To be fair to the copyright troll, the Switch buttons are still in the same relative positions as they were in the SNES.

“Microsoft”, who? Certainly not Suleyman, Davuluri, or Nadella.

Even if you’re in the camp that understands memes like “6 7” have more significance than they’re given credit for,

I think 6-7 is a shibboleth. It doesn’t say much on its own, except which group you belong to.

Substance, as ever, remains a relative notion. Nyan Cat perhaps didn’t have the substance of an Andy Warhol image

I’d argue the Nyan cat is more substantial than what Andy Warhol came up with.

If you want a great reset you’ll need a new internet that is outright hostile to corporate interests. No corposlop being produced there, no derailing old memes to sell you junk.

Nah, quoting Stormfront is not a bug. Quoting well-sourced facts retrieved from Wikipedia is.

I’m mindblown at him being mindblown.

Oh wait, I’m not. Because I know those CEOs are completely detached from reality, and take users for dumb cattle ready to be herded.

Funny but insightful comment from the link:

“Never get high on your own stuff. A lesson this guy doesn’t seem to have learned…”

Fediverse, please enlighten me - is Windows a drug? …on a more serious note, “don’t overestimate the desirability of what you’re trying to sell” is sensible advice.

It’s possible. For example, the quality assurance department finds 9001 critical bugs, but whoever is in charge says “ship it lol” regardless of those bugs. In fact I think this might be the problem with CS2, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paradox was the one doing the QA for Colossal Order.

Still a bad QA matter, though. And it’ll get worse.

Relevant to note the publisher (Paradox Interactive) is also known for extremely poor in-house QA. Both game and DLC releases are known to be extremely buggy.

[Hallikainen] We’re confident that the franchise will continue to thrive under Paradox’s leadership

That’s corpo speech for “we lost the franchise, PI has it under its direct control now”. Note Iceflake Studios is “part of Paradox Interactive”.

The series is dead. Nothing to see here. Move on, gentle folks.

Yup, that’s part of the deal: cat shit is preferable over elephant shit. The other part is that cat shit is still shit, and it’s still undesirable.

Now look at the discussion in this thread. Gabe Newell is cat shit; some comments are trying to defend him as not shit, some trying to pretend his behaviour is exactly as bad as elephant shit (your typical billionaire). Between a billionaire like Newell spending money on a research yacht versus one like Musk fuelling some random dictatorship, Newell is preferable. And he’s still undesirable as any of those money-hoarding psychopaths.

Elephant shit for you then :)
(just kidding.)

Most comments ITT boil down to two things:

• “cat shit is shit, so it’s the same as elephant shit”
• “cat shit is not the same as elephant shit, so it’s not shit”

TL;DW: execs assume monopoly from market dominance, without taking into account other stores could contest said market dominance.

Before I even read the article, let me guess:

1. it keeps Google under control of everything, giving it power to kick out competitors on a whim
2. it claims it’s “to protect those disgusting pieces of shit called users from causing themselves harm”
3. it claims Google did nothing wrong

Now, reading the article…

• “Google has denied any wrongdoing throughout the closely watched litigation.” - that’s #3 right off the bat
• “Under the new proposal, Google would allow users to more easily download and install third-party app stores that meet new security and safety standards.” - who decides those standards? If Google itself, that’s #1
• Sameer Samat, Google’s president of Android Ecosystem, said, opens new tab on Tuesday the proposed changes maintained user safety - #2.

*Yawn*

Yeah, the terminology is currently a mess. Not just due to language changes, but also synchronic variation - different people using the same words for different meanings, at the same time. But for me, it’s a mix of motivations, methods, and morality:

• hacker strictu sensu - like a kid who dismantles toys to see how they work. Sometimes they break things, but they want knowledge the most. Usually grey hat, sometimes white hat, only rarely black hat
• cracker - like a kid who bashes toys with a hammer. Not interested on the knowledge itself, except when it allows them to bully other kids. Almost always black hat.

Raccoon
RACOON PLEASE
WHAT ARE YOU DOING
We’re mammals you silly. We don’t go through carcinisation, we evolve into anteaters.

It’s more than that: they’d need to have desires, aversions, goals. That is not automatically granted by intelligence; in our case it’s from our instincts as animals. So perhaps you’d need to actually evolve Darwin style the AGI systems you develop, and that would be way more massive than a single AGI, let alone the “put glue on pizza lol” systems we’re frying the planet for.

My guess:

Coverage roughly follows money, and that money comes the top of the hierarchy. However, the top is too far from the production to actually get that 1) automation is nothing new, and 2) AI won’t help as much with it as advertised.

The middle of the hierarchy is close enough to the production to know those two things, but it’ll parrot them because doing so enables the inefficiency they love so much, under the disguise of efficiency.

Then you got the bottom. It’s the closest to the production, but often suffers from a problem of “I don’t see the forest, I see the leaves”, plus since it has no decision power so it ends as a “meh who cares”. So it’ll parrot whatever it sees in the coverage.

As such, who’s actually going to get screwed here? The answer may surprise you.

All three. However not in the way people predict, “AI is going to steal our jobs”. It’s more like suckers at the top will lose big money on AI fluff, and to cut costs off they’ll fire a lot of people.

Setting aside “and how will it do that?” as outside the scope of the topic at hand, it’s a bit baffling to me how a nebulous concept prone to outright errors is an existential threat. (To be clear, I think the energy and water impacts are.)

Ditto.

Interestingly enough, not even making them actually intelligent would be enough to make them liable - because you can’t punish or reward them.

…gimme five bags of that, please.

No problem - miscommunication happens.

Yes, this should be illegal, but it’s already common practice. I’m just hoping that enough of this will eventually get people to stop buying these products, and hopefully we can start seeing some real legislation against it in some countries.

Problem is, people won’t stop buying them. Often “smart” products are sold comparatively cheaper, because the business expects additional profits through ads; and if Samsung is going this way (ads on your fridge), it’ll do it.

The “crackers” part of this confuses me. Samsung is a Korean company. The chairman’s name is Lee Jae-yong (이재용). Samsung NA’s CEO is Yoonie Joung. Maybe I’m misreading this?

By “crackers” I mean “black hat hackers”. The sort of people who’d love to drop some ransomware into your fridge and then say “if you don’t want me to brick your fridge, pay me a few bucks”.

(After some websearch, apparently Americans use it as a derogatory term. I wasn’t aware of that.)