I actually want to see ads that are:
- relevant to my interests
- have good timing when presenting themselves
- able to be found easily if I navigate away on accident
- Don't rape my ears
That's just sensible. Instead, YT delivers ads that:
- hawk some bullshit that insults my intelligence
- interrupts the content's vocal coherency
- you can't replay if you find interesting
- Blast noise at a greater volume than what you were listening to
This has added new units and campaigns.
I'm curious to know what you suggest for alternatives. War for the Overworld is good, and it's a basically a sequel to DK. I forget why I stopped playing, think it was that the visuals were too hard to make out or something with the controls. But I remember DK was nigh perfect and fun, just too outdated to run well on modern systems.
I noticed you're hating on the Lego movies, suggesting them as an example of bad trends in cinema.
Are you trying out to be a character in The Eltingville Club?
I don't know what guncash is, but as an American, I'm intrigued!
(not to be confused with gun cache)
While I'm here calling out Intel CEOs, Krzanich committed some blatant insider trading when he sold a bunch of shares right before the spectre/meltdown turds hit the fan, while the turd was still in flight.
Not being idiots when it comes to pencil pushing and accounting practices, Intel knew this would make them look bad so they did the smart thing: Make one of Krzanich's inappropriate relationships come to light as cause for resignation/termination. That press took up all the air in the room, and the insider trading never hit the media!
Walking down the halls of an Intel campus, seen framed in glass on the wall is the footgun Otellini used when failing to close the deal where Intel would make chips for the iPhone.
Gelsinger sees it and says "Hey that looks like fun!" and retrieves said footgun without hesitating to spare the glass, then aims it directly at his own foot.
In Max's best imagination of how AI could disaffect humanity, how does it compare to the mundane ways humans consciously choose to disaffect humanity to satisfy an optimization algorithm? What if an AI made freight trains be 4 miles long so that roads are always blocked, to the extreme that timely medical care is fatally denied? Maybe the AI "decided" that occasionally derailing and contaminating a city is more optimal than allocating cheap resources to balance load in response to braking requirements.
People did, can, and will beat machines to such bad outcomes easily.
The answer is easy: When one or more humans notices the defective behavior, choose better.
The implementation of that easy answer is the tricky part.
She wasn't Kitty Oppenheimer when the movie characters spoke that dialogue. She was married to Richard Harrison at the time and had his last name.
Saved the company from shipping a show-stopped bug into production, the kind egregious enough to lose customers and spawn lawsuits, which some may consider productive.
The managers who decided to launch the space shuttle Challenger created a lot of new jobs (terminated a few too) for people and completed the project way ahead of schedule, which some would measure as "productivity".
This sounds like the kind of toxic optimism Pixar warned kids about in the movie Inside Out (the Joy character)
You can tell they were productive if you're still using their code two, five, or even ten years later.
The dangerously faulty code had been in place so long, no one could determine its origins. "Probably some jr dev", they excuse. "This is definitely Bad Practice. Even if we work around it, this could cause problems for someone else in the future. It could be causing problems now that we're unaware of."
So why wasn't it fixed? Fear. Fear of their own chaos, for it controlled them now. The managers could only feed it fresh blood as the quarters ticked by.
You can tell they were unproductive if you're not, or if you had to fire them, or if they got frustrated for whatever reason and quit.
Perhaps the dev quit exactly because the reason was mandatory unproductivity, rejecting good design so they could chase their own bugs in circles to rack up story points.
Rent-seeking middleman technology is rampant, driven by greed and fueled by complacency. If you're unable to recognize the problem, how would you know if you're part of it?
(the preceding story is true)
Tesla offering the future, but all they made is an alternate status symbol to clog the passing lane, a more comfortable way to be stuck in traffic.
Social media designs that takes all the dynamics of human interaction, then strip it down to a liner info trough.
Microsoft doing the same thing anyone else has been doing for a long time, but more expensively and less securely.
Cars beep and honk just to spam noises I can't unsubscribe from, but there's no clever way to negotiate overtaking a slower vehicle.
Ruining landscapes for mass solar power when we've had reliable nuclear power for generations.
People, "Big Tech", or whatever social movements need to start rejecting trash ideas and concepts and look at what delivers genuine value. Maybe they can start with affordable housing or clean water. Do you have an app for that?
UNESCO is more than just a lone crackpot, but I like your point and I think it applies just as well.
To me it comes across as tone deaf more than anything. Modern school seems like a failed idea committed to sunk cost fallacy, and now it's just failing harder in the presence of ubiquitous commodities, things that can provide better education than these bully farms want to deliver.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
