Seeing your comment inspired me to make this

This makes me irrationally angry

Im not going to explain this again... OK!... its not looking, its measure that changes the result of the experiment. To measure implies interaction.

Yep, the observer it is not only observing, it is interacting in order to measure.

The meme is not about the observer effect or wavefunction collapse

That's not really it. You need something that measures the state of the electron. Merely looking in the direction is not enough. It has to be something that interacts with the electron.

A camera alone isn't enough. But light (eg photons) with enough energy should be enough. But then that energy will manipulate the electron. If you had a completely dark room and pointed a camera at the experiment it wouldn't change anything.

It's kind of like having your cake and eating it too.

It isn't "looking" that is meant by "observation". "Observation" is meant to convey the idea that something (not necessarily sentient) is in some way interacting with an object in question such that the state(s) of the object affects the state(s) of the "observer" (and vice versa).

The word is rather misleading in that it might give the impression of a unidirectional type of interaction when it really is the establishment of a bidirectional relationship. The reason one says "I observe the electron" rather than "I am observed by the electron" is that we don't typically attribute agency to electrons the way we do humans (for good reasons), but they are equally true.

Edit: a way of putting it is that the electron can only be said to be in a particular state if it matters in any way to the state of whomever says it. If I want to know what state an electon is in, it must appear to me in some state in order for me to get an answer. If I never interact with it, I can't possibly get such an answer and the electron then behaves as if it was actually in more than one state at once, and all those states interfere with each other, and that looks like wavelike patterns in certain measurements.

Edit 2: just to be clear, I used an electron as an example, but it's exactly the same for anything else we know of. Photons, bicycles, protons, and elephants are all like this, too. It's just that the more fundamental particles you involve and the more you already know about many of them, the fewer the possible answers are for any measurement you could make.

No, the electron only understands sentient thoughts, if a camera or an animal looks at it, it won't work.

Consciousness has literally nothing to do with it. In fact, the experiment as demonstrated in this emem would not replicate the double slit results. What has to happen is something along the path has to interfere with the photon (aka observe, which has nothing to do with consciousness, rather just an interaction), which causes the waveform to collapse. Basically, if something needs to know the state, the state collapses into one result. It doesn't matter what that thing is.

Please keep cooking until we unlock magical abilities

You need to qualify that statement somehow, or maybe give a citation or source that supports such an idea

Perhaps it would be better to explain why instead of attempting a mic drop based on your superior knowledge?

It’s called the observer effect, and it happens because:

This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

And particularly in the double-slit experiment:

Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

So for anyone who wants to have a surface understanding of the observer effect, the wiki does a fair job of the basic explanation.