Don't you think a proper Year-In-Review retrospective should actually take two years? Just to be thorough, y'know?
And I'm just referring to the end result: the article, the YouTube essay, etc. The length of time it should take to consume should be right at the two year mark.
Which means the people creating the Year-In-Review will probably need, like, four years to get the raw material down to the two year running time/reading time. For the sake of thoroughness, you see.
Ah, yes, a life of rigorous . . . something-or-other.
I figure this type of approach might force religious leaders to innovate actual eternal life-as opposed to the pretend shit-so we can have sufficient Year-In-Review time-'cause you can already see the backlog comin' from miles out-woo-Lordy!
I do not envy those charged with these tasks.
Heh, heh, heh . . .
Isn't it nice to be completely unqualified for the Really Big Projects?
Ha, ha, ha . . . !
Think I'll go back to sleep . . .
Snores elaborately.
