True but these can be copied exactly an infinite amount of times. Really a game company could start making copies themselves to basically print money. However, if they print too much the price would go down.
Yea definitely. You pay $5 for a loot boxes and potentially win an item worth $1000 in some games. Typically you win some skin worth 5 cents but that doesn't stop people from playing for the $1000 item. When I say $1000 also that is the market value of the item due to rarity of the item. In reality it is worth next to nothing (it's a digital copy) that the company could easily mass produce if they wish. So is that gambling? The results seem like gambling but in reality you only win a few 1s and 0s that someone else doesn't have.
First of all being sexist isn't being a 'bro.' Second of all, in case anybody forgot bro just means brother. It doesn't mean you are excluding anyone or treating people poorly. Even most 'nerds' and woman bro fist because it is a short handshake. Why can't people just call out individual sexist things when they happen than blame "culture." Seriously, let people do what they want and when it becomes a problem handle that one person that is being sexist or assaulting you. No matter where you are "culture" doesn't take precedence over the laws and the laws in the U.S. are pretty damn stringent. This just sounds like someone is upset that others are having fun (I assume having fun is what they mean by bro culture). SJWs always use "bro" as a negative. Remember calling people "Bernie Bros" if you were a man and like Bernie Sanders just because Bernie wasn't a woman like his opponent in the 2016 democratic primary. Now that I've beaten the word "bro" to death, how about we talk more about just sexist culture. Please don't tell me any group that consist of more men than women makes it sexist. This is generally what these journalist use to confirm sexism in tech. Just having a majority doesn't make the majority evil. Every single person who went to college in the 2000s can confirm that if you took a computer science class it was going to be 90% men. I'd bet woman are over-represented in tech based on college graduation rates in computer science, although I don't have statistics handy. My point is the reason for a majority has nothing to do with sexism and being a minority doesn't make you oppressed. Lumping people into groups based on sex or race is wrong, even against the majority.
Every new full moon with an exaggerated name is just s boring as the last full moon. People make it seem huge by taking photos from miles away and using a large zoom but in person it is always just the same size to the naked eye. Please just stop these worthless articles.
I get dance routines being copyrighted but things like the floss are basically only like 4 similar movements being repeated. Is that enough to copyright? Not only that but it's not even another human performing the dance. They made a digital character perform the dance which is essentially a bunch of drawings on a computer screen tied together to appear like movement. In that case isn't a drawing of something materially different from performing a dance move? Can anyone think of any cases where artwork of a copyrighted movement has been tried?
Are most laptops not encrypted by default (behind a password)? Or are they saying that if the person gains access by guessing or brute forcing the password then the files themselves are un encypted?
A game usually has you grind out a "key." That key takes like 24 hours of time spent playing to unlock. However, instead you can just pay $2 and get a key. Consider the key as an in game currency. It may also be an out of game currency because many games and steam allow you to trade items and actually put values on the items. So you spend $2 on a key, and you can open up a box that either has a 1 cent item or a $2000 item. We know the exact values of those items because they are traded or sold on marketplaces for that amount. So, in particular with items that can be traded, it is 100% a form of gambling. I know people who spent hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars on items specifically trying to win and sell the items they won. If that isn't gambling I don't know what is. Now if a game has a loot box item that you can't trade, then is it really gambling because there is no inherent value in the item won? Hard to say, of course you could sell your account but that is typically against a games terms of service.
This should be a good change. One good show from YouTube is a SciFi called Origin. On any other network or Netflix is would probably be reasonably popular but no know even knows it exists because its on YouTube Premium.
I thought these annotations were used sort of as a post uploading editing feature. People always correct what they said, provide links to their new video about a topic or whatever. That said I'm happy to see them go.
There is no doubt they are overcharging by huge factor. Amazon would create a store, like they did for Android, where they charge a much smaller fee to developers but they simply can't. It's hard enough competing on Android for another "store" app besides being completely excluded on Apple or forced to take 30% from your store app's sales.
Everything is true, they already cancelled the construction of two new office buildings in Seattle, that's already hundreds of millions in lost taxes. Obviously Amazon won't be moving their HQ fully out of Seattle until the two new HQs are built and up and running for 5-10 years.
Seattle was making rediculous and unpredictable moves on taxes. First trying to implement a "big company tax" that applied to mostly just Amazon employees, then a sugary drink tax, all while raising current tax rates on everyone and only using the money to attract more homeless into the city. Amazon even cancelled two planned buildings thanks to them. Seattle can kiss hundreds of millions of tax dollars and thousands of good jobs good bye thanks to their horrible city management. Expect to see the rest of the Amazon HQ move away from Seattle at some point.
