Splatoon is great if you have Switches.

Helldivers 2 is PvE but is a great group experience.

Extraction shooters might be a thing? Hunt: Showdown?

Board games have been a pretty effective way to recapture that feeling for me. When a single dice roll or card flip wrecks everyone’s plans and the whole table erupts at once, that’s a good time.

Video games, especially online, feel a little too disjointed these days – like our consciousness isn’t synced up the same way as it is when we all know we’re looking at the same thing at the same time and holding our breath.

They did issue a fix: “Buy a new CPU please!”

That’s why they don’t mind the reputation hit. If 1 person swears allegiance to Intel as a result but 2 people buy new AMD chips, they’re still ahead. And people will forget eventually. But AMD won’t forget the Q3 2024 sales figures.

It’s worth checking out Louis Rossmann’s take too: https://youtu.be/TF4zH8bJDI8

I rarely ever find myself disagreeing with either of them, so this is an interesting situation.

Edit: This is also a good take about live service, separate from the “Stop Killing Games” initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO38QvKraTQ

At the risk of playing into the stereotype: But what about Ut Gravida?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/passout

noun

(in ice hockey) a pass by an attacking player from behind the opposition goal line

Not gold. Australium.

Jesse Ventura

The reason I’m skeptical of a copyright-based solution is that there’s a massive potential for collateral damage.

Like, the overall process of creating ChatGPT is not that different from the process of using ML to analyze how language use has changed over time, which I think is a completely positive thing for humanity and probably doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers.

I’m not sure how you write legislation that zeroes in on the exact harms posed by ChatGPT et. al. but doesn’t endanger these other efforts… and also doesn’t leave open an alternative, indirect route for OpenAI, Stability, et. al. to accomplish the same end goal without technically infringing.

There’s also the “giving a bullied kid more lunch money” criticism that Cory Doctorow is fond of using:

After 40 years of expanded copyright, we have a creative industry that’s larger and more profitable than ever, and yet the share of income going to creative workers has been in steady decline over that entire period. Every year, the share of creative income that creative workers can lay claim to declines, both proportionally and in real terms.

As with the mystery of Spotify’s payments, this isn’t a mystery at all. You just need to understand that when creators are stuck bargaining with a tiny, powerful cartel of movie, TV, music, publishing, streaming, games or app companies, it doesn’t matter how much copyright they have to bargain with. Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving a bullied schoolkid more lunch-money. There’s no amount of money that will satisfy the bullies and leave enough left over for the kid to buy lunch. They just take everything.

Telling creative workers that they can solve their declining wages with more copyright is a denial that creative workers are workers at all. It treats us as entrepreneurial small businesses, LLCs with MFAs negotiating B2B with other companies. That’s how we lose.

Source: https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/

You might be interested to see how FTC Chair Lina Khan thinks about this stuff, from a position which has a great deal of labor and antitrust regulatory power but no say in copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg

You have no idea.

Edit:

I recommend Robert Evans’ analysis of the manifesto and the rest of the AI hype: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/

“We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives,” his manifesto states. “Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder.”

And murder is a sin. The more you dig into Andreessen’s theology, the more it starts to seem like a form of technocapitalist Christianity. AI is the savior, and in the case of devices like the Rabbit, it might literally become our own, personal Jesus. And who, you might ask, is God?

“We believe the market economy is a discovery machine, a form of intelligence — an exploratory, evolutionary, adaptive system,” Andreessen writes.

[…Evans makes a comparison to Scientology, and their belief that those who stand in the way of their “tech” become “fair game”…]

My point is that the goals Andreessen and the e/acc crew champion right now are based in faith, not fact. The kind of faith that makes a man a murderer for doubting it.

Andreessen’s manifesto claims, “Our enemies are not bad people — but rather bad ideas.” I wonder where that leaves me, in his eyes. Or Dr. Roli for that matter. We have seen many times in history what happens when members of a faith decide someone of another belief system is their enemy. We have already seen artists and copyright holders treated as “fair game” by the legal arm of the AI industry.

Who will be the next heretic?

You first, champ.

Maybe we can? Depends what you mean by “all of it”. Care to elaborate?

We desperately need AI regulation, but it needs to be focused on labor rights, privacy rights, and antitrust enforcement. Not copyright and DRM.

Oh hey, a 1-day-old account posting 6 vegan posts in 1 hour to unrelated communities. I’ve seen this one before.

Hell yeah. I will take either or preferably both.

This image is the most Reddit drama I’ve seen on Lemmy in many months. Skill issue?

They spent more than that on status meetings about the project.

Honestly, they should probably leave income alone and just double down on the wealth tax.

Wage-based taxation has always been an awkward way to target the rich.

I have very different feelings about someone from a poor background who went into massive debt to develop their skills and become a top earner vs. someone who inherited a fortune and doesn’t put any effort beyond checking their bank balance periodically.

Plus, there is the “won’t they just leave?” argument. Which is mostly FUD, but in the case where someone’s wealth is based on their skilled labor they do have a much easier time just leaving. If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.