I have a really distinct memory of finding a bunch of these in a friend’s house when I was a kid and every one was empty. After watching the TC video I think it’s more likely I just wasn’t pressing hard enough and had no way to know that. Anyway, I can see why they stopped making them.
The argument is that google uses integration between its own ad network and YouTube to outcompete any similar service. If anyone else tries to launch a video platform and sell ad space to google, which is likely given that google owns the world’s largest ad network, it’s in googles best interest to either give their own competitor an unfavorable deal or to completely lock them out of their ad marketplace.
If YouTube and google were forced to operate as independent companies it eliminates this conflict of interest.
I don’t understand the bottled water thing either but I think the rise of things like delivery services and subscriptions can be linked to increasing workloads and decreasing community assistance.
If every member of your household is also working a full time job your time becomes significantly more valuable.
I don’t see how we can ever get to this point without solving vergence accommodation conflict, which even Apple seems not to have a plan for. I truly don’t understand the money pouring into AR tech at this point in time.
So does B make this basically a non-starter? Seems like you’re never going to get someone to cooperate with this (not that I blame them).
I bet you they can actually
This article doesn’t seem to support this conclusion at all 🤔
Here are games I like that are just mobile ports without ads or micro transactions:
Slay the spire
Monster train
Mindustry
Mini metro
Honorable mention to Vampire Survivors which is mostly a simple port, but it does incentivize you to watch ads for extra lives.
No most Americans do end up supporting their parents. On the other hand, I think most Americans would agree that their parents don’t deserve financial support merely for being their parents. You support your family because you like them and not because it’s a requirement.
Also, I think a lot of younger people begrudge their parents for not handling their own financials better, especially as the younger generations see how much harder some things are than they used to be.
For example, my in-laws collectively make over 6 figures and inherited a house decades ago that’s worth almost a million dollars due to housing inflation. They absolutely could have a reasonable retirement plan, but they don’t. They spend money as fast as they get it and won’t be passing their house down like their parents did because they have multiple large loans against the house. They use this money to go on vacations every other month and own more vehicles than they really need. They also mentioned to me recently that they would like it if we could try to buy a house with extra rooms for when they get old and need to be taken care of.
I’m not going to let my wife’s parents be homeless when they inevitably can’t work, but I do find it somewhat infuriating that their lack of planning is going to cost me potentially a huge amount of money.
Last, just to add more confusion to this, there are a number of US states which have familial responsibility laws. These laws mean that you can be found legally liable for certain debts accumulated by your parents. This is the exception rather than the norm but it does demonstrate that Americans aren’t actually as independent as they would have you believe.
I’m not qualified to say if this is accurate but thanks for putting in the effort to write it!
Growing up my mom didn’t understand this and always insisted that the sink plungers were the only kind that worked (she also called them toilet plungers) and that toilet plungers (the fancy kind) were some kind of trick. Took until I was in college that I learned you shouldn’t have to break a sweat unclogging your toilet.
In my experience most Starbucks workers will just let you say small/medium/large without questioning it.
That’s another good example. The Trump/Putin kissing mural is a great example of something that ends up being homophobic rather than partisan.
So you think it should be illegal?
If you used it to slander your neighbor, it would not be legal.
You’re entirely ignoring my point, I’m not trying to pass the video off as real therefore it’s not slander.
You keep referring to this as revenge porn which to me is a case where someone spreads nudes around as a way to punish their current or former partner. You could use AI to generate material to use as revenge porn, but I bet most AI nudes are not that.
Think about a political comic showing a pro-corporate politician performing a sex act with Jeff bezos. Clearly that would be protected speech. If you generate the same image with generative AI though then suddenly it’s illegal even if you clearly label it as being a parody. That’s the concern. Moreover, the slander/libel angle doesn’t make sense if you include a warning that the image is generated, as you are not making a false statement.
To sum up why I think this bill is kinda weird and likely to be ineffective, it’s perfectly legal for me to generate and distribute a fake ai video of my neighbor shooting a puppy as long as I don’t present it as a real video. If I generate the same video but my neighbor’s dick is hanging out, straight to jail. It’s not consistent.
That’s arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn’t going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
No argument there but it reinforces my point that this law is written for Taylor swift and not a random high schooler.
You’d be liable for producing an animated short staring “Definitely Not Mickey Mouse” under the same reasoning.
Except that there are fair use exceptions specifically to prevent copyright law from running afoul of the first amendment. You can see the parody exception used in many episodes of south park for example and even specifically used to depict Mickey Mouse. Either this bill allows for those types of uses in which case it’s toothless anyway or it’s much more restrictive to speech than existing copyright law.
Not convinced on this one
It seems like the bill is being pitched as protecting women who have fake nudes passed around their school but the text of the bill seems more aimed at the Taylor swift case.
1 The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
2 The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law. That seems at odds with the 1st amendment.
Are corporations more likely to be slumlords? Pretty much everyone I’ve ever known who owns a rental property has been a complete asshole, but I’ve only known a few.
Owning part of a larger building is actually much more complicated than simply owning a house. I’m not sure everyone would actually want that even if they could buy the unit they live in at a low price.
Generally it’s not destroying undeveloped land, but fixing up dilapidated houses so that they are livable.
Having a progressive tax based on number of homes owned may work, but you would need to rewrite quite a bit of real estate law to make it actually effective. Obviously corporations would not be allowed to own houses to avoid people owning through shell companies, but you would also have to draw a line so corporations could own larger apartment complexes and mixed use buildings. You also do want builders to be able to temporarily own houses for the purpose of building and selling them as well as corporate flippers.
Frankly, I think it’s too complicated to expect on a national level.
Yeah I have a habit of doing this and then testing the link to find the smallest possible version. Mostly because I find it annoying when I want to text a link to someone and it takes up an entire page of the chat.