sylver_dragon

Steam made it easy to buy, download and play games. So much of the competition was focused on preventing piracy to the detriment of the user experience. Steam was buy, download, and play all your games in one place with a minimum of bullshit. Then they implemented Steam Greenlight. It let some smaller studios get onto a major platform and proved out that there was a demand for those titles. They were then smart enough to realize that trying to gatekeep those studios with the “Greenlight” process was stupid and opened the flood gates.

Really, this goes back to Gabe Newell’s comments about piracy (a decade and a half ago [1]):

We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem,” he said. “If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.

Steam was a real competitor to LimeWire/Kazaa/etc. The other options, at the time, were stuck in the mentality of treating their customers like pirates. And once people bought into the Steam ecosystem, getting them to buy into any other ecosystem was almost impossible. Steam’s main trick wasn’t building a community, it was building trust. Users trust Valve to not fuck them over. That’s a hard thing to create and it’s fragile. If you look at a competitor like EA’s Origin, many folks won’t even consider it. EA’s reputation of fucking customers is well established. No one wants to sink hundreds to thousands of dollars into a storefront with such an anti-user reputation.

Got about half way through the article before it became obvious that it’s just “DOOM, DOOOM, DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!” in prose form.

Gaming is changing, which is different from never. I mean, I could bemoan the death of 2d puzzlers ala King’s Quest because Sierra is no more, but there are still similar games being made by smaller studios. We may hit a slump, and the main actors may change, but gaming isn’t going anywhere. AAA titles will continue to mostly be money chasing shovelware, indie titles will continue to be where the real development and experimentation happens. But making games, especially PC games, has become so accessible that even the death of a major studio will amount to nothing more than some IP changing hands. And there is still a lot of money to be made in games, so companies will keep chasing that.

Magazines have been predicting the death of PC gaming for decades now. And yet, PC gaming is still incredibly vibrant. The current RAM shortage is just a hiccup. We’ve had RAM shortages before. If the demand for RAM stays at the current level manufacturers will respond by bringing new fabs online. More likely the AI bubble will pop and we’ll be flooded in used RAM and GPUs. The economy will cycle, hiring will pick back up and markets will move on to the "Next Big Thing"^TM

But ya, a headline of “Markets in down cycle, RAM supply currently constrained by high demand” doesn’t motivate clicks.

I have two:

1. Waves glowing with bioluminescence during a red tide. We didn’t know it would be going on and were just camping by the beach. Walking on it at night, we all saw the waves glowing and weren’t sure it was real. As we got closer, our footsteps in the area where the waves were rolling in and out were glowing as well. Just surreal.
2. A house blowing up. Guy opened a natural gas valve in the house and touched it off. Insulation shot way up in the air and the house itself bowed outwards in basically every direction, stayed standing though. At least until it burned down.

one day when we will hopefully be living in more peaceful times without imperialists

You don’t read much history? Humans have never lived in widespread peace for any length of time. We have evidence of violence between groups of humans well back into the Stone Age. We are not a species prone to peace.

What a shite take from the man who has no sense of real-world costs.

He also has no understanding of inflation. Lowing interest rates with rising inflation will, almost certainly, drive up home prices. As there will be more dollars chasing a limited supply. The problem is that this sort thing has a bad habit of going poorly. Investors have just gotten addicted to cheap credit. The US Fed is supposed to be the adult in the room, but The Pedo in Chief is doing his best to undermine that safeguard.

A-fucking-men.
I’m in a similar boat house. We bought in 2011, used a USDA loan and were able to pick our place up for a song ($160k). It now has a “value” of ~$360k. And all that extra “value” is doing for me is increasing taxes and insurance costs. I’m not planning on selling any time soon, so my home “price” going up is a net negative. Sure, we might sell in a decade or so, but today’s price won’t have a major impact on that.

What I’m getting at is, this doesn’t benefit homeowners, it benefits housing investors, who are the group Trump really wants to prop up.

