TwilightVulpine

Apparently this isn’t standard anymore, and I can see how developers don’t like it, but an antitrust lawsuit over this just seems poorly justified. For whoever doesn’t want to sell on Steam under their conditions, there is Epic, GOG, Humble and ItchIO. Maybe those don’t sell as well, but that’s the choice the company is making.

I don’t think being the largest store by itself is grounds for this sort of legal action. Especially not when they became the biggest store simply by providing good services for a good price, rather than any sort of restrictions at companies publishing in it.

It shows that companies are regarded above customers when every console is a closed ecosystem with a single store, no sideloading support, but nobody challenges that.

They did release Receiver 2 a couple years ago

It could be as simple as “Don’t Tread on Us” but it’s not. To be fair, the wording doesn’t necessarily imply a selfish attitude, but the ones waving a flag definitely do,

The emphasis is on “Me”

We should have noticed from how much he tries to hold onto people from a distance.

As I live on through life I realize that having too much sympathy for people who are fully willing to ruin your life is a bad thing actually.

Algorithms are incredibly bad for organic relationships, you should see the thoughts and events around the people you know when they happen, not when some corporation thinks you should be more receptive. Direct feeds and chatrooms are much better at being social environments.

That said, there is an inevitable parasocial aspect to media and that is not necessarily bad. I don’t want to build a relationship with actors, even thinking that is a possibility is unhealthy. I just want to see their work for entertainment, and the same applies for many artists and influencers for social media. For that purpose, it wouldn’t be too bad to have algorithms, as long as users could tweak them to their own liking. That would help a lot with discoverability.

The problem is that these algorithms are 100% obscured and driven by company interests, such as getting people to scroll forever (and see more ads) by shoving posts which elicit outrage at their face. Even though there are issues I care deeply about, in algorithm driven social media I got into the habit of just skipping and muting whatever is too revolting, because if I so much as browse it too much, they start to show solely that sort of misery, all the time. It’s just bad for people’s sanity and it doesn’t even help anyone at the end of the day.

Not at all. The number of movies in Netflix has shrunk over the years. You could technically argue that it’s trending up again, but it’s not even close to how many they had in the early 2010s, and it’s not even debatable that many movies and series were taken away so that studios would put it in their own streaming services. There was a lot of Disney and Marvel stuff on Netflix that was taken away, as an example.

Oh my fucking god!

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

How many times are you going to try to bring it back around the same thing that I already responded to.

Streaming services are a worse deal by losing shows and movies that they already had and splitting off into several services. They didn’t use to be like cable, and having a lot of stuff was their advantage, because there is no schedule limitations. A service that had everything has a bunch of stuff each person won’t care about, and it still would have everything everyone would ever want. Priced reasonably, it wouldn’t be an issue specifically as streaming.

I dunno what’s your deal with cable that you want to insist in calling out hypocrisy that doesn’t even apply? If you love cable, keep your cable.

I literally just responded to this. The comment you are responding to is about what’s the difference and why this is not the issue with streaming.

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

Netflix used to be priced affordably and have nearly everything. We are seeing now with services being split and prices rising that it doesn’t cost more because it has more shows, just on the contrary. It costs more because they think they can charge more and get us to subscribe to multiple services that offer less.

It’s like you picked the single sentence that doesn’t address that exact point to quote.

I literally just responded to this.

The difference is that in cable TV you are beholden to their schedule. You might subscribe to a channel that has exactly what you want and still be unable to watch it because you are not free at that time.

If stream had everything in one single service, who cares that it also has stuff that you don’t have any interest in? You could spend every moment watching just the thngs that you want to, there was no downside to having things you don’t care about. It’s such an archaic mindset to assume the price is bound to potential availability on an on-demand service.

Netflix used to be priced affordably and have nearly everything. We are seeing now with services being split and prices rising that it doesn’t cost more because it has more shows, just on the contrary. It costs more because they think they can charge more and get us to subscribe to multiple services that offer less.

Nah, Netflix used to have nearly everything, and then it got split into like a dozen different services.

I used to like YouTube, but between the constant increase in number and length of ads, as well as how they keep stifling creators by restricting the language they can use and the topics they can cover, it seems like anything good there exists in spite of the company rather than because of it.

I would like to ignore it but after seeing internet stupidity manifesting into real world political lunacy, it would be nice to have an option that addresses the root of the problem better than just individualy disengaging.

Responding to manufactured outrage is a mistake, but ignoring it would only work if everyone did that. When does that ever happen? Ultimately, that only preserves your own peace of mind. That is, assuming you won’t be the target of the political nonsense brewing.

That’s definitely something to consider. Psychological support helps people with coping but it doesn’t remove the trauma. Anyone willing to do this sort of work deserves to be very well compensated.

But all that said, it isn’t even unique to AI that there is a need for people to sift through the worst stuff imaginable to prevent everyone else from being exposed. All user-generated internet content has that problem.

They can leave the job but they will still carry the psychological scars from it. They were not receiving adequate mental health support for the severity of the content they had to deal with.

It will be Super Green!

A histogram cannot output similar images, it’s pointless to argue the fine details of an analogy that doesn’t apply to begin with

To call it “stealing” might be inaccurate, but are the artists wrong to say that their intellectual property rights are being violated, when people using their works without consent to train AIs with the express purpose of replicating those artists’ works? I have seen several artists pointing out AI users who brag to them that they are explicitly training AIs using those artists’ galleries and show that it’s outputting similar works.

The reason why Copyright even exists, at least ideally, is so that the rights and livelihood of artists is protected and they are incentivized to continue creating.

Case in point. That’s not why copyright exists. The reason for the American version of copyright is established right in the constitution: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts”.

How is it “promoting the progress of useful arts” not the same as “incentivizing artists to continue creating”? Are you going to argue what’s “useful”? If there is interest in replicating artists’ styles with AI, then that is an admission the people doing it see use in those works. Otherwise, it’s the same, and protecting their livelihoods through the privilege of a temporary intellectual monopoly is how that promotion of arts is done.

I definitely see the value of the Public Domain, but if expanding it at any cost was the primary goal of copyright we wouldn’t have roughly century-long copyright. Which I don’t think is good per see but that’s another discussion. Still, the existence of copyright at all is a concession that grants that for artists and creators to develop their works and ultimately enrich humanity’s culture, they need to be able to control their works and have a guarantee to a stable career, to the extent that they can sell their own work. It’s a protection so that not everyone can show up imitating that artist and undercut them, undermining their capability to make new creative works. Which is what many people have been doing with AI.

If anything that could enrich the Public Domain was enough reason to drop Copyright, we wouldn’t have any Copyright. The compromise is that Public Domain as a whole will be enriched when the artist’s Copyright expires.