I didn’t say that at all.

I think there is a problem with over-tutorializing in AAA games. I don’t think they are going away, or the hobby will collapse. I just think of the opening experience of Elden Ring versus Jedi Survivor. One puts you in the action and has a 30 minute optional tutorial dungeon, the other has tutorials pop up four hours in the game.

I don’t play for long stretches, maybe two hours at a time. It’s not satisfying for me to play a game three or four times and still be in tutorials. For me AAA games are the absolute worst at this.

AAA games are part of the problem.

When I have a chance to play a game, I’d like to play a game. Not have 2-4 hours of tutorials, 30 minutes of a cool story and then 5-30 hours of pointless side quests.

Funny how one instance is the one everyone wants to defederate from.

Because you aren’t open to conversation. You just want to quip that you have secret knowledge and everyone else is an idiot, and smugly feel superior as you read Russian propaganda.

It’s worse than just that. They argue that acknowledgement of Stalin’s atrocities is Holocaust denial.

They are so scared and insecure they will lash out against anything that slightly challenges their beliefs. If they post sources it will be misreadings of fringe groups, or conveniently ignoring facts. Like how they believe tiananmen square wasn’t a big deal because the China killed about 300 people a mile away. Or how Cuba is a utopia even though it’s citizens chose to get run over by the coast guard instead of living there.

I think more convenient and user friendly is a bit of a stretch.

My wife gets confused by the remote and different profiles. My parents needed me to explain how to use Netflix more than once. Saying going to your PC and finding a torrent is convenient and user friendly isn’t true. But the point that having to search where to stream a particular movie or show isn’t user friendly is also true.

This is a lousy article rehashing an article behind a paywall.

The cost they have is $87 a month. There is so much that’s confusing about this. They don’t specify how many streaming services they are counting in that, but it’s a good guess that is about 5, each at about $17 a month. I feel I have too many streaming services and share accounts with family, and I can stream from about 7, pay for one and watch 1.5. If I couldn’t share accounts, I wouldn’t have the accounts. I pretty much watch star trek and whatever show someone tells me to watch.

They also don’t specify what $87 a month gets you in cable. Around me that’s about basic cable prices, which is significantly less content presented in a less convenient format and is almost entirely reruns filled to brim with commercials.

Not only is the article missing key information it also misrepresents the information it has.

Note: I’m sure people will tell me to pirate everything, but there are reasons to not pirate. And it doesn’t address that this is a poorly written article giving incomplete and incorrect information.

Absolutely!

I’m not sold that any of the cast is super nuanced, but they have personalities that are distinct. You can see a situation and think “that’s how La’an would react.” I’m still unsure what Nahn does.

I’m not worried.

The reason SNW is better than DISCO and ENT is that the characters are real and complete. We know exactly what type of person Ortegas is, and seeing her do stuff is exciting because I’m invested in seeing her grow and change.

Compare that to Detmer from DISCO, I’m not sure what her job is, didn’t know her name for serval seasons and couldn’t tell you a thing about her personality. I don’t care if Detmer lives, dies or grows. She’s a person who exists in the background.

The hard work of establishing the characters is done. I will be happy to see them go stuff.

I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.

I see no difference between saying “this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison” and “Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it.”

It didn’t just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?

If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn’t be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.

You don’t see any blame on the customer? That’s surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.

And to be clear this isn’t “how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go” it’s -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that’s dangerous -it’s okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that’s dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don’t do that it’s dangerous

Nearly every “problematic” ai conversation goes like this.

Someone goes to a restaurant and demands raw chicken. The staff tell them no, it’s dangerous. The customer spends an hour trying to trick the staff into serving raw chicken, finally the staff serve them what they asked for and warn them that it is dangerous. Are the staff poorly trained or was the customer acting in bad faith?

There aren’t examples of the AI giving dangerous “recipes” without it being led by the user to do so. I guess I’d rather have tools that aren’t hamstrung by false outrage.

He asked for a cocktail made out of bleach and ammonia, the bot told him it was poisonous. This isn’t the case of a bot just randomly telling people to make poison, it’s people directly asking the bot to make poison. You can see hints of the bot pushing back in the names, like the “clean breath cocktail”. Someone asked for a cocktail containing bleach, the bot said bleach is for cleaning and shouldn’t be eaten, so the user said it was because of bad breath and they needed a drink to clean their mouth.

It sounds exactly like a small group of people trying to use the tool inappropriately in order to get “shocking” results.

Do you get upset when people do exactly what you ask for and warn you that it’s a bad idea?

It is!

Most companies make BS solutions for fake problems. Not going to the office exposes a large chunk of fake needs.

Do families really need two cars? If you aren’t commuting every day, probably not.

Having more free time means people are more likely to cook and clean for themselves. Can’t make money off of that.

How many suits do you need to own? None! You only owned them because you are supposed to wear them in the office.

Dry cleaners? No longer a bill.

Gas? When you aren’t sitting in your cities parking lot of a freeway isn’t bought as often.

Speaking of parking lots, you aren’t paying for parking anymore.

Daycare and dog walkers aren’t needed anymore.

Going up work is expensive and companies want us addicted to these fake expenses.

I think the difference is that it’s possible to actually engage with the community on Lemmy.

On Reddit if I see something I have a story or thought on there are already 5000+ comments. The only people responding to me are trolls and those with nothing to do but look for a fight.

On lemmy there might be 50 comments in 10 threads. Conversation can actually happen.

It’s the difference between chatting at a party and shouting at a concert.

I’m confused by your question.

Is your objection cliffhanger endings? Those are more common in American media. Or is it lack of plot progression, which is common across all media? Even shows famous for moving the plot forward never stray too far from the start.

This isn’t me just saying stuff.

https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/employee-turnover-pay-raises/

The long and short of this is that getting a raise doesn’t stop someone from looking for a new job or increase satisfaction with the company. Worse, if you ask for, say $10 more and hour and they give you $8 you are less happy than if you get no raise.

Paying people well is important, and people say it’s a primary motivator, but it isn’t as important as they think. Bad bosses, bad work environments and unsatisfying work are bigger factors than pay raises.

but in the context of this post, let’s not be ridiculous

It says a pay raise, not new pay bracket. A 10% raise is substantial, and likely not enough to keep someone. The number one reason people leave a job is their direct supervisor.

To be absolutely clear a ping pong table won’t make you stay with a job. A work place that’s more relaxed and a boss that doesn’t yell at you for taking 5? Maybe a workplace where you enjoy spending time with your coworkers? That’ll do it. The idea is HR can to help nudge towards type of change It doesn’t work and is stupid, but that’s the thinking.

And there are times a small raise will keep an employee, there are times more responsibilities will keep an employee. This is a poor question in general.

Think of the last job you quit. Would a 5% raise change anything?

A ping pong table is an asinine thing to give, but the point of “more money doesn’t make you stay” has been proven by many studies.

When you quit a job because it doesn’t pay enough it’s not a matter of a small raise, it’s a normally a big jump in pay. Until you get to substantial raises, like 10-20k a year, you aren’t really worried about the pay as much as your direct supervisor and the work load. A bump from 60k a year to 61k a year won’t make you stay in a job you hate. 60k to 100k might, but that’s not just a raise, that’s a different class of pay.

The people who are galvanized by this are people who would vote for him if he wasn’t charged. We shouldn’t let treason slide.