kaseijin

That only leaves Shatner and Takei left I think.

Hollywood movie industry is starting to come around and fix the problem which more "bad writing" than anything but it takes awhile and they've still got a lot of stinkers still in the pipe. But that's always true.

The industry goes through slumps and renaissance periods as the creative juices wax and wain. Game industry is falling into the same trends.

Even during creative slumps there's always someone out there not following the trends making something good

I just don't pay for it. If there's something I really wanna watch I might buy one month of the service binge it then cancel.

The streaming model has imho mostly killed old style television formats with the new way of hyping up a show in the first couple episodes by tossing money and talent, then leave people to hang with unsatisfying conclusions once you've got that sub money. It's all about convincing people to sign up and stay signed up with promises for new content. The quality of the content doesn't matter as long as there's a lot of it and it's enough to keep people from unsubscribing.

With traditional TV your value was directly determined by how many people were watching so you could sell addspace. And despite there being less choice and harder for independent players to get time, in some ways it was weirdly more democratic because if a show sucked or an episode sucked people would just change the channel or watch something else. With streaming they still do that but it's all in the same price scheme so doesn't hurt their bottom line. They're incentivised to just crank out as much crap as possible to keep subs up. Won't last.

True for all the Galilean Moons more or less. Their orbits all lie within the Jovian equivalent of the Van Allen belts. And Jupiter's magnetic field is much stronger than earth's.

Already had accessibility. Now there's none.

Really just a case of needing common sense judges and enforcement or this law.

Temporary event and with an accommodation solution for the minority of disabled guests shouldn't have to inconvenience everyone just because a few people "feel" inconvenciend for having to ask for the accommodation. It's not like this is a subway station, public building, or some other kind of venue where a permanent access solution is needed.

I think some people who are disabled are just miserable people who go around trying to make everyone else miserable too. That's the only reason these lawsuits are filed.

This reminds me of early 90's articles whinging about how the Nintendo can't play the new Super Nintendo games where they interviewed parents whining about how Nintendo ruined Christmas because they can't play Super Mario World on the Nintendo.

Not surprised. They've tried this many times before but never stuck with it for long as far as I can tell because I was able to see it fine a few days later.

Can't see how it works out well for them. More hoops to jump through has to equal less views and less advertising revenue. Reddit has already become quite shit in the last 10 years so it's not like I'm keen to jump through extra hoops to use it. I'll just go elsewhere.

Prices have gone up, service and quality have gone down.

Definitely results in me going far less. But I'm also the type to complain and demand a refund if my food takes more than 10 minutes at a fast food place.

Like the entire reason I'm even buying your crap food is because I'm in a hurry and it's cheap. Now it's not cheap but I'm still in a hurry. I'll just climb over the counter go back and make it myself at this point.

Until customers say nope and stop going it will just get worse. Too many people are on autopilot and won't just say no. I remember last time I'm at subway they're like "oh it's an extra 2 dollars for pickles" and I laughed said, "alright bye" and just walked out. "Hey what are we supposed to do with your sandwich" "it's your sandwich, not my problem".

Hmm maybe there's a good legal argument for it in the Netherlands. I would love to see them not be able to legally enforce closed architecture on their hardware.

Don't really agree with the "you don't have a choice" element on monopolizing though because you do have a choice not to buy from them and to buy games from a competitor instead so they don't really have a monopoly in my opinion.

I think the games are more expensive on the digital store because they get more "impulse buys" for people who want it now. Vs people who want it cheaper and are willing to travel to the store to buy it.

Once it goes digital only I think you'll start to see frequent sales and discounts like what happened to the pc market.

I also think once the PS6 comes out it will likely end up being a heavily subsidized "streaming" cloud machine so they can try to get it sold as cheaply as possible. Otherwise I think direct competition with PC will be difficult.

Thanks I'll take a look. Haven't used Ebay in years really.

I mostly agree but I think most of the issues stemming from it come from management vastly overestimating what AI can actually do vs what it is capable of coupled with people's natural innate laziness and the desire to just "use AI" rather than putting any mental effort into things.

I think AI is useful as a tool in some situations. I use it sometimes as a kind of "google that for me" short cut to save time looking up things I already know. But I don't trust it for things outside my knowledge as I can't be sure if it's correct. I think op biggest issue here is when they start chatting with it normally. AI as a replacement for real human connection is a terrible thing.

One thing I do like using AI for is basically mindless busiwork. Like "I've a list of 1,000 unsorted 12 digit numbers, please count them all, tell me how many repeats, and arrange them in ascending order."

But even then I'm better off programming something if it is more than a one off. Because I still need to check the AI and make sure it's correct.

Only saves a marginal amount of time in certain circumstances.

I really don't like how people just trust what it spits out though without thinking. Eventually someone is gonna do something really stupid with it that causes major issues, like AI powered ATC that ends up crashing planes together. Or something equally grim.

Really I think the tech is interesting and has some really potentially useful applications but right now everyone seems to think it's a magic bullet that solves everything and I don't think really understand the limitations or realities of implementing it to be anything useful.

Personally in my own life I've barely any use for it. Certainly none I'd be willing to pay for. I don't understand how it will be monetized. I basically still treat it like a novelty myself.

I don't much worry about my job getting replaced with AI. It well might but, then I'll just do something else for awhile until they need a specialist who actually understands what is going on without AI (and will charge whatever I want).

Don't want to pay for the Atlantic so only read the beginning.

Personally I'm finding online shopping to be much more annoying than it used to be. Always feel like I'm not getting shown what I want and am instead trying to be upsold or manipulated into buying more.

So I just don't shop online much.

I've gone back to making orders by telephone. I prefer it if it's something I know and it's much easier as long as you find a company that actually has people on the phones. I'd rather go with a small company that actually has customer service anyway.

I've had a few people get mad at me that I've called them and direct me to their website instead, I just lie and tell them I don't have a computer. If that doesn't do it, we'll they've lost a sale.

Looks like typical tech company circomlocution. I think mainly nobody wants to actually do any of this work so the human check quite literally is someone who doesn't have anything better to do at the company than click a box that says "I checked this". And probably is insentivised to click as many as quickly as possible.

It's only possible on the internet really. Any other sort of business trying to run this way would quickly get into legal trouble I think.

The whole YouTube for kids idea is a bad one to begin with. Just gives parents the false impression that because YouTube has a kids section that somehow means it's safe. Good parenting you shouldn't be letting your kids scroll unsupervised anyway so it's not really needed. YouTube will just shirk responsibility anyway if something is mistakenly labeled as "for kids".

To be fair, while I enjoyed the fun language shenanigans and propaganda and political commentary of 1984, the actual plot was pretty bad imho. Then again one way of reading it is the protagonist is actually paranoid and is exaggerating everything, which isn't entirely a dig against Orwell. He was just aheaf of the curve with self insert fan fiction.

I think my favorite part of the book was when it just turned into reading the political thesis on the essence of oligarichal collectivism or whatever it is. It's a great cynical parody of modern society, but I still think everyone misses the point is that it isn't so much about surveillance as it's about power through language.

You could just as easily have the book set in 1884 without any of the "future tech" and have basically the same plot going around with busybodies and peeping toms filling the rolls of the telescreens.