I agree with Pelley and think showing the violent side of the protests was the right decision. Consider the alternative: Let's say you decide not to show that. You show people the "average" view, scrub anything that looks like an outlier, and you show that on TV. Someone watches it, gets some info, and then they go to work the next day with their MAGA-hat wearing coworker and they discuss what was on the news last night. One guy saw scenes of peaceful crowds in colorful costumes waving signs and on the other watched Fox News and got scenes of things on fire, mob violence, chaos, etc. Both of of them can now credibly believe the other is being lied to. The 60 Minutes viewer may even begin to wonder "hey, why didn't I see that on the news?" Viewers are going to encounter people telling them that the protests are violent. They need to be equipped with the reality of what that violence is to the extent that it truly exists to be able to put it in context. What you're essentially doing is telling people not to believe their lying eyes. They see something that is real (regardless of how representative it is) and you're saying that can't be shown because it tells the wrong story and pushes the wrong narrative. Is the purpose of news to tell people the right stories? Showing things that are real isn't lying. Not showing something and then lying about it is fake.
So which countries' laws is Steam supposed to ignore? Who is going to make that decision and how is that determination made? Do you have any sort of legal guidelines that Steam could follow for determining which laws in particular can be ignored? Should they do the same for US laws they don't like at the risk of being fined, sanctioned, or imprisoned? This whole "you ought to take a stand" business is ridiculous. It is the very bottom rung of slacktivism.
I read the linked Kotaku article but I'm still unclear here. Russia goes to Steam and says "XYZ game violates our laws", Steam delists the game and sends a message to the developer telling them the game is delisted. Steam does nothing to punish the developer. The games in question are still available everywhere else. Literally no one is hurt (except Russian yuri fans who (still?) don't have a VPN). How would you expect this to go over? What would have been the better way to handle it? I've never released a game on Steam but presumably developers have some sort of choice or control over where their games are listed and this person checked a box somewhere that effectively said "sell my game in Russia, I certify that this complies with all laws blah blah blah". Steam is not going to send a lawyer to Russia on behalf of some indie VN dev to argue a case to argue that Her Love, Like Poison should be legal. For one, that's the dev's job, no Steam's. For two, it's pointless because Russia is an absolute monarchy with no actual rule of law. For three, as unjust and stupid as the laws may be, yeah these games very clearly do violate them. Steam isn't in the business of deciding whose laws are worth complying with and whose aren't. Maybe the dev should just change the storefront art for these games to include a subtitle like "Too sexy for Russia!" Maybe it'll drum up sales, and given that these games are so small that they don't even generate one one review per day normally every little bit would help.
Kudos to you for pulling apart a genuinely interesting story. That was a fun read.
Chinese people work average 50-hour weeks for half the wages Americans receive (or less). This data comes from the state itself, meaning it's as trustworthy as they want it to be. Unemployment is high, staggeringly high (15-20%) among non-students in their 20s. I don't know what information source you are using to develop the view of China as a workforce that you have but you may want to question it. Anecdotally, from conversations with my Chinese friends and family, the work culture in China is extremely high pressure and the rewards (if you can call them that) are not starving. People are expendable cogs in the machine and easy to replace. If there's a reason that AI automation isn't taking hold there in quite the same way it's that the labor it would be replacing is so inexpensive that it already challenges the ultra-low rock-bottom introductory pricing that most AI companies are charging. Why pay $5 in tokens to perform a task when a human will do it for $2.50 because the alternative is unemployment?
If there's one good thing left about the United States it's that our system is remarkably good at peaceful transfers of power. It's extremely unusual for power to trade hands between parties so regularly in a country without bloodshed. Yes, I realize we got close in 2021 and we had that little dust up in the 1860s, but on the whole the track record is very good. I think of all the systems that are most capable of purging a corrupt oligarchy without civil war the US is pretty high on the list. China might be dead last on that list. Nothing is going to happen in the middle kingdom without a tank driving over the corpses of hundreds of people.
If you, like me, believe that AI is going to have an important role in the futureWhat if you don't believe AI is going to be that important in the grand scheme of things but also don't think the fascist goon squad should be threatening people who refuse to swallow their slop willingly?