What? You’re telling me the pedophile, racist, Nazi sympathizer, billionare son of a racist, Nazi sympathizer who made the family’s billions by wartime real estate profiteering is more interested in protecting real estate profiteering than helping people? Color me shocked, absolutely shocked, I say. Well, not that shocked.

While it’s not a service I would use, if it helps move the needle away from Windows’ dominance of the gaming market, that’s a good thing. The more people who can ditch Windows, the better. It probably means an Eternal September for Linux. But that is ultimately a good thing. If Linux becomes the default choice for gaming PCs for the mass market, more games will be released with Linux Native versions, driving further Linux adoption. It’s the type of virtuous cycle which is needed to kill the giant that is Windows.

I trust every AI group to do their level best to separate me from my money. Beyond that, I wouldn’t trust them with a stolen identity.

Oh look, it’s Vietnam all over again. How long before the Administration manufactures evidence of an attack on a US Navy asset and uses that to justify “limited” operations on the ground?

A what now?
I’m just here to read memes and rant about crap no one else cares about. I can’t be arsed to dig into all the random profile crap the developers poured hours of blood, sweat and tears implementing.

You’re one of those folks who are too stupid to understand probabilities and what polls are actually saying, aren’t you?
The polls in the run-up to the 2024 Presidential election were actually pretty good. The final aggregate error was right around 3.4 points [1]

Anyone who suggested that there was a clear favorite was lying about what the polls said. That’s not a failing of the polls, its a failing of the media reporting on the polls. Sure, there were some particular, individual outliers. The Anne Seltzer poll comes to mind. But, credit where it’s due, Seltzer published an outlier poll, because that was the outcome of the poll based on then methodology she had been using for a long time. Like with scientists publishing null results, it’s actually really important that such things are published and not hidden, but they are usually hidden.

Go talk to people in the real world, instead of reading articles written by fellow shut-ins, and realize that the narrative is FAR different for the average person.

Then plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. And quite the opposite here, if you’re out talking to people within your own social bubble, you’re far more likely to get a warped view of reality. This is one of the reasons polling is so hard, getting a truly representative sample of the population is hard. It is also likely a reason polls keep underestimating Trump. People with low social trust seem to favor Trump, and those same people are very hard to poll. They don’t often pick up the phone and often aren’t willing to divulge their political choices to strangers on the phone. So ya, expecting the polls to “miss” by 3-5 points, underestimating Republicans isn’t all that out of line.

My prediction is the Dems will pick up just barely enough seats to take back control of the House. Not a snowballs chance in hell of taking back the Senate.

This is funny, because this is very much an opinion which will have been informed by polling. It’s also what most analysis are coming up with:

• House
• Senate

Articles like the one posted by the OP are just pure hopium. Dems may make some gains this year, but a rational analysis of the current polling data tells a bleak story. They might get the House, the Senate is basically out of reach.

I’ll extend the truffle hate to all mushrooms. If I wanted food covered in fungus, I would have waited for it to start rotting.

Replace the screen, maybe? And now you have an extra laptop.

Wait, I’m conscious enough to have questions? So, now what?

This is great, but the Senate seats up for election in 2026 make the Democrats winning a majority really, really tough. The current Senate is 53 Republicans, 43 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with Democrats. This means that the Democrats need to net +4 seats to gain control of the Senate. Sure, it’s possible but the map doesn’t look good.

For example, the Democrats best pickup opportunity is likely Susan Collins’s seat in Maine. Despite Maine leaning Democrat in statewide elections, this is a rodeo Collins knows very, very well. Democrats have been trying to knock her off for several cycles and yet she’s still here. Maybe this will be the year. But, if this is the best opportunity for Democrats, we aren’t off to a good start.

North Carolina is an open seat, which helps some. But, the State has consistently voted Republican in Statewide elections (and went for Trump by ~3 points in 2024). A large enough blue wave could overcome that, but it’s already an uphill battle. And things only get worse from here.

Next up is Ohio, which Trump won by ~11 points. We aren’t talking super-hard MAGA land there, but Democrat friendly, it ain’t. This is the state which gave us Vice President JD Vance as a Senator. The election here is for the remainder of Vance’s term. Hope may spring eternal, but there is a really sketchy looking reality hiding around the next corner with a sock full of pennies.

