It seems to me that there would have to be some land use agreement for the space the cameras occupy. Going after those might not be w bad call. They’re frequently in public parkways, so I would imagine that a city that is divesting from them might physically kick them off their land when brought to their attention.

Worry is something you do when you fear potential negative outcomes. His is more like falling out of a plane. You dont have to worry about the outcome because the conclusion is forgone.

The ToS already explicitly state that you do not own the content, and now you also have no receipt or proof of ownership even of the license itself. They dont have to worry about the future of media ownership, because this is the present media ownership.

Then it’s a product that this market does not bear. They must tolerate it or make more content.

It seems like a pretty simple fix within the control of the publisher. If your game has less content than will fill the return window, you risk this kind of loss due to the tiny size of your product. It is a product that this market does not bear. Tolerate it or make more content before release.

I think market capture is the core problem. The fact that any of these storefronts can play kingmaker and supreme arbiter of what gets released is what discourages indie releases. We are very lucky that the gaming industry ended up under the stewardship of a relatively benevolent company, but if the global economic stage remains as it is, the minute Gabe dies or relinquishes control of the company, I suspect it will shoot like a bullet to the bottom of the barrel with all the other publishers. It’s not a good situation.

Guess you’ll need to find a bunch of them!

In this case, it seems like the feature was unpopular as well as costing them money to operate. They can still feed all that same data into AI without the feature present.

Its amazing that you can infer my knowledge and actions without knowing or reading about anything I’ve done or said.

Often, the subject of conversations drift or expand to adjacent and related subjects. I have seen so many of these comment police posts trying to constrain the comments to the point where essentially they’re just summarizing the article, and I dont understand why.

In my case, I was replying to the previous poster, not the article. In his case, I dont know what his intentions were, but I also don’t care whether he read it for the context of the tiny thread it was in. I was responding to the comment he made in that thread.

You can even make your own thread if you don’t like this one! Give it a whirl! You can engage with whatever content you want, or make your own. Theres a secret 3rd option, too: you can choose not to engage with it if you dont like it.

I dont think we need 2 comment cops to write us a comment moving violation though. You can cover more ground if you split up and harangue twice as many people at a time.

Youre right; its scraping data owned by someone with lots of money and lawyers.

They sure the LLM didn’t just mis-count the inventory?

I feel like based on recent articles, Microsoft has shed 746% of its workforce over the past 2 years.

I think I get it now. “The year of Linux on the desktop” doesn’t refer to a specific calendar year. Its just how long it takes them to do it.

This is an example of competition working. Normally, an oligopolistic market like this would not have good faith competition, but Valve got rich before they could be corrupted by VC, so they obey the intentions of one crazy entrepreneur, instead of the normal undifferentiated VC behavior.

Steam’s competitors keep trying the VC strategy and it can’t work because Steam exists and, at least while Newell maintains this attitude and control of Valve, don’t do it.

Those are among the plenty that are in the public interest. The whole Information Age would be practically impossible without them. In fact, distributing them would probably make them less efficient.

LLM data centers are the ones that are all the rage lately, and the ones most often being designed using environmentally irresponsible and wasteful technologies, then lobbying for extremely favorable utility rates, foisting the costs on the locals. They’re so far at the forefront of the media that many people think these are the only kind there are.

I think worth and cash flow are too loosely correlated for that to work how youre intending. I’m all for punitive fines for corporate malfeasance, but if they’re based on worth only, a company could easily become insolvent even from fines that aren’t intended to be fatal to them.

If it is based off their cash flow instead and potentially distributed over a period of time, it can do multiple good things at once: force the company to literally pay for the harms it caused, damage their operations enough to financially discourage the behavior, and keep corporate behavior in line through examples without frequently disrupting markets by unduly bankrupting companies.

If a company does end up doing something so bad that it is unforgivable and irreparable, and it’s deemed worthy of destroying them or punishing those responsible directly, I can see the reasoning for that, too. But, I think it would work best if the punishments are dialed in to have the desired result as often as possible. Allowing the possibility of offenders correcting course seems better for everyone while still allowing any victims to get justice.

They aren’t inherently bad, but they are bad when not used and built in the public interest on a planet with runaway greenhouse gas emissions and collapsing ecology.

If someone ever brings up one of those data centers, we can talk about their good aspects. There definitely are plenty, but I don’t think the poster was talking about those.

They’re an embodiment of the tragedy of the commons. Businesses glut up the public spaces beyond their intended capacity and for unintended uses, then do or pay nothing for the degradation they cause.