music, but none have really been successful.
I have a new one. Are we done with the current one or should I wait? I don’t want to interrupt.
Yeah, score lost is pretty much the complete answer. Go ahead.
A man’s house burns down. The man claims that he was sleeping when the fire started and that he managed to save many of his belongings by stuffing them into bags, smashing the window with his cane, hurling the bags out of the window, followed by him climbing out of the window himself.
There are no witnesses or cameras that could help investigators determine if it was arson for insurance purposes.
However, one investigator does find something to prove it was arson(and it was, by the way).
What did the investigator find?
Was the investigator named Columbo, by any chance?
No.
Was the man blind?
I should’ve asked: did the man claim to be blind?