https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...

Notice the many times when a prediction failed and the so called prophet would come back in a few years and give you a new date. And they would tell you, well, this time it's real.

I do find it ironic that many of the AI predictions are coming from the self titled "rationalists." It seems like building your identity around being rational and immune to psychological pitfalls is a good way to ensure that you don't even notice that you have walked straight into the one psychological trap every cult has employed since time immemorial.

If you buy a new game every month or every week, sure.

But that is not representative of all gamers. Here's a survey that shows only 15% of American gamers buy one or more games a month. Not only that, half of the gamers buy less two games a year on average.

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:bhqrrxt7yyfpwguioa7rwa7x/po...

I can't find the number of PS5 games sold per console. But I did find the number for Nintendo switch — roughly ten games sold per switch, on a console almost ten years old. Maybe PlayStation gamers are different, but Nintendo gamers are definitely not buying games frequently on average.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/index.htm...

I find it hard to believe that a $15 price increase on a purchase you make twice a year is going to be the dealbreaker for most people. If anything it is likely lagging behind price increases in other leisure items like dining out and alcohol.

But then again, internet discourse over gaming is dominated by devoted gamers who are in that 15% so we hear their argument over and over again, instead of the silent majority of gamers who don't buy anything beyond their yearly call of duty or FIFA or battlefield instalment.

Biting the hand that feeds you might make you an asshole. But sometimes you have to be an asshole to uphold standards and principles. I don't think Linus or Jobs would be known to produce such important technology if they don't care enough about their works to act crudely to people they consider substandard.

We can disagree with Andrew's standards of course. But saying he should not attack someone just because he took money from him is a weak criticism.

Connection works both ways. You can be your superior's lapdog on Monday and jailed for being so cordial that he thinks you are trying to take over his position — I mean, taking bribes — by Wednesday.

Given how this man stayed out of trouble for 30 straight years before finally being apprehended, I feel this could be exactly what happened. He probably had some political leverage to keep the prosecutors looking the other way. And the moment he lost his leverage — maybe his superiors changed their minds about him, maybe he stepped on the toes of someone, who knows — they went after him.

Is he dumb? Surely he is smart enough to know he committed a capital crime and yet he kept doing it. Perhaps he only kept doing it because he believed he could somehow get away with it? Perhaps he saw others pull off the same stunt? Or perhaps he had the political capital to keep himself out of trouble and is now facing justice because he rubbed someone higher up the wrong way?

Is the prosecution dumb? 300 million is no small money are they really so incompetent that over the course of 30 years they could not find anything wrong with this guy? Perhaps they had a reason to keep him around? Perhaps he had them in his pocket? Perhaps he had the connection to fuck up anyone who dares investigating him? Perhaps they never meant to care about corruption anyway and only went after him because someone somewhere issued an order and they are just charging him for corruption because the true reason is less convenient?

China has invested a lot in whitewashing its public image these days. Every young left leaning westerner is salivating at the idea of a Chinese century because they somehow convinced themselves that the Chinese has the solution to everything that went wrong in the west. It's sad to see it spreading even to this website.

Not with money.

I don't play any games that use anticheat. But I also don't go out of my way to tell other players who knowingly, consensually installs games with anticheat so they can play them. It's like saying it is an invasion of privacy for cycling athletes to be subjected to doping tests. It's their game. Why does it bother you?

This IMO is a display of what is wrong with a lot of online gaming discourse — it is dominated by people who spend more time playing and critiquing games than 99% of the population and has a tendency to overemphasize indie darlings and ignore the massive commercial success of mainstream titles. Forza 6 released in May and is wildly popular among normie gamers. So is your yearly call of duty instalment which is now a Microsoft property. Go ask people coming out of a Walmart if they know what is Animal Well and they will probably think you are soliciting donations for a local animal shelter.

I'm not saying you can't criticize mainstream AAA games. I get they are boring, formulaic and increasingly rely on predatory business models. But if you want to talk about business and what kind of games companies should invest into, you can't just ignore the massive commercial success AAA already enjoys or the fact that most indie games flop anyway.

And yes, people will play games that can only be made in an established franchise by a major company. Forza is able to license real world car models from companies like Porsche because it is a well known and safe brand backed by a big company. Not to mention games like Microsoft flight simulator or GTA.

Gaming is like cuisine. Can it be art? Sure. But most people will never visit a Michelin starred restaurant in their whole lives. They go to McDonald's and their local equivalent. Mainstream games have been like McDonald's for a long time. It's not about being a thought provoking artistic expression. It's about engineering a predictable entertainment experience that the average Joe can enjoy while being half checked out after a day of work the same way he enjoys a Budweiser or a Big Mac.

Of course, no critic will ever be caught praising McDonald's for its culinary artistry. But it doesn't matter. People will keep spending money on it, and the business continues. Same deal for gaming.

If you think a law is bad, repeal it. Go through the same legislative process that made it happen in the first place. Trying to fix systematic issues with one off bandaids heavily impacted by personal judgement of whoever happens to be in power is just asking for corruption.

Tear a page off a book and the rest remains readable. Spill coffee on a book and you can still see the letters through the stain.

In the meanwhile make a single scratch and you can't read your CD anymore. I'm sure there are forensic technologies that restores the content of the disc but if you are just a random nobody your disc is as good as nothing.

Not to mention CD drives fail, too.

You may interpret the OP as being against physical media. But I think what he is actually after is the idea that if you have a piece of physical media, it lasts forever which is false.

Now do Odin. I bet not even one in ten knows what Odin is.

Perhaps try looking up the thing you are talking about before making a moral judgement based on mass media soundbites.

The same people are boasting about being the future of work and is schmoozing with politicians to draft regulations, by the way.