That takes us on to Iowa. This state was Trump +13 in 2024. Sure, some farmers may be pissed off about the tariffs, but enough to put a Democrat in the Senate? This seems to fall into the “time to put the bong down and reconnect with reality” territory. I mean, it’s always possible. With a really well calibrated Democratic candidate, the GOP picking a really flawed candidate and really poor economic conditions, maybe. But I wouldn’t be betting the farm on Democrats picking this one up.

And then we need to consider defense. Jon Ossof is up for re-election in Georgia. Georgia went for Trump by ~2 points. Not a large margin, but enough that Osoff isn’t a shoe-in. And Michigan (Trump +1) is an open seat election. The previous Senator (Gary Peters) was a Democrat, so there is certainly hope, but again this isn’t a certain thing. If either of those seats are lost, Democrats are then looking at Texas (Trump +14. Also, it’s fucking Texas).

I’m all for a Democratic Congress. But their chances in the Senate look pretty bleak.

For the ones they own or have a contract with, probably. However, there are two problems with that.

1. It will do fuck all for the AI models which are just scraping the internet and which have no contractual agreements with the blog (e.g. all the big ones).
2. It’s a fixing a problem the blog hosting platform created. They likely have a data sharing agreement with some organizations to make the scraping easy for those organizations (e.g. direct content database access). So, they are like the mob, offering you “protection” so long as you pay them not to break your shit.

immediately lost my $20, never entered a casino again.

You didn’t lose it, you paid $20 for an education in why gambling in a casino is a bad idea. It could have been much, much worse.

As a species, homo sapiens have managed to adapt to every environment on Earth. We are the first species to have any measure of control over the natural forces which have wiped out countless other species. Diseases which once ravaged our populations are now gone or minor inconveniences and we continue to find new ways to mitigate the worst effect of many diseases. Should a large asteroid be heading our way, we are the only species which may stand any chance of diverting it or mitigating the long term impacts when it does hit us. While it was certainly not a “choice”, the evolution of higher cognition, problem solving and intra-species communications has put our species in a unique position of having a high degree of control over out fate. Sure, it has its downsides (we are the only species which might be able to end all life on Earth), but it’s been a pretty amazing run for us. On the balance, I think we’re in a much better position to keep going as a species than our ancestors or cousins (homo erectus, homo hablis, neanderthal, great apes, chimpanzees, etc).

So, was it a “mistake”, I think the current state of evidence is against that. While it may result in a really shit deal for individuals of the species from time to time, as a species I think it would be silly to consider it a mistake.

Short answer, no.

Long answer: We are a long way off from having anything close to the movie villain level of AI. Maybe we’re getting close to the paperclip manufacturing AI problem, but I’d argue that even that is often way overblown. The reason I say this is that such arguments are quite hand-wavy about leaps in capability which would be required for those things to become a problem. The most obvious of which is making the leap from controlling the devices an AI is intentionally hooked up to, to devices it’s not. And it also needs to make that jump without anyone noticing and asking, “hey, what’s all this then?” As someone who works in cybersecurity for a company which does physical manufacturing, I can see how it would get missed for a while (companies love to under-spend on cybersecurity). But eventually enough odd behavior gets picked up. And the routers and firewalls between manufacturing and anything else do tend to be the one place companies actually spend on cybersecurity. When your manufacturing downtime losses are measured in millions per hour, getting a few million a year for NDR tends to go over much better. And no, I don’t expect the AI to hack the cybersecurity, it first needs to develop that capability. AI training processes require a lot of time failing at doing something, that training is going to get noticed. AI isn’t magically good at anything, and while the learning process can be much faster, that speed is going to lead to a shit-ton of noise on the network. And guess what, we have AI and automation running on our behalf as well. And those are trained to shutdown rogue devices attacking the cybersecurity infrastructure.