YouTube took a wrong turn somewhere with it's algorithm. Recommendations have less variety than basic on air tv channels. The algorithm always assumes you want something similar to what you've previously watched which is a major mistake. Yes I watched a clip of a late night talk show. But I don't need late night talk shows recommended to me constantly. Google has the same issue with advertising. Yes I bought a product but I don't need to buy multiple of them so stop advertising it to me constantly for a month afterwards.
I believe the problem with "disinformation and hyper partisan content" is who is deciding what qualifies as such. Major platforms Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter have come under intense criticism for the way they decide what is fake news, whether through algorithms, hiring third parties (that could be partisan), or having real people do the job who mislabeling without consequence and thus preventing people from seeing the news, real or fake. Many reporters believe their real news is being mistakenly called fake or being included in a vague undefined definition of hate speech. The corporations try to use an excess of caution on the subject of hate speech that results in even preventing real statistics from being published by organizations if the statistic includes ethnicity or race in any negative light. While it is not the government doing the limiting, there is an only a handful of large tech corporations that decide how many people you can reach with your message and/or whether your message is appropriate. People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.
This seems like it should already be a law but if not it will really change things a lot. But wow I bet thousands of company's are shitting their pants right now because they won't have control over representatives any longer or will have to be even more shady in the way they contribute.. not just donating to the campaign or the campaign's charities or whatever.
Tribes are free of war. It's the American's who die in the war protecting their land. Sure some tribe members are also Americans and enlist as well. And no I'm not kidding you. They pay zero dollars or lives if they don't want to and haven't for a long time.
It's only logical regardless of morality. I'm saying they don't contribute to the US government therefore they should not receive even more of the free benefits they already receive. You go to the tribal land and ask for the free cash they distribute to their tribe members from their taxes and see how that goes for you.
Nah your trying to make a moral argument for people who fought and died 300 years ago before a light bulb had ever been switched on. Who was right or wrong isn't relevant anymore. And last time I checked the Puritans came to America in droves to escape their own persecution, what bastards. I think you've watched one to many sad Columbus movies and now you think you actually understand everything that happened back then. They were lucky they were taken over and given some land to govern at all to screw up with because if their land wasn't taken from them Germany would have taken over and kill them all for not being Aryan. Thank god the U.S. was made or they would be instinct! See I can make up bullshit moral arguments too!
"It was easy to see capitalism as good when it afforded most people a good life."
I don't think you need to say any more. It's obvious that it is good from the results. "The kids" who can't afford children or houses think they are entitled to those things. The government gives tons of benefits for children, they get free insurance, free food, free school, and even straight up cash via tax deductions for anyone who is actually poor. I see how people spend their money and it's obvious they are choosing a lifestyle over choosing a house. Not to mention purchasing a condo is not much more than paying rent for an apartment. "The kids" choose not to study in school, then after school choose to work less hours and fill that time with TV, Games, or Drinking. Then they choose to wear overpriced brand name clothes, go out to restaurants to get their food prepared for them every day, then spend $100 at a bar drinking each weekend. This is completely normal for "the kids" to do. Tell me why I know single moms who work as waitresses at restaurants that can take care of 5 kids with no help from the dads but for some reason the rest of "the kids" can't seem to afford basic housing? It's obviously because at some point and probably throughout their life they made the choices for immediate gratification over planning for their future.
Capitalism promotes the notion that if you work harder then you make more money. Basically you get what you deserve. The person working 10 hours gets paid more than the person working 5 and the person who is more effective gets paid more. Every child is afforded free education and the opportunity to excel. Besides it's not like wealth just sits at the top. When someone dies around 50% of everything they own in property, cash, and everything gets taxed away from them depending where you live. Not to mention that the more money you have the more and higher rate of taxes rich pay. To clarify the other points you made, social security is paid into by people who make money. If we got rid of all the rich people, normal people would still have to pay more into social security/work harder. Also, the 401k values do not "greatly exceed the actual worth." Companies are priced at exactly what the companies are worth. They are priced at what people are willing to pay at any given time. If you think it's overvalued, then just sell those stocks you think are overpriced or don't contribute to the 401K at all.
Slashdot Mirror
True but these can be copied exactly an infinite amount of times. Really a game company could start making copies themselves to basically print money. However, if they print too much the price would go down.
