-
It was covered by glass, unclutch your fucking pearls already.
-
Van Gogh is my favorite painter, and I would still rather have a habitable planet for future generations than have Sunflowers. If you're more mad about this than you are about what big oil and gas companies are doing, sit down and have a good hard think about where your priorities are. I do not give a shit if you "agree with their message but not their tactics" or if you "think it makes the cause look bad" or whatever other bullshit you want to spew to cover your ass right now. Ultimately, if this caused you to feel a greater sense of righteous anger than the wholesale destruction of our environment for profit does, you are part of the problem. I'd rather side with the people who are trying to make a difference, even if I don't like how they do it, than side with the people plundering our world for personal gain.
This, exactly.
Cops love up push lines like "Getting off on a technicality" when mistrials happen. They can get fucked. It's not a "technicality", it's the police violating rules that exist to ensure that people are judged fairly and they convictions are only found in cases of genuine guilt. Those rules fucking matter, because they're one of the very few things that prevent the police from abusing their power.
Hannah Guiterrez isn't "getting off with a slap on the wrist." She was convicted of manslaughter. That's a really serious charge. If that conviction is overturned, it will be because the justice department did an absolutely piss poor job of following some really basic rules. Any outrage over that should be directed at the people who fucked up a perfectly good conviction by thinking they could just trample over people's basic rights without consequence.
I mean, the sad part is that Britain policing started out with some really good ideas. It's actually worth reading Robert Peel's principles of policing by consent sometime. They are an incredible blueprint for how to create a police force that serves the people.
Welcome to British policing.
"We have determined that this was indeed a hate crime, and therefore we'll be doing nothing. But if it happens two more times we'll congratulate them on the hat trick and offer to enroll them in the police academy."
Oh, absolutely. Altman is going to plunder this sinking ship for everything it's worth, and then bail into a CTO position somewhere else. All the C suite at OpenAI will win big no matter what, everyone else there will get fucked.
Least shocking news ever. This has clearly been in the works for a while. Not that it'll matter at this point, given that the notion of OpenAI making any profit is kind of a pipe dream right now.
This is mostly just a play to get investors to sink more money into covering their absolutely insane cash burn for another year.
Fuck yes, more Slay The Princess. One of the most brilliantly creative games I've played in years.
This pearl clutching very much reads to me like he was looking for an excuse and this was the first one that turned up.
Because it's much more expensive. What they're talking about here is basically modifying the video file as they stream it. That costs CPU/GPU cycles. Given that only about 10% of users block ads, this is only worth doing if they can get the cost down low enough that those extra ad views actually net them revenue.
Better if they just banned connected vehicles, period.
Even with the critical slant of applies to the gameplay of these "games" this article still ultimately neglects to describe the biggest problem with the "play to earn" aspect, which is that it fundamentally doesn't work.
The article describes the notional highs and lows of these tokens, but overlooks the fact that trading volume is far more important than a hypothetical trade price.
If one person buys one of these utterly useless tokens for 10 cents, that sets the price at 10 cents. But if I then try to cash out a thousand dollars of that same token, I'm probably not going to get a thousand dollars, because that requires there to be someone on the other side of great trade who thinks its actually worth putting a thousand dollars into this otherwise useless token.
To make matters worse, crypto prices are generally set by crypto trades. What I mean by that is that the person who bought one token for ten cents, actually didn't. They traded fifty BLOB tokens, notionally worth ten cents. What can you do with BLOB tokens? Nothing, they're worthless, they were made for a game that doesn't even exist anymore. The guy who owned those fifty BLOB tokens got them by trading a bunch of POOP tokens for them. Those are from a DAO that has since collapsed, they're worthless too. He bought those POOP tokens with a fraction of a DOGE coin, which he got from selling an airdropped Bad Monkey NFT that he was lucky enough to get one time (and even luckier to sell before the rug pull).
See the problem? It's all people trading Monopoly dollars for Game of Life dollars and arguing over the exchange rate. At no point did a real US dollar enter this process. So when you try to sell your BLOB tokens for real US dollars, no one is buying. The notion that people in developing nations will make a lining playing these games is a complete fantasy.
Microsoft are bullet proof. Their share price will take a big hit, and an exec or two will take a golden parachute, but they'll bounce back very quickly. The bigger problem is that along the way they'll balance the capex with multiple rounds of cutbacks and layoffs in other departments, and that's before they're finally forced to layoff everyone actually connected to this AI nonsense (who isn't a senior manager or c-suite; they'll all be fine).