Match Group has ruined dating, and this will only make it worse.
Consider its business relationship with a user (paying or not, but especially paying), going from best to worst scenario (for them):

1. The user gets matches regularly, maybe goes on a date once in a while, doesn't click with anyone, but is just motivated enough to stay subscribed.
2. The user hardly gets any matches, gets frustrated, ends their subscription, then comes back when they get too lonely.
3. The user enters a relationship which only lasts a short time, then comes back to try again.
4. The user finds a long-term partner and does not need to use online dating anymore.

1 is ideal, 2/3 are fine, 4 has to be avoided at all costs. Any for-profit business, especially publicly traded, has a financial incentive to develop algorithms that make sure nobody finds a long-term partner, even at the cost of lowering the amount of matches, and with absolutely no regard for the quality of matches. If you just show them people they'll hate, you can pretend that's all there is out there!

As a poor student, I torrented a lot because I couldn't afford to buy DVD set after DVD set.
Then mostly for convenience.
Then streaming came along, and suddenly it was both cheap and convenient to just pay for the content.
Then I found myself being subscribed to 5 different services and not really watching any of them, because all the new shows were either copy-pasted garbage (wow, imagine people had super powers!), or would be canceled after a season.

So now we're at a point where all the content is boring, the creators and actors aren't getting paid fairly, and the studios are committing to making everything even more bland and repetitive by investing in AI-generated scripts and artificial actors.

Piracy looks like the more ethical option, but it doesn't matter because there's nothing but crap. I'm not expecting the streaming services to hurt too much because formulaic shallow mass-produced garbage is actually very popular, but for my own well-being I'll look for entertainment elsewhere.

Voting to kick toxic players out isn't new. It also doesn't work very well when there's enough timid, passive players who secretly admire the toxic ones while also trying to stay on their good side.

In mostly toxic playerbases, who is most likely to be kicked out?

According to Sony, it's bullies and people who just refuse to become "high-skilled". Or who somehow aren't skilled at the game when they start?

Who is actually going to be kicked? Women, minorities, players who dare to win against high-profile streamers, players who play the game "wrong" according to the veterans, anyone speaking up against toxic behavior, and now in this patented system: anyone playing better than some rich idiot.

I have to admit though, monetizing toxicity is quite a genius, cynical, capitalist move. I would suggest also introducing game mechanics that maximise your anger against your fellow players, so that people will spend their food budget for the next week on getting back at someone who wronged them.

...that it shot itself, or that it didn't even manage to destroy its target?

Linus and some others described it as tone-deaf, how nivida paints tech reviewers as cheapskates who are just in it for the free hardware.

I have a hard time believing that that's what nvidia actually thinks. If you have a good product that works well, you want to give as many reviewers access to it as you can, and the cost of the unit is well worth the publicity. And anyone who even qualifies for getting free hardware and pre-release drivers, even if they didn't have any integrity at all, is long past the point where getting free hardware would be a serious part of their business model.

The letter looks very carefully crafted. A part of it was pure marketing-speak, clearly not aimed at a lone reviewer whose literal job it is see through marketing-speak. It was directed at the larger audience of people he inevitably would publish this letter to. It's aimed at driving a wedge between reviewers and their audience.

Nvidia would love nothing more than have their press releases be the only representation of reality out there. They don't want anyone to figure out how the 30XX line only looks good because the 20XX line was actually a step back in price/performance, or that this is still not the generation that makes raytracing a good alternative to pure rasterization. So they've decided to copy the most destructive ideas from all those anti-democratic movements around the world, and attack journalism directly by trying to pit its audience against it. "Look, these cheapskates get hardware for free that you desire but can't even afford, and then they probably just spend the rest of the day playing games!"

What nvidia actually wants is essentially like an Amazon-review-scam: For some free hardware, give us a glowing 5 star review, make sure to hit these points.

Of course they are "apologizing" now. That entire e-Mail was written in a way that screams "if you're angry, share it with everyone you know so they can read our ad copy too!". It's really chilling.

Host: "This 80s TV show featured a talking car, and a lead actor who would become famous for trying to eat a cheeseburger."

Deep Blue: "Knight... to C6?"

Host: "In the form of a question, please."

You are right, they still need to test it on humans - and the death rates really make the "cure" thing seem unimportant.

But five monkeys aren't that few if you consider it was 30000 times the lethal dosage. Sounds to me like testing bomb-squad armor by dropping an atomic bomb on it - five times.

I doubt that we'll see this being treated as the breakthrough that it is without calling it something that it isn't yet.

At least those Google employees who are responsible for getting stuff displayed in browsers need to use all major browsers. QA people probably even use all the browsers plus most versions of those browsers. Sure, those setups will probably be automated and sandboxed, but at least up until now I don't think it seemed necessary for each developer to be that paranoid about using the latest IE for quick tests.

I'm sure that for normal browsing (not for testing purposes) most of these people use chrome.

Every time some name becomes a noun (or a noun becomes a verb), a meme becomes mainstream, or anything slightly changes its meaning to settle in a niche, there will always be a lot of ranting from people who find this annoying or lame, making it something of a scandal.

I'll just call that "GATEGATEGATE".