But why are you obsessed with telling others what they should put in their bodies? This is a really strange impulse.
The army is built around the concept of telling people who to kill, but you draw the line at telling people what to do to effectively fulfil that purpose?
If this age-gating purgatory comes to fruition in a broad sense, it's also going to push websites that could potentially be labelled "fit for age-gating" deeper into the dark, even if the content is completely benign.
And then in a few years, we'll have politicians starting another social panic over "harmful" sites that they can't age-gate.
The reality is that scientific journal publications and retractions are ROUTINELY political.
No, they're routinely scientific. Politics rears its head every now and then, but it's not the routine.
So yes, his concern is completely valid.
No. RFK has no background in anything that would make his concern valid, especially when he's demanding an explanation for something that has already been explained.
If anything, the publisher's reason for retracting the "study" is what's valid.
There is (sadly) basically NO scientific validity conferred by journal publication, which is why pre-print servers are a thing.
That depends entirely on the journal in question. If something is published in journals such as Nature or JAMA, it has enormous scientific validity.
That Biden was senile, it was very obvious to even casual observers (meaning the public) and that a wide swath (very liberal) MSM covered it up?
Sure, Biden was not fit for office in his last term.
But if conservatives were so mad about that, how come none of you are commenting on Trump's obvious mental degradation and the complete lack of commentary on it from right-wing media?
To put it another way, why are you such fucking hypocrites?
I didn't say they're supposed to list every single covered entity, but lists like this tend to have the most well-known examples, so it seems odd that an almost infamous platform like Discord isn't on it if this is "for the children".
I dunno. You say they’re in 3rd- but Sony is also retrentching on exclusives in the face of struggles, and Nintendo never left. As much as I absolutely hate exclusives, the lesson seems to be console makers tried less exclusivity, and got burned for it.
I'm not sure about how Microsoft did it, but Sony "got burned" because their reduced exclusivity was in the form of releasing Playstation titles for PC 18-24 months after initial release. That's not a likely recipe for successful crossplatform revenue.
Does it actually maximize sales (or rather, profit) though? The catch-22 as a console maker has always been that selling more games has to offset lower sales on hardware and locking people into an ecosystem.
For Xbox/Microsoft as a publisher, it certainly seems intuitive that releasing a game on as many platforms as possible leads to more people having access to it, and in turn more sales.
Discord would fall under the designation given for the law, but despite how popular and "controversial" it's been for the past year or so, it's odd that it's not part of the "the ban will include" list.
That’s why you get myths like trans surgeries make the victims happier (provably false, now)
Okay, so post the proof.
that climate change is primarily human caused despite basically none of the models being predictive.
Models being predictive or not is irrelevant to proving that climate change is currently happening primarily because of humans.
You really ought to self-censor when you don't know what you're talking about.
I could understand the skepticism if this was written by a big tech executive, but it's coming from an organization that tends to understand the intersection of tech and law.
And as he points out, the issue isn't that the big companies probably couldn't throw money at the problem to fix it(or get around it); it's that the small AI developers don't have the money to throw at the problem. So it would further entrench AI development powers for Big Tech.
The point isn't whether there is or isn't GenAI content in the final game, it's that Kotaku decided to call it GenAI slop with no evidence of what GenAI has even been used for in the development process.
If this age-gating purgatory comes to fruition in a broad sense, it's also going to push websites that could potentially be labelled "fit for age-gating" deeper into the dark, even if the content is completely benign. And then in a few years, we'll have politicians starting another social panic over "harmful" sites that they can't age-gate.
I didn't say they're supposed to list every single covered entity, but lists like this tend to have the most well-known examples, so it seems odd that an almost infamous platform like Discord isn't on it if this is "for the children".
Discord would fall under the designation given for the law, but despite how popular and "controversial" it's been for the past year or so, it's odd that it's not part of the "the ban will include" list.
And if there's no record, or worse, conflicting records of those dates?
I could understand the skepticism if this was written by a big tech executive, but it's coming from an organization that tends to understand the intersection of tech and law. And as he points out, the issue isn't that the big companies probably couldn't throw money at the problem to fix it(or get around it); it's that the small AI developers don't have the money to throw at the problem. So it would further entrench AI development powers for Big Tech.
Correction: the current government can't do anything well.
The point isn't whether there is or isn't GenAI content in the final game, it's that Kotaku decided to call it GenAI slop with no evidence of what GenAI has even been used for in the development process.
Maybe ICE officers shouldn't be actually killing people, then.