“Oh wait, but the AI would be sneaky, slow and stealty!” Why would it? What would it have in it’s currently existing model which would say “be slow and sneaky”? It wouldn’t, you don’t train AI models to do things which you don’t need them to do. A paperclip optimizing AI wouldn’t be trained on using network penetration tools. That’s so far outside the need of the model that the only thing it could introduce is more hallucinations and problems. And given all the Frankenstein’s Monster stories we have built and are going to build around AI, as soon as we see anything resembling an AI reaching out for abilities we consider dangerous, it’s going to get turned off. And that will happen long before it has a chance to learn about alternative power sources. It’s much like zombie outbreaks in movies, for them to move much beyond patient zero requires either something really, really special about the “disease” or comically bad management of the outbreak. Sure, we’re going to have problems as we learn what guardrails to put around AI, but the doom and gloom version of only needing one mistake is way overblown. There are so many stopping points along the way from single function AI to world dominating AI that it’s kinda funny. And many of those stopping points are the same, “the attacker (humans) only need to get lucky once” situation. So no, I don’t believe that the paperclip optimizer AI problem is all that real.

That does take us to the question of a real general purpose AI being let loose on the internet to consume all human knowledge and become good at everything, which then decides to control everything. And maybe this might be a problem, if we ever get there. Right now, that sort of thing is so firmly in the realm of sci-fi that I don’t think we can meaningfully analyze it. What we have today, fancy neural networks, LLMs and classifiers, puts us in the same ballpark as Jules Verne writing about space travel. Sure, he might have nailed one or two of the details; but, the whole this was so much more fantastically complex and difficult than he had any ability to conceive. Once we are closer to it, I expect we’re going to see that it’s not anything like we currently expect it to be. The computing power requirements may also limit it’s early deployment to only large universities and government projects, keeping it’s processing power well centralized. General purpose AI may well have the same decapitation problems humans do. They can have fantastical abilities, but they need really powerful data centers to run it. And those bring all the power, cooling and not getting blown the fuck up with a JDAM problems of current AI data centers. Again, we could go back and forth making up ways for AI to techno-magic it’s way around those problems, but it’s all just baseless speculation at this point. And that speculation will also inform the guardrails we build in at the time. It would boil down to the same game children play where they shoot each other with imaginary guns, and have imaginary shields. And they each keep re-imagining their guns and shields to defeat the other’s. So ya, it might be fun for a while, but it’s ultimately pointless.

The few imitation meat products I have tried have been ok, I guess. Impossible burgers aren’t terrible and I could probably make do with them, if meat were removed from the market completely. I have yet to taste any non-pork bacon which didn’t taste bad (meat or no meat). And I doubt I’m going to find anything to replace a good rack of pork ribs. Really, the best place I’ve found for imitation meats is in dishes where ground meat is used as a protein and is so heavily spiced that you’d have a hard time identifying the type of meat anyway. Once the flavors are all mixed up, the meat is mostly about protein and texture.

Lab grown meat could be a complete game changer, if it’s ever more than a novelty product. A lab grown hamburger, which costs significantly more than one sourced from a cow isn’t it. Sure, you might get a bunch of rich, privileged yuppies eating them, just to show off their smug superiority. It will never have mass market appeal. I do think we’re seeing some interesting advancement in higher end meats though. Lab grown steaks seem like a place where the cost could be competitive and, if they are close enough to, or indistinguishable from cow sourced steaks, then that would be great. I’d be perfectly happy to slap a lab grown rib eye on the grill. I’m not squeamish about raw meat or it’s sourcing from dead animals, but I do recognize the impact that ranching has on the environment and that needs to be reduced.

Overall, I see lab grown meat as a net positive, assuming the costs can be brought in line with other options. This may require subsidies or taxes to skew the market in that direction. But, the government using its power to deal with large, complex problem is kinda the point of government. Stopping more climate change isn’t profitable in a way which will favor it in the market, but it does have a negative impact on society. So, the only real solution is going to be government action to reduce the harm, before the tragedy of the commons comes for us all. Lab grown meat can be one part of a broader solution. And hey, if it means more rib eye, without all the climate harm those bring to the table, that’s fantastic. Though, I’d probably still keep lab grown red meat to a sometimes food, just for health reasons.