I can't control that you saw my comments seconds after they were posted but before the 20-30s it takes for me to edit them. There is nothing i changed that drastically for you to imply I was being deceptive.
And your comment was unnecessarily patronizing IMO. Do you think they needed that today?
If you don’t want people to respond to your takes then don’t post them in public forums. I am critiquing your stance. If it’s overly aggressive than I apologize for the tone.
I understand AI evangelists - which you may or may not be idk - look down on us Luddites who have the gall to ask questions, but you seriously can’t see any potential issue with this technology without some sort of restrictions in place?
You can’t see why people are a little hesitant in an era where massive international corporations are endlessly scraping anything and everything on the Internet to dump into LLM’s et al to use against us to make an extra dollar?
You can’t see why people are worried about governments and otherwise bad actors having access to this technology at scale?
I don’t think these people should be locked up or all AI usage banned. But there is definitely a middle ground between absolute prohibition and no restrictions at all.
When you say “normal coffee maker“ are you just referring to a drip/pot? Because honestly, Keurigs take up less space and require less work so if you’re going to do the drip coffee route, then you may as well just do Keurig (sustainably). The results are basically the same.
Because a lot of people depend on references from their previous job, including their managers and such, for the next one. Burning that bridge because you wouldn’t spend your last few weeks at the company doing what was asked of you is not a good look. It makes you appear difficult/like you hold grudges. It also might cost you things like your severance.
If it’s that important to you to flip a middle finger to your previous employer then go ahead, but I think most people will decide the cons vastly outweigh the pros. Especially since that person will get trained anyway so you can’t even meaningfully change things.
One thing that really soured my taste with Andromeda was the very clunky, but for some odd reason still necessary platforming. It always ground things to a halt for me and reminded me I was playing a video game, which is not a fun feeling. Like recognizing that actors are on a set in the middle of the movie.
They also did not really explore what different species could look like. It just felt like any group I could’ve seen in the Milky Way when they had given themselves an excuse to do literally whatever they wanted. Like halo 4 choosing to have me fight the not-covenant again after 3 rounded the story out and gave them a mechanism for dropping the chief literally anywhere at any time.
I also found most of the squadmates to not be very memorable. It felt like they were going out of their way to make sure they didn’t resemble any of the previous ensembles.
That being said, I think the game did an incredible job of not falling into the usual paradigm of “this is the good option, this is the bad option.” There was a lot more nuance to some of the decisions and it really had me stopping and thinking about how I wanted to proceed.
Still, I never finished the game. Got several dozen hours and it was enjoyable enough, but a lot of dropped balls.
Like I said in my edit, I’m not entirely defending Bethesda here. I’m just trying to look at this case specifically and not let their entire history color it, as difficult as that may be. FOLON is somewhat turning this into a blame game, where I don’t think anyone’s really at fault except arguably Bethesda in that specific case.
Even with all of that in mind, Bethesda should have been in better communication with modders. There’s no doubt here. They are critical part of the overall success and staying power of their games.
From a business/PR standpoint, Bethesda missed a great opportunity to regain some rapport with the community post-Starfield
They’re saying this will take more than 2 months. They’re upset because it effectively undoes a lot of their work, which sucks, but that was always going to be the case unless bethesda went out of their way like a year ago to tell them what was coming. And remember, these guys aren’t even in the creator club or in any way communicating with Bethesda. I just think it’s a little unreasonable to be so independent while expecting Bethesda to anticipate their very specific needs.
I wish Bethesda did and maybe I’m being too generous but idk. Just not really sure I am 100% sympathetic to their plight here.
I get this project is a big deal for some folks but having a hard time accepting the argument that I shouldn’t get a better visual/overall game experience because of a mod I’ll never play and their apparent lack of communication with Bethesda. They just expected to be that high of priority? Am I reading this wrong?
Edit: reading through comments I’m a little more sympathetic to modders writ large than I am this team specifically but I get the frustration. Bethesda could’ve done everyone a solid and given a little heads up. Still, it sounds like this project has been massive in scope and basically any changes were going to cause them issues so that’s worth considering here too.
The first sentence of the article establishes my argument
The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
It’s the means of creating their targeted advertising that is in question. Not the act of advertising itself.
You’re arguing as if it says “The EU’s Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and having ads.” I encourage you to read the article If you haven’t already
With automatic transcription and how clean their audio is, there is no excuse for their not to be a full transcript on that page. ADA (and international equivalents) needs to be taken more seriously.
It’s not about the advertising. It’s that you have to pay money to opt out of their aggressive data collection. The advertising is just one thing they do with your data.
The EU's Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
If your bar is “we only have rights when it comes to things that we can’t live without“ then not only are you creating your own arbitrary standards that is not reflected in our society, but you should be angry if you think that’s how things work.
You have rights dude. Stop trying to win an online argument/defending business in such a bizarre way. There are limits to what they can do whether they re essential services or not.
Besides, you have kind of lost the thread here. It’s not about whether or not they can advertise or charge. It’s about how they collect and use your data in service of advertising (and more). It’s in the first sentence of the article.
The EU's Data Protection Board (EDPB) has told large online platforms they should not offer users a binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising.
Facebook is free to have an ad tier and a pay tier. It’s about the data they collect and how it’s used.
You are presenting a false dichotomy and ads do not have to infringe on your privacy to the degree Facebook does it. There are gradients.
You’re reducing these arguments so much they’re losing the nuance that warrants the entire discussion. You’re also calling me childish to boot, which doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of this conversation
Now that is interesting, I've never heard this consideration before.