Sex is a scapegoat for implementing surveillance and discrimination systems. The same as every “think of the children” law ever passed.
It’s not about the children, it’s about making it impossible for opponents to justify in the 10 second sound bite that the media allows with no further context whatsoever. And that’s all of the media that 90% of people consume.
They are as far as the shareholders are concerned if Amazon is telling them about different tiers of subscription. The bullshit the company spins is just as, if not more, important than the raw numbers. Especially when companies only report mandated info and the raw numbers they’re referencing aren’t disclosed for comparison.
Statistics is the art of making up a narrative you want to show via numbers, and finding a way to say it exists regardless of reality.
Shareholders are dumb panicky creatures. As long as the numbers aren’t terrible and you say some nice things most of them take it as gospel.
Spinning shit as a positive is a full time career in the corporate world after all.
Subscription info is definitely part of the information provided to investors. The raw numbers may not be in the financial documents, but revenue from subscriptions most definitely is and will give a general idea of changes even if the company doesn’t give the numbers directly.
You’re talking internal accountability. That doesn’t apply at this scale.
The accountability here is to shareholders. And they don’t care about why, just quarterly profits and growth.
Large Shareholders some care about how the line goes up, just that it does. Constantly. Every quarter.
You didn’t like the single musical episode… Yet felt the need to use it as a singled out example of issues with an entire series.
That alone renders your entire comment moot to be honest. It shows you aren’t actually judging things on any sort of standard, just your personal feelings. Which is fine for you, but not at all useful to anyone else.
It also shows you don’t remember half of the older series you seem to be comparing them to, since easily half of TOS, TNG, VOY, and DS9 were filler episodes, with little value beyond just being Star Trek content, and maybe giving some character development if you were lucky.
Yeah I’d rather have each show be its own thing and crossover (where appropriate). There needs to be some oversight of showrunners, but only to prevent egregious things (look at The Witcher show runners clearly wanting to do their own thing and butchering the IP in the process without any apparent oversight).
Not everything will be perfect, and to be honest many of the vocal Star Trek fan thoughts when shows are being released are often terrible takes. A decent number of people vocally hated DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, when they first started airing, some even calling for them to be immediately cancelled, smothered in the crib basically.
Fan reactions online to new shows need to be taken with an entire salt lick, Star Trek doesn’t have a good track record with the vocal fans being an accurate consensus, and the breadth of modern social media just makes it easier for them to vocalize their opinion in multiple places and make their reactions seem larger and more indicative than they are.
At this point the only “issue” with it is power usage versus processing capability. Newer chips can do the same with less power.
The 2600k was exceptionally good and was relevant well past the normal upgrade timeframes.
Really it only got left behind because of its 4C/8T limit as everything started supporting lots of threads instead of just a couple, and just being a 2nd Generation i7.
You’re complaining about a carrier policy, not eSIMs in general. Most carriers don’t have that requirement.
In fact I never even heard of that before, and I’m an American where that’s exactly the type of nickel and dime bullshit they’d do.
So you’re now fully bound to your ISP
Do you think you can only use an eSIM on a locked phone? Physical SIM or not, a carrier locked phone is a locked phone. You can use eSIMs on unlocked phones just fine
their proprietary shit app, and their servers providing you a new SIM instead of just swapping a physical piece of hardware in seconds
The difference is you don’t have to physically go someplace to get a card or have one shipped to you. You just need the Internet and an app.
You’re complaining about semantics with no real difference, just convenience 99% of the time.
Trump 1.0 he was actually there still, easily manipulated but still there. Now he’s just a puppet with dementia.
So nice of them to help with Spotify’s off-site backup.
Most of the major software development tools have some form of AI-based assistance features now. And the room those, be nearly all have those assistance and completion features enabled by default.
If you want absolutely no AI in your games, then you need to verify all of those functions were disabled for the entire development time. And you have no way to verify that.
Depends on the exact scenario.
We’re also dealing with language differences. English is not the developer’s first language. What may seem a clear sentence to a native speaker, could be easily misinterpreted/mistranslated to something similar, but different enough that the answer changes.
It seems that the AI use was early in development, and limited to temporary placeholders that were going to be replaced. Since they were patched out within days of release, that seems to imply they already had replacement assets on hand, they were just missed during final checks before release.
The answer from the devs also changed prior to the awards show that implies that they may have had an updated interpretation of the qualification question or answer. If they thought the question was about AI use in the final product, then accidentally missing a placeholder swap shouldn’t be disqualifying. Likewise, early experimentation with the tech and then deciding not to use it probably should not disqualify either. But if the qualification is a hard yes/no with absolutely no context or consideration whatsoever, then that’s a different outcome, and hence them clarifying for the awards team.
Personally I think the hard limit without any room for consideration or interpretation is a shit qualification. Especially considering that isn’t really the case for most awards. Look at the definition of “indie” for example. There’s a half dozen different interpretations people have ranging from having to be self published, avoiding just large publishers, or just the publisher not having creative influence. That’s a lot of interpretation comparatively.
We’re not talking about a development team of 100+ artists here and a company forcing them to work 80 hour crunch weeks leading up to launch like much of the industry.
I don’t know exactly how their 30 or so team members break down for specialties, but I’m willing to bet we’re talking maybe 5 asset artists. Making the tens or hundreds of thousands of concept art pieces, and in game assets. Their time is finite and much better spent working on final assets than making placeholders that will just be replaced later. Experimenting with AI and dripping a placeholder in during month 6 that never gets touched again, and the final asset is made but missed when swapping them in at the end of development isn’t exactly damning
Literally removing work from a human(concept artist)
It’s not really “removing” work from a human, it’s utilizing the time of a very small and limited team more wisely. The AI didn’t replace a human, there was never going to be an additional person hired just to make that placeholder, at worst it just let the existing artists spend more time making final assets.
It was released with the original placeholder AI assets, but patched out within 5 days. It’s pretty clear that they just missed replacing those assets prior to release.
I don’t know exactly which assets, or exactly how many… but from several article it seems one of them was a newspaper only used in the prologue, that no one would notice without directly looking at it up close, which 99.9% of people would never do, and could easily be overlooked doing final testing for game breaking issues prior to release.
And the failure to properly disclose could easily be explained by them messing around. Early in development, deciding not to use AI, and then forgetting about it. Which also explains it being left in for release accidentally. Updated assets were clearly made, just never replaced.
The disqualification had nothing to do with the assets being there for the release, it was solely about development as mentioned in every statement from the awards. Meaning even if it hadn’t been there at release, they still would have been disqualified. Hard criteria like that which disqualifies any sort of context or consideration is not fair. Especially when we’re talking about cutting edge technologies that teams will obviously be experimenting with before making decisions.
Not even. E coli is fucking everywhere. Why that of all things?
That depends on your sorting preference. Several sorting options are very straightforward like top, new, etc.