Yea definitely. You pay $5 for a loot boxes and potentially win an item worth $1000 in some games. Typically you win some skin worth 5 cents but that doesn't stop people from playing for the $1000 item. When I say $1000 also that is the market value of the item due to rarity of the item. In reality it is worth next to nothing (it's a digital copy) that the company could easily mass produce if they wish. So is that gambling? The results seem like gambling but in reality you only win a few 1s and 0s that someone else doesn't have.
First of all being sexist isn't being a 'bro.' Second of all, in case anybody forgot bro just means brother. It doesn't mean you are excluding anyone or treating people poorly. Even most 'nerds' and woman bro fist because it is a short handshake. Why can't people just call out individual sexist things when they happen than blame "culture." Seriously, let people do what they want and when it becomes a problem handle that one person that is being sexist or assaulting you. No matter where you are "culture" doesn't take precedence over the laws and the laws in the U.S. are pretty damn stringent. This just sounds like someone is upset that others are having fun (I assume having fun is what they mean by bro culture). SJWs always use "bro" as a negative. Remember calling people "Bernie Bros" if you were a man and like Bernie Sanders just because Bernie wasn't a woman like his opponent in the 2016 democratic primary. Now that I've beaten the word "bro" to death, how about we talk more about just sexist culture. Please don't tell me any group that consist of more men than women makes it sexist. This is generally what these journalist use to confirm sexism in tech. Just having a majority doesn't make the majority evil. Every single person who went to college in the 2000s can confirm that if you took a computer science class it was going to be 90% men. I'd bet woman are over-represented in tech based on college graduation rates in computer science, although I don't have statistics handy. My point is the reason for a majority has nothing to do with sexism and being a minority doesn't make you oppressed. Lumping people into groups based on sex or race is wrong, even against the majority.
Every new full moon with an exaggerated name is just s boring as the last full moon. People make it seem huge by taking photos from miles away and using a large zoom but in person it is always just the same size to the naked eye. Please just stop these worthless articles.
This is the essence of loot boxes in games, just with larger prizes.
I get dance routines being copyrighted but things like the floss are basically only like 4 similar movements being repeated. Is that enough to copyright? Not only that but it's not even another human performing the dance. They made a digital character perform the dance which is essentially a bunch of drawings on a computer screen tied together to appear like movement. In that case isn't a drawing of something materially different from performing a dance move? Can anyone think of any cases where artwork of a copyrighted movement has been tried?
Are most laptops not encrypted by default (behind a password)? Or are they saying that if the person gains access by guessing or brute forcing the password then the files themselves are un encypted?
A game usually has you grind out a "key." That key takes like 24 hours of time spent playing to unlock. However, instead you can just pay $2 and get a key. Consider the key as an in game currency. It may also be an out of game currency because many games and steam allow you to trade items and actually put values on the items. So you spend $2 on a key, and you can open up a box that either has a 1 cent item or a $2000 item. We know the exact values of those items because they are traded or sold on marketplaces for that amount. So, in particular with items that can be traded, it is 100% a form of gambling. I know people who spent hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars on items specifically trying to win and sell the items they won. If that isn't gambling I don't know what is. Now if a game has a loot box item that you can't trade, then is it really gambling because there is no inherent value in the item won? Hard to say, of course you could sell your account but that is typically against a games terms of service.
I had this same experience. He answered a question before I hit send.
This should be a good change. One good show from YouTube is a SciFi called Origin. On any other network or Netflix is would probably be reasonably popular but no know even knows it exists because its on YouTube Premium.
I thought these annotations were used sort of as a post uploading editing feature. People always correct what they said, provide links to their new video about a topic or whatever. That said I'm happy to see them go.
There is no doubt they are overcharging by huge factor. Amazon would create a store, like they did for Android, where they charge a much smaller fee to developers but they simply can't. It's hard enough competing on Android for another "store" app besides being completely excluded on Apple or forced to take 30% from your store app's sales.
Everything is true, they already cancelled the construction of two new office buildings in Seattle, that's already hundreds of millions in lost taxes. Obviously Amazon won't be moving their HQ fully out of Seattle until the two new HQs are built and up and running for 5-10 years.
Seattle was making rediculous and unpredictable moves on taxes. First trying to implement a "big company tax" that applied to mostly just Amazon employees, then a sugary drink tax, all while raising current tax rates on everyone and only using the money to attract more homeless into the city. Amazon even cancelled two planned buildings thanks to them. Seattle can kiss hundreds of millions of tax dollars and thousands of good jobs good bye thanks to their horrible city management. Expect to see the rest of the Amazon HQ move away from Seattle at some point.
