_zgx0

The amount of folks here supporting Alex Jones is completely shocking to me.

He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered. He's scum of the earth.

That business was taken away from him, and folks think that's too much? What the actual fuck.

Futures markets serve an important role outside of speculation, i.e. producers managing their future price risk. Betting markets do not.

Or the creditors vote for liquidation and WeWork is no more...

>> I think most people agree that the California system is a disaster.

And yet it is immensely popular. Why do you think that is?

I believe it's because rather than thinking home owners are evil rent seeking capitalists, most are hard working people who bought a house and think it's fair that the government not tax them out of it.

He correctly identifies a fundamental difference between business/consumer reporting, which is often fawning regurgitations of PR materials made with limited due diligence and investigative reporting. I stand by my comment, it seems to me that he is saying the change from business/consumer to investigative was unwelcome and he agrees with that reaction.

I think investigative journalism should be fair, but I don't think someone investigating Alphabet has to present the good that the company does - that's the job of Alphabet's PR department. Fair journalism does not leave out relevant context but doesn't speak to unrelated "good" contributions.

Should an investigation into political corruption talk about what good that politician did? Maybe if its directly related to the corruption, but otherwise no.

>Instead of covering the [tech] industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair.

...

>Tech executives and investors mostly did not like this change, for understandable reasons. And I mostly agree with them on the merits.

The author agrees - that the tech industry should not be subject to investigative coverage?

That's nonsense. Tech now is the most wealthy and powerful industry in the US. Large tech companies have huge impacts on politics and news. Suggesting that tech should not be subject to investigative coverage is hard to understand. It seems like one of the most important subjects of that coverage today.

You can suggest that coverage is inaccurate or unfair, but suggesting that tech should not be covered with an investigative lens is hard to argue.

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused.

As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that.

Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a streaming service, but also play locally, and know that you can take that game with you through multiple hardware decides and streaming services.

With Stadia, if I move somewhere with bad internet, there is no way to recover the value of my games I purchased. There is no other gaming system like that. All other systems either have an offline possibility or are pure streaming where you aren't making a game purchase investment, like Xbox Gamepass or Luna.

It just doesn't make sense except to a really small niche and is not competitive to the average gamer.