florbnit

They aren’t even using an engine they built themselves. It’s built on top of Unreal Engine 5 which performs great for a ton of other games. They had to put effort into making it as badly performing as it is. It’s crazy.

> Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine.

Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and printing them and selling them: not fair use

Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and making merchandise and selling it: not fair use

The idea that training models is considered fair use just because you bought the work is naive. Fair use is not a law to leave open usage as long as it doesn’t fit a given description. It’s a law that specifically allows certain usages like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Training AI models for purposes other than purely academic fits into none of these.

Yes, and we should factor in a $ amount per child you’ve had, also subtract a $ amount per time you yell at said child. Also how much should a compliment given to a stranger be worth? Should the value be different if it’s in sincere?

The important point is that it’s the net sum at the end that qualifies if you are a good person! If you help out 1000 people and have 12 kids, but also you contribute to a racially motivated genocide, you’re still a good person as long as the net $ sum at the end is positive. /s

Absolutely everything about the idea seems wrong. Both the idea that it’s all about accounting and the idea that you can ascribe a definite value to actions that should sum to some moral statement.

> And that's really only honed by learning and questioning a lot of subjects.

Sounds like a job for AI.

A coworker approached you and goes “hi, I have two children and one is a boy…” and is promptly vaporized because he doesn’t fit the selection criteria of the problem statement, another approaches and goes “err hi, I have two children and one is a girl…” looks nervously at the vaporizer but is left standing. What is the chance their other child is a girl, who has not been vaporized?

If you phrase the question as “someone with two children tell you the gender of a random one, what is the chance the other is the same gender?” Chance is 50/50 because 50% will have BB or GG and the vaporizer isn’t active.

> a random family has been sampled, the sample family has two childs, one of them is a girl"

It’s not a random family if it must have at least one girl. If you want to talk about a random family you can only make statements of the kind “one of the children is <gender>” where the gender depend on the specific family or “the family has between 0 and 2 girls”

> You can't just spin up leading edge semiconductor manufacturing on a dime. It takes decades and hundreds of billions to reach where companies like Intel and TSMC are now. It's so hard that it's essentially impossible for new entrants to catch up.

You can if intel goes bankrupt. Why do people act like a bankruptcy consists of taking all the employees out back and putting them down then setting all the buildings on fire.

There's also a fascinating tension with physical exercise, which is that your preference would obviously be do it as early as possible, so you spend more time at a younger age as opposed to just prolonging the last years of your life, where you'll be stuck in a nursing home anyway.

But doing exercise while you're young is also much higher risk, and you might see people sacrificing their 20s for the sake of their 70s in a way they end up regretting, even if there aren't any injuries.

That said, even with risk of injuries it feels like a no brainer to be active and to be active from an early age.

Also I don’t think people should wait until their late 50ies to make sure they get enough vitamin c to “avoid sacrificing their 20ies”

The story has a bad spin yes. But it’s just as much of a controversy if they had require people themselves pay the cost if they found out the cars where shipped with defective breaks. It’s a product error not wear and tear or user error, they should eat the costs, but the cybersecurity framing of it is being used to attempt to push the cost to the consumer.

> Pay me more to fix it, not my problem that your requests is failing.

If you are employed in a position where there is a defect in the product then you are already being paid. Imagine going to a restaurant and you get an uncooked frozen steak, and when you tell the waiter they tell you that since the cook will need to spend more time on it you now have to pay extra.

So you’re arguing that the free lunch principle doesn’t apply to lunch?

Games are like books. Saying books are worthless because they don’t build “transferable skills” is absurd. But it’s obviously true of many books and sure, the most popular books don’t. But as a whole they definitely do.

I feel like there’s scientists must have spent a long time researching this seemingly new phenomenon before discovering that the sunk cost fallacy was widely studied. And at that point rather than spend the effort to correct their conclusions they decided to double down and spend even more effort on trying to spin their work as something new and unrelated to the sunk cost fallacy.

> EU's legal arm can't extent outside the boarders of the EU, without an outright military invasion

All the lawsuits from EU against tech companies outside the EU have been carried out without any military invasions required. You are delusional if you think USA is going to go “Google won’t pay the fines, invade us if you want the money”