As a software dev I wonder how does this even happen?
It’s incredible how incompetent Microsoft is.
So fighting inequality with more inequality? Doesn’t sound like that would work no matter how you justify it.
I’m a feminist and I honestly don’t understand this mentality. Mixing genders in all activities is good for our society, period.
So? Are we supposed to have a fair, equal society or are we playing these games of measuring each other’s cocks?
So AI controlled photoshop is ok?
I think the standard is set on wrong metric. Slop is slop and it doesnt matter how ot was brewed be it asset steal or lazy ai
Chinese cemeteries are notoriously wasteful. Thousands and thousands of identical plots where each plot averages like 4m² or more in rural areas. And nobody actually visits these. I used to live close by next to one in Thailand and it was such a waste though personally I have a sweet spot for cemeteries so I didn’t mind.
quotes a concept about property from 1850s
Lmao sorry for not being able to take this seriously
Is it? This dichotomy seems incredibly artificial and unsustainable.
False equivalence - not even going to entertain you with a reply, it’s absolutely pointless bye.
Yet none of that can be interpreted as “all property is theft” unless you redefine what “property” itself means which is a terrible strategy for advertising Anarchy.
In Thailand (and Vietnam, Philippines) where I often live plastic recycling is basically non existent and I think it’s a good thing, let me explain.
The value of plastic and recyclability is really low but exposure overhead is massive (thrash being lost to ocean etc) and after visiting a trash burning facility myself I’m completely converted to trash burning. On paper plastic recycling make sense but it so low value with absurdly high overhead - just getting plastic straight to the incinerator as fast as we can is the best thing we can do imo.
As for other materials like aluminum it’s very recycled everywhere I’ve been as it pays very decent money.
Yes, a consumer criticizing a process they don’t understand invalidates their criticism.
At the end of the day I don’t have much trust in a consumer being a good custodian of market ethics in general, especially in gaming where AI use is really at the bottom of the list of ethical issues. To me this seems like a pop culture fixation rather than a rational decision making.
Anarchists believe that “all property is theft”? Lol
US will never live this period down. These dudes are such losers that it’s a historical event in it’s own right.
All private property is theft? Lmao go back to your cave tankie
Fun fact: you can literally go to prison in the US for breaking ToS due to various laws like CFFA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). So if the teen broke the ToS to any way that harms OpenAI (like killing himself) OpenAI actually has a legal path to criminally prosecute him lmao
The entire law stack is just broken.
I agree the AI hate is becoming a satire of itself. What could be an interesting, meaningful discussion is impossible to have because anti AI peoppe just yell with their ears covered.
You’re building a strawman as thats not what I said. Consumers fundamentally don’t understand the process, period.
I make casual games and most of the time you are looking for inspiration by copying stuff - this is a fundamental part of the creative process. But americans are brainwashed by copyright and IP law propaganda into thinking that copying and tool assistance is somehow “impure”.
The public sentiment will grow up and shift and I’m willing to take a long term bet here of real money to prove my point. I’ve been a creative since the 90s and seen this same story a dozen times at least.
That’s really just scratching the surface of what AI is doing these day in creative workflows. All game tests will eventually be replace with AI and tests often drive new feature development. Refactoring of not only code but assets is also done by AI these days.
Reality is that this label is fundamentally unsustainable and will go away anyway. Willing to bet money on this.
but in this example clearly Wikipedia and probably IMDB are not paying them right? Or is it their attempt to disguise selling out by always preferring the buyable option even when it’s at 0$?