FLeXMurphy

A moron could build a better UX and DevX.

> Shouldn't this problem show up in a much larger portion of the population? Or do very physically active individuals require more Vitamin D?

You ever heard of a thing called a "clickbait headline"?

Heads up:

`skypilot` has nothing to do with skies, or piloting. It's a software company selling yet-another-dashboard for cloud-y infra.

They have nothing at all to do with Tesla Roadster, or Tesla.

They built a proof-of-concept simulator for how a car with air thrusters would hypothetically behave.

This is not a very useful article, more of a puff piece.

[flagged]

> What could be done is forwarding the complaint to Valve, and ensuring that the bootlegged game put out by those attempting to make good on their threats gets removed, and the developer banned.

For Valve to remove a game like that could be seen as anti-competitive. They would also have to actually prove this with evidence and so on for it to make sense. And there lies the competitive fog of war which can have consequences among competing games. One competitor saying "I'll make a game if you don't pay me to not make one" to another is not extortion or a threat at all. It's just business. And it can be very scary to be faced with an adversary like that.

What do you think Facebook et al do? They rip each other off through planted employees, poaching, and other shenanigans to find out who is working on what so they can be there before their competitors.

This is why we have other methods (patents, copyright, and so on) that are employed for legal protection. But ideas? Not good enough.

The word "extortion" here is doing so much heavy lifting it's comical.

Article I hoped to read: Evaluating AI agents on 50 professional tax evasions

Of course there are variances and the legal teams will find everything they can. But we're not talking about hundreds. I wanted to keep it simple for the crowd here, and furthermore a judge can look through the legal bullshit which they often do. Think about for example the way that Alsup handles his cases compared to the way a "stereotypical judge" is portrayed.

As an aside, other posters keep saying how Valve can regardless finance or file or whatever a lawsuit. Yes. Anyone can. It doesn't mean they will win. Lawsuits happen all the time brought upon by people who are wasting their time and money.

Share links to these violations, cases, case outcomes, etc.

I don't know why people are downvoting me. Folks, Valve aren't going to fund these lawsuits. It's a fantasy.

Edit: I keep trying to reply to you but you keep removing them before I can! It isn't personal in any way. I am simply looking to see what the arguments were and whether it was an already-released game having its assets stolen, vs. a game that is not yet released being knocked off with AI, vs. something else. I wanted to see what the cases actually played out like.

One of the threats that is highlighted in the article posted is that they want to extort games which are not yet released. Which is certainly juicy in its own right.

It does not work that way. This is not the same when Thiel was financing the anti-Gawker lawsuit.

This has no direct precedents and the case and the lawyers involved need to be chosen carefully, because once the precedent is set it is used by the courts for ruling subsequent cases. You don't want a sloppy lawyer, and the case has to be bullet proof, the judges known in advance (hence why certain districts are chosen for certain types of cases) and so on.

A case of this sort would bring into question so many non-game related things, more related to recent AI copyright and IP theft, that it would far exceed what Valve would be able to bring forward in terms of an argument anyway. Computer game mechanics and game designs are already on thin ice in terms of copyright.

Valve isn't going to fund this, and it is not how legal works.

Valve doesn't have a case here to bring. It is not their legal fight to begin with.

996 already became the new normal, it just wasn't evenly distributed. The perceived latency was mostly in the end-output, but you can see it happening as China became dominant not through scientific breakthroughs or discoveries, but through raw unopposed effort put in. Even if two people can't do the work of one, throwing five or ten people at the problem will work.

Now with LLMs which can effectively work nonstop, the only remaining bottleneck is whoever has to be around to approve or otherwise take control.

> Johnny remained a game theorist to the end. After a lifetime of culturally Jewish atheism, he asked to be baptized. His daughter attributed it to Pascal's Wager: a small probability of a much better afterlife, against a trivial cost.

The house always wins.

Waiting for the Ed Z. post, will be an interesting bit of spectacle to see.

I remember a few people who opposed this bill, including a Canadian professor of law/lawyer Michael <something>, who wanted to oppose this. What happened to that? HN had blog posts about it I believe.