And even when people do buy the exclusives on their store, what reason do they have to buy anything else there?

Just like the free games, it would work as advertising, to initially attract people that then decide their product is worth using. But it will never work for making people use their store for anything else as long as it’s as terrible as it is.

Many herbivore species are also opporturnistic omnivores, so it could be argued just as much that it’s about biological specialization.

No, because the game does not support linux, so I never paid for it to work on linux. The fact that most games do anyway, usually out of the box and without any issues, is largely thanks to valve.

If the dev doesn’t opt to implement steams drm, you can also just run the exe. Downloading it requires the client vs. GOG allowing you to dl the game from their website, but that’s about the only difference (GOG outright refusing any games with DRM is incredibly based though and a great reason to buy on GOG over steam)

And that can be quite helpful. Just yesterday I had a game that wouldn’t launch via steam, but for some reason worked fine if I just ran it as an executable via protontricks.

Steam also offers DRM, it’s just up to devs to use it. And steams DRM is relatively unintrusive.

I think steam should maybe be in the middle, and the other 2 far on the left.

For us they just make the people that click them do some online training. I don’t think anyone learns anything during that but I suspect not having to do the training serves as a great incentive to be careful.

It doesn’t help though that we’ve had multiple cases of obvious phishing mails everyone just deleted that were followed up by a “no those mails were legit please click the link” by HR…

The order thing is very debatable tbh, I generally agree that going in origin culture order is better (easier to keep consistent imo), but there are at least a lot of japanese artists that swap the name order when romanized. (And I don’t think I’d care if someone swapped my name order when speaking chinese).

Missing the “Sau” (no idea if Sau Lan is one name romanized as two words or two names) feels like a product of ignorance and pretty disrespectful though, yea.

The original audio after mastering is also still called a master, but I haven’t seen anyone complain about that. And that (as well as the same meaning for other media) is the word that the branch name master came from, so etymology can’t really be an argument there (though I also think etymology is terrible reasoning for renaming something in general).

There’s also the possibility of having genuinely good intent, but still speaking entirely from your own conjecture of what might make others uncomfortable.

Ultimately, you should always talk to the people actually affected and take action based on that. But anyone can and should start the initiative when they think something is harmful.

If the character’s ethnicity isn’t directly relevant to the story or its message, why does it matter? People of all kinds of heritage live just about anywhere in the world, so a character being from some country doesn’t have to determine their ethnicity.

Holy confidently incorrect

LLMs aren’t generating the images, when “using an LLM for image generation” what’s actually happening is the LLM talking to an image generation model and then giving you the image.

Ironically there’s a hint of truth in it though because for text-to-image generation the model does need to map words into a vector space to understand the prompt, which is also what LLMs do. (And I don’t know enough to say whether the image generation offered through LLMs just has the LLM provide the vectors directly to the image gen model rather than providing a prompt text).

You could also consider the whole thing as one entity in which case it’s just more generalized generative AI that contains both an LLM and an image gen model.

It’s a great tool for the right tasks. What’s annoying is that it’s marketed as being a great tool for tasks it can barely do.

It has really sped up the process of writing things in languages I’m unfamiliar with. All the stupid little mistakes it will find much faster than trying to google them. As long as you’re critical of the answers I also found it pretty good at explaining how to do things. It will often get some details wrong but as long as you have general programming ability and access to documentation you can usually figure those out somewhat easily.

I mean yea that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest honestly, even outside of the number itself being pretty meaningless in the first place it’s very fuzzy what the actual dates are.

Average. It’s just an average. I haven’t verified whether the number is accurate (and often it’s probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.

The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.

I never even thought it was that deep (idk if in other countries ppl go over it in school or something, I first heard of it online) so I never really understood how people are relating it to any economic system. All it’s saying to me is that one bad actor can be enough to ruin something for everyone - as far as I’m concerned it’s just prisoners’ dilemma in a larger group. So we need some way of enforcing that, if a shared ressource is vulnerable to singular bad actors (which isn’t all of them, e.g. some people abusing welfare doesn’t suddenly skyrocket costs), it won’t be abused.

Edit: just realized I forgot whether tragedy of the commons was about some few fucking up the pasture for everyone, or everyone slightly overusing it. The latter is ofc a bit different, but “ah I can cheat the system a little, I need it after all” isn’t an uncommon sentiment. That one usually just means you need a bit of a buffer, though, because most people won’t grossly abuse something. (And of course, it’s still quite independent of economic systems - regional software pricing for example is ultimately a capitalist thing to sell more, and yet would fall under this as it’s usually possible to get these prices from other regions.)

Yes, but that doesn’t make the comparison to all countries with over 500 000 people meaningful. It’s specifically that part that seems dishonest to me.

Though I suppose it is also possible that the full data has a few states where incarceration rates are more around the global average, which then would actually have a point in including other countries. Those weren’t part of the image posted here though (which was also dropped without context as to why it was posted)

Edit: yknow it occured to me i could click the link and yea, some states are indeed more normal, though still kinda high. That’s really the interesting part far more than the top of the list.

Yes, but that is not how the graph is framed. It’s framed as “look, if we put US states on a graph with other countries, they have such a high incarceration rate that there are almost no countries even on the graph!”

If it was honest and just trying to compare the incarceration rate of US states amongst each other (and the national average) it wouldn’t be titled “[…] in U.S. states and all countries […]”. It’s a clearly manipulative title.

The reason that a graph with this title could maybe make a point if it was absolute numbers is that most U.S. states’ population is less than most countries, so if individual states were still high on such a graph, that would be shocking.

They are, and I agree it’s misleading. It’s implying that it’s somehow shocking that the individual states of the county with the highest incarceration rate in the world also have a high incarceration rate. If it was absolute numbers, it would maybe make a point. As it is, it’s stating the extremely obvious and framing it as “look, it’s even worse than you thought”.

Oh damn. Very good article btw.

According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it’s likely that those costs will increase further.

It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation.

This pace is so clearly unsustainable it’s horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it’s worse than I thought.

Using it, not all that energy intensive (one llm use is roughly the same as 3 pre-ai-bullshit google searches iirc). Training it, very energy intensive.

Yes it would but we haven’t even replaced all our previous needs with renewables so it aint helping.