Wait so if a game doesn’t not need online connection it can say buy?
That is such a huuuge advantage to indie devs that can let you own things.
What if he is not mentally a 5 year old but people keep letting him do what he wants and he is trying to keep pushing that envelope.
Him acting like a 5 year old and getting away with it is on society imo.
I mean, she is not trying to keep a private life, she is trying to capitalize on her 15 mins of fame. If she wants the fame, the label should be fair game.
I agree but I also like to point out that the AI craze started with LLMs and those MLs have been around before OpenAI.
So if openAI never released chat GPT, it wouldn’t have become synonymous with crypto in terms of false promises.
Not only that, image analysis and statistical guesses have always been around and do not need ML to work. It’s just one more tool in the toolbox.
How could it be weaponized?
It costs money (relative to your company size) to do any legal action, a big company suing means they lose waaay more $ than the small opponent.
Same thing with the small guy, it’s not a lot of $ to sue but it’s still a big chunk of your business so you would want to avoid unless your pretty sure the law is on your side.
As a dev, imo this is an industry wide problem with late stage capitalism and software.
You can reach a point in software where it’s “done”. It meets the core requirements while having enough complexity to make it robust.
But that’s incompatible with capitalism so you get know nothing managers trying to convince investors that more money can be made with more features even if no one asked for it.
Personally, I’ve been seeing way more markers when you zoom in for bigger businesses meaning they are probably going heavy on pay to show.
It says a lot about the world that only certain people who can afford certain experiences can enjoy it and the rest are bitter.
Having said that, I’m proud of anon and his likely faked story and son.
Huh, one part of me feels bad for her cause of all the attention, but she seems like she wants to capitalize on it.
It’s her choice but I feel like the jokes are a little more justified if she wants to stay in the spotlight.
That’s exactly my point which I think some downvotes missed.
Digital ownership can just be a guarantee for the company to let you access it until 100 years after purchase.
Same as speeding tickets in Nordic countries, it’s a parentage of total revenue. Im sure these details can be ironed out but the idea is that a corp can’t use its unlimited resources, it has to share said resources with their opponent to ensure a fair trail, otherwise it’s not justice imo.
Sorry what I meant is to pool both parties legal budget, divide it in half and give each the same amount.
Basically disarms all corporates from using their army of lawyers because their big army will never give them an advantage. So they would actually avoid legal battles cause it would cost them money with no unfair advantage.
It’s actually true for most things if you think long term enough.
You don’t really own things, you have control over them for a portion of your life.
Would be pretty easy to argue that digital ownership is perpetual access for the rest of your life.
But then they can’t resell you the same thing on different platforms.
I don’t understand why they don’t just charge both parties the average cost when one side has waaay more legal resources than the other. Seems like such an obvious issue with the legal system that even the founding fathers should have realized if they thought for a second.
Or they did and this is the intended system.
Zionism has been a thing before bibi
Can’t beat it with people majority, need to have the land majority.
It’s unfortunately standard with all stock graphs :/
“Tanked”
Checks graph
19% is a hit but I wouldn’t call it tanked.
Some stocks are just volatile. Here is the full history:
They are honestly both good, but can’t beat the native ios experience.