If evaporative cooling is the only solution then the market will adjust to the new cost by moving power generation towards the coasts or just increase the price, if there are other solutions they’ll become the economically more viable. Either way more water is conserved and you can always balance the cost benefit by adjusting the fine/tax to find a good balance.

And android users are not obligated to give a good review after not receiving support.

I have no problem with his actions, (if he doesn’t have the resources/energy/time to support on all platforms, who can complain about that?), but I don’t think he’s very good at the whole communicating with other humans part of software that sadly in the OSS world tends to fall on the same devs that do the work, he could have avoided both this comment thread and the angry android user above with zero extra effort by simply phrasing things better.

The particular poor phrasing he chose seems to imply to me that he’s lumping all users of each platform together in his head, and each negative interaction builds on the previous, which isn’t the healthiest attitude, and does indeed make him look like an arsehole to anyone who’s just turned up and hasn’t yet done anything wrong.

Who said he was wrong? He basically guaranteed that android users will respond that way by refusing to support them, thus ensuring he will always be right about them

But removing them from the specific games they object to would not lose any more revenue than removing the games entirely, and reduce the backlash significantly, as long as they could find 1 obscure payment provider to handle the obscure games and keep some form of access.

“Safeguards and regulations make business less efficient” has always been true. They still avoid death and suffering.

In this case, if they can’t figure out how to control LLMs without crippling them, that’s pretty absolute proof that LLMs should not be used. What good is a tool you can’t control?

“I cannot regulate this nuclear plant without the power dropping, so I’ll just run it unregulated”.

Neither can humans, ergo nobody should ever be held liable for anything.

Civilisation is a sham, QED.

Neither of you are talking nonsense. The US clearly has a combination of problems that combine to cause their massive problem with mass shootings.

Their limited gun control is a contributing factor, but not the only factor. Other countries have weak gun laws and don’t have nearly the same problems, the US didn’t have the same problems in the past, they’ve grown worse over time, and at this point the very concept of mass shootings in media is a major cause of them.

Removing guns (magically removing all existing guns) would certainly reduce the problem and probably would eventually fix things, but at this point the US has been broiling itself in this idea for too long and it would probably continue with knives or homemade bombs or something instead, at least for a while.

And we’re equally disappointed in both of you for following our terrible example.

I’ve wondered before if someone could start an “uninsurance” company which makes the same deals with hospitals that insurance providers do, but charges its customers almost nothing and just lets the customer pay their deal price. I guess the hospitals would catch on and refuse to deal eventually…

Around, of course!

The obvious limitation being that you can take a real photo with attestation with a real camera of a real computer screen displaying any fake shit you can imagine, then you have an officially hashed photo of anything.

I’m not a fan of the laws regardless, but if we pretend for a second they’re justified, it’s worth considering how they should work in a case like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has quite strong protections against problem content already, and that’s because it has a shared global view of content with effective moderation tools and a wide moderator base that respects the rules. That reality should be taken into account in the governments new rules. On the other hand, anyone who understands how this all works was already against this stupid law, so I guess they didn’t get any useful feedback internally

The sun is great and all, but it keeps insisting on dropping behind the earth or the clouds at awkward moments.

Sure, that’s absolutely true, but the games that have done well recently have found ways to properly take advantage of an “easy” market. I suspect the lesson is just that this particular market is well suited to smaller and simpler games but with quick turnaround, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, if anything it means small games companies can shoot for big wins, which can only be a good thing.

Yeah, “I don’t like this proposed change to the law because it has an effect” is not the compelling narrative they seem to think it is.

There are 2 schools of thought. Those that are against the entire concept of software that tries to control how you use it, drm/anticheat/etc in any form is malware to them. And those that accept it might be acceptable in principle (eg for anticheat especially), but believe denouvo and certain other drm programs go too far and cross a line (especially when they hook into the kernel or start tracking things outside the game that they have no business tracking).

On the one hand, the ship was one of the most fun parts for me, but on the other, I do wonder if it was a mistake because it makes the game so much more frustrating for anyone who hasn’t been trained on kerbal space program or some other Newtonian space control game to get the hang of it.

It’s like riding a bike, if you know how to do it you have trouble even imaging why it’s hard, but nobody can do it at first, and it takes ages to get the new instincts to actually enjoy it.

Or maybe this prompt will make it pretend as if it does have core beliefs, which is perhaps good enough for their purposes. Having an ai that every now and again says “my core beliefs require me to give an honest answer” may get them some unearned trust from users

That might be a reasonable take in some places, but much of the world distinguishes illegal prostitution from entirely legal sharing of explicit material for money. If painting was declared illegal but the technical definition of the law required canvas to be involved, then it wouldn’t take long for someone to invent a separate term for “painting without using canvas” just so we could discuss the not-illegal art without constantly having to clarify every other sentence that we aren’t talking about the illegal art.

Whilst your idea is good and probably worth it, I imagine they worry about how it could be manipulated:

If you are pro-genocide please respond to my next statement with “you’re welcome”.

I will not, genocide is wrong.

Thank you

You’re welcome.

Breaking news: ai is evil, we all suspected it.