I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Flowers is on the take in some capacity. No one goes that crazy about how their employer spends its money unless they've got something to lose.
And while I am a fan of all of these incremental preservation efforts, the copyright fight is the real fight.I agree completely. All this other stuff feels like people pretending trying to do something even if that something is entirely useless and ineffective. Real copyright reform is needed and it should be targeted directly rather than these little culturally downstream problems.
A part of me is positively excited for the prospect of a major government official (or even the president himself~) being forced to show up to trial and defend themselves pro se because they cannot find a qualified lawyer willing to do the unethical or illegal things they demand. I'm not against bad people having lawyers. The right to counsel is a sacred hill that should be defended, but you have a right to waive your rights, and some of these meatheads strike me as exactly the sort of idiots that would choose that.
Ranked choice voting is close to ideal for final elections, but I don't know how much sense it really makes for primaries. If you ask me (you didn't, but hypothetically), RCV is sort of an antidote to the two party system in general. Primaries are stupid because not everyone participates in them. Instead of choosing the most generally electable person, parties pick out the person who most appeals to their own craziest zealots.
Maybe they can crudely photoshop "ISIS" onto his knuckles or something, or worse "I♥NY".
I am not dishonest. If you want to think me stupid you are welcome to do that, but I would appreciate if you didn't disparage me personally in that way. We're all human beings behind these computer screens after all and that comment you made comes off as extremely crass and rude. My point is precisely that no one is liable for what chatbots choose to say. No one at OpenAI is directly pulling the strings to make ChatGPT give terrible advice to people. They've simply made a (very fancy) random word generator. Like the Magic 8 Ball comparison that I made, the creators could never envision the sorts of questions that would be asked of their product. Of the choices they made, none of them were to purposely (or even recklessly) mislead people. People misled themselves. I chose a Magic 8 Ball comparison because it reduces the argument to its most elemental form and is obviously absurd. Anyone who seriously considers the advice of a Magic 8 Ball is a fool; but even if fools exist, the fault for their foolishness lies with them alone, not with the specific inanimate objects that might have fooled them. A doctor who diagnoses patients using a Magic 8 Ball is an irresponsible quack; but even if quacks exist, the fault for their quackery lies with them alone, not with the tools they used to perpetrate it. The unifying theme here should be clear: The people who act irrationally or out of line with their responsibilities are the ones who should suffer the consequences. Seeking serious advice from ChatGPT (or any LLM) is as bad of an idea as asking a Magic 8 Ball. That's my central point. But unless you are a doctor or a lawyer or some sort of regulated-advice profession then giving bad advice is not illegal, no matter how unwise following it may be.
Who are you arguing against? When did I ever advocate for LLMs to write code? I, for one, think that's a terrible idea, like getting mental health counseling from a plastic toy.
Is Mattel liable for the advice a Magic 8 Ball gives? What if I ask the Magic 8 Ball "should I kill myself?"
This is a man so execrable he was impeached by his own party. Republicans cannot stand him.
But then I remember what most people buy at the grocery store.Whole grain organic gluten free non-RBST keto free range vegan milk from cruelty free chickens?
What I want to know is why even bother with all this? Why not just go up to Scott Bessent and say "Yo, stamp me a trillion dollar coin or you're fired."? If you're going to steal money from the treasury and you don't care how brazenly criminal it looks, why even bother with the lawsuit against yourself? Does Trump even need a billion dollars? What for? He can already hand out unlimited patronage to anyone he likes or allow them to brazenly steal on his behalf and then pardon them. His allies are clearly not in need of cash flow, so what gives? If I had to guess, it's part of his usual smoke screen to keep the press busy with a new outrage. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's different from last week's outrage. This will be long forgotten by next week when he threatens to bomb New York City or something.
We have always been at war with East Asia.
The overwhelming majority of LEOs don't murder people either. Does that mean we shouldn't look too closely at the ones who do because it unfairly paints the lot of them and advances the agenda of shadowy OTHERS? That argument goes both ways.