chii

> But nobody really cares about water; that's not what this is about.

you've hit the silent nail on the head.

The complaints about data centers are really complaints against ai and its encroachment into people's lives (more specifically, they fear for their jobs due to ai).

If people truly cared so much about the environment, where were their complaints about climate change and such?

It's the same with the recent hype about how AI going rogue or is gonna kill us all if we reach AGI.

None of these are real threats, compared to the threat of climate change, where there's a real threat of crop failures enmass due to consistently extreme weather, and coastal erosion sinking cities, etc. We'll hit this before we reach AGI no doubt.

why would including evaporation make any difference to the water usage counts?

The water used, whether evaporated or returned into soil (which includes rivers) is unusable any more. Unless the runoff is collected and reused again, which is a form of recycling, and should also not count towards usage of water.

steam does take 30%, vs the 0% of itch.io (as of now - they will eventually charge a commission).

> where people can live good lives than lord over a barren wasteland.

you'd be surprised at how some people prefer to lord over barren wasteland than to have less power.

> They don't get to make these choices on behalf of humanity

and yet, every carbon emitter in the world contributes to the demise of the climate, but you don't call for their dissolution (which would, conveniently, include yourself).

They would ask around, as well as perform a proper evaluation based on their current needs, rather than their experienced needs as a hobbyist?

> That's a checkbox decision for the customer.

and they would still complain if they got it wrong - it's always the platform/company's fault.

Look at banks and fraudulent transfers that customers themselves get phished into doing. The bank in the end usually take the hit (after the customer complains long enough). That's why there's all sorts of hoops and such to prevent customers from failing - and that causes friction for people regularly.

Therefore, the cloud company's decision to default safer is more correct from this perspective.

> the benefits of it will not be applied uniformly.

why not? Any system you have permission to use and store your data should be beneficial to you if it became more secure. Unless...of course if you're the one who desires unauthorized access.

> AI is going to expose how fragile the entire computing infrastructure in our world is.

this is a good outcome. A forcing function to encourage all computing to be more secure can only be good in the long term, even if there's a lot of pain in the short term.

People like to believe they live moral lives, unlike animals. But when the system breaks down, people quickly start behaving like animals - the ones who don't gets killed rather quickly.

This has been presented in fiction countless times, and those fiction is not made up from thin air.

> they ship a model per game?

there's no way that's true!?

> This used to be the workplace ... making workplace dating something frowned upon

because the owner of the business do not want relationship frictions to affect people's work.

> there is a line between human freedoms and govt overreach.

and they have not reached anywhere near that line.

Compare this to the land of the free, where ICE police can routinely jack an actual citizen they suspect of being an illegal alien, and face zero consequences. Where the president can declare an illegal tariff with zero consequences.

> Why do you expect hardware vendors not to want to do the same?

of course they want the moat - the point is that society as a whole should force them not to have a moat. Ala, they should not be allowed monopolies.

Unfortunately, this sort of legislation has been lacking recently, and in fact, has been failing even enforcing existing ones from yester-century.

i think they meant the hardware becomes more fungible. This is what made IBM lose their competitive advantage when it came to PCs, because others were able to make IBM-compatible ones that are cheaper and still able to use the same old software.

Everything you listed is exactly the reason why copyleft and GPLv3 needs to be the first and foremost license when opensourcing. If proliferated, it can give you all of these freedoms listed that you (and i) desire.

It stems from the idea that "no child left behind" is a goal. It shouldn't have ever been.

if they use ai to "cheat" the exam by having the ai produce material to learn off, then they literally have just replicated a paid tutor (for cheaper).

Why is that not desirable? As long as the exam does not allow ai usage during it, i don't see the problem.

The university administration needs flexibility rather than draconian rules that dont work.

In any case, even if the uni insist on homework, the teacher can simply mark everyone who hands in their homework 100%. It is impossible for the administration to police it, or if they do, they'd need to hire someone to mark the homework (which conveniently solves the teacher's issue).

the event in 2020 would've only been the last straw in a series of bad policy in education. It might've brought forward this same outcome a few years in advance, but it isn't a root cause.

so why doesn't this happen on the PC?

The fact is, google engineered their app store to be monopoly, following apple's model (which is also engineered - they had more foresight about it).

There are no good artificial monopolies, and natural monopolies should be regulated to prevent undue influence (and unwarranted profit).

but that raspberry pi won't be able to run google apps (or other apps like your bank's) that require play store certification.

you have the choice not to purchase burgers from dairy queens, but from macdonalds, or five guys, or wataburger.

You don't have a real choice in an app store on android (except recently, and even then, the alternative stores don't behave well for google-based apps).

That's why it's not a tax when you choose to buy DQ burgers, but a tax when you choose to deploy an app to google app store.

people hate taxation without representation. That's why this model has to be unsustainable, but the legislation has not caught up at all.

Receiving 1000 euros without having any real work or accountability is the epitome of free profit. No wonder these platform gatekeepers are fighting so hard to maintain it (at the cost of you, the consumer).

And yet people (in general) just dont care, because they don't truly feel the pain until it's too late - issues like privacy and such are like that.

How does AI go from being able to produce software with 95% of the features, to killing every man, woman and child?

People need to stop it with the ai doomerism.

Climate change will kill way more people than ai ever will, but you dont hear a pip about that from those claiming ai apocalypse.

or just a really sturdy fence, and guard posts with guns. That's cheaper than space, and infinitely easier too.

it doesn't matter what reason it's cheaper - consumers only care that it is.

soulfulness has nothing to do with 2D or 3D, but more to do with mass market commercialization of games, where the creative vision is not from an individual artist (or very small number of them), but via design by committee, and various managerial interference for profitability and market appeal.

That's why you will find the modern AAA games (which is of course 3D) very soulless. However, the same soul still remains in indie games.

> wonder how he's still CEO.

it's because he controls the board by being the majority voting shareholder.

This is what happens when the gov't decides that it is legal for share classes with different voting rights. It ensures that you can sell equity to obtain money, without actually giving up control of said company at all. In theory, buyers would discount the sold equity due to this, but in practice, they don't (esp. if they're retail buyers).