YouTube took a wrong turn somewhere with it's algorithm. Recommendations have less variety than basic on air tv channels. The algorithm always assumes you want something similar to what you've previously watched which is a major mistake. Yes I watched a clip of a late night talk show. But I don't need late night talk shows recommended to me constantly. Google has the same issue with advertising. Yes I bought a product but I don't need to buy multiple of them so stop advertising it to me constantly for a month afterwards.
I believe the problem with "disinformation and hyper partisan content" is who is deciding what qualifies as such. Major platforms Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter have come under intense criticism for the way they decide what is fake news, whether through algorithms, hiring third parties (that could be partisan), or having real people do the job who mislabeling without consequence and thus preventing people from seeing the news, real or fake. Many reporters believe their real news is being mistakenly called fake or being included in a vague undefined definition of hate speech. The corporations try to use an excess of caution on the subject of hate speech that results in even preventing real statistics from being published by organizations if the statistic includes ethnicity or race in any negative light. While it is not the government doing the limiting, there is an only a handful of large tech corporations that decide how many people you can reach with your message and/or whether your message is appropriate. People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.
Just try and talk to a "left" person about even the word "sex." They will still say that sex is what you identify as, not just gender.
It's almost like all the short events make up the long term. Surprising!
They shouldn't be forced to learn because it may make them uncomfortable to learn. /s
This seems like it should already be a law but if not it will really change things a lot. But wow I bet thousands of company's are shitting their pants right now because they won't have control over representatives any longer or will have to be even more shady in the way they contribute.. not just donating to the campaign or the campaign's charities or whatever.
Tribes are free of war. It's the American's who die in the war protecting their land. Sure some tribe members are also Americans and enlist as well. And no I'm not kidding you. They pay zero dollars or lives if they don't want to and haven't for a long time.
It's only logical regardless of morality. I'm saying they don't contribute to the US government therefore they should not receive even more of the free benefits they already receive. You go to the tribal land and ask for the free cash they distribute to their tribe members from their taxes and see how that goes for you.
Nah your trying to make a moral argument for people who fought and died 300 years ago before a light bulb had ever been switched on. Who was right or wrong isn't relevant anymore. And last time I checked the Puritans came to America in droves to escape their own persecution, what bastards. I think you've watched one to many sad Columbus movies and now you think you actually understand everything that happened back then. They were lucky they were taken over and given some land to govern at all to screw up with because if their land wasn't taken from them Germany would have taken over and kill them all for not being Aryan. Thank god the U.S. was made or they would be instinct! See I can make up bullshit moral arguments too!
"It was easy to see capitalism as good when it afforded most people a good life." I don't think you need to say any more. It's obvious that it is good from the results. "The kids" who can't afford children or houses think they are entitled to those things. The government gives tons of benefits for children, they get free insurance, free food, free school, and even straight up cash via tax deductions for anyone who is actually poor. I see how people spend their money and it's obvious they are choosing a lifestyle over choosing a house. Not to mention purchasing a condo is not much more than paying rent for an apartment. "The kids" choose not to study in school, then after school choose to work less hours and fill that time with TV, Games, or Drinking. Then they choose to wear overpriced brand name clothes, go out to restaurants to get their food prepared for them every day, then spend $100 at a bar drinking each weekend. This is completely normal for "the kids" to do. Tell me why I know single moms who work as waitresses at restaurants that can take care of 5 kids with no help from the dads but for some reason the rest of "the kids" can't seem to afford basic housing? It's obviously because at some point and probably throughout their life they made the choices for immediate gratification over planning for their future.
Capitalism promotes the notion that if you work harder then you make more money. Basically you get what you deserve. The person working 10 hours gets paid more than the person working 5 and the person who is more effective gets paid more. Every child is afforded free education and the opportunity to excel. Besides it's not like wealth just sits at the top. When someone dies around 50% of everything they own in property, cash, and everything gets taxed away from them depending where you live. Not to mention that the more money you have the more and higher rate of taxes rich pay. To clarify the other points you made, social security is paid into by people who make money. If we got rid of all the rich people, normal people would still have to pay more into social security/work harder. Also, the 401k values do not "greatly exceed the actual worth." Companies are priced at exactly what the companies are worth. They are priced at what people are willing to pay at any given time. If you think it's overvalued, then just sell those stocks you think are overpriced or don't contribute to the 401K at all.