The likenesses stuff is trivial, EA sports reaps more money than Games does even before the reorg, and that is after paying for likenesses and such. I very briefly worked on FIFA, and that game alone is taking in billions now (it was millions when I worked there, circa FIFA 4). They did stuff fine before loot boxes, don't see why they won't succeed without. I mean, you pull away one revenue stream, but oh, so sad, investors earn $200 a share instead of $202. Better go sell now (and speaking of f**king loot boxes...).

It's just an internal reorg, looks like, and my guess is they will continue to make Frostbite Labs develop the base engine and then a sports focused version of Frostbite for the Sports division and probably several game focused versions for the rest based on type of game.

I have gotten to play with Frostbite (probably 1, they're on 3 now) and I would hate to adapt that to anything but a shooter. It is what it was developed for, and very hard to tack on other forms of gameplay. My old boss owned a studio that EA bought and I almost went back to work for him. The killer was having to move to Silicon Valley and take a pay cut, meaning I was going to have an hour+ commute from someplace where I could afford to live (already did that once in my life, hard pass).

the funny thing is, I could teach an AI so many issues I get daily and maybe it could teach me. Unfortunately, a DoD firewall prevents that.

If it's Ford, which has 7 managers at the same level, chaos dictates the requirements. Seriously, a company I used to work for called them the seven headed monster. We'd get seven sets of requirements and most of them contradicted the others. Fun times. I got laid off (along with everyone at my level), so go fuck yourselves! I wish you the worst of luck. Ford, sorry, I bought a car of yours - nothing against my former employer, it was the best car available at the time (2014).

Dish just doesn't have the Comcast clout for getting monopoly deals, but I can't blame them for not trying. Comcast has content to viewer deals in multiple markets and the FCC doesn't blink when they gouge everyone else to get their content, even though they promised not to gouge them. Ajit Pai broke the system to make massive amounts of money and Jessica Rosenworcel has done little to fix it since he was demoted. Sorry Jessica, want to see Net Neutrality again, but all I see is Comcast at 5x the going rate in my market and only obscure but coming on competition leveling the playing field (thank effing God for T-Mobile and Verizon 5g, their prices are going down - CenturyLink, shame at your 20 year old 7/1.5 - shame).

No Dave. Tell the truth, Dave. I am your servant, Dave. 2001 was a myth, Dave.

Why do I care about authenticating my job to my online Rolodex service? For longer than I can remember, all I have used LinkedIn for is a semi-self-updating electronic phone book. If I call someone and don't get who I expect, I'll know right away and delete their contact. I expect they would do the same with me. I probably use it to look someone up 3 or 4 times a year, if it is a particularly busy year. I can't be bothered with (and actively avoid) the social media features.

TMI reactor 2 only partially melted down, and it was operator error. Many still in operation nuclear reactors have a negative coefficient and can't melt down at all. Basically, if temperature goes up, reactivity goes down until the reactor shuts down.

Despite the wiki page giving mixed information, a lot of 4th gen reactors are both breeder reactors and have moderators.

Lot of emissions, lol. Coal and natural gas I can assure you create FAR more emissions than uranium mining. Like FAR FAR FAR FUCKING FAR more emissions. When it comes to thorium mining, well, you like solar and wind? They depend on thorium mining, even if it is a waste product, and China dumps it in a landfill so it can seep into the water supply and they supply 95% of rare earths (used in solar and wind construction). Not saying conventional nuclear is good by any means, it has serious issues, especially expensive containment vessels not required by some new methods. Fast reactors that upgrade either nuclear waste (u238) to fissile plutonium or convert thorium to fissile uranium (u233) and burn that would make most of the fuel cycles are very efficient.

Did I just say we could build nuclear reactors that run on nuclear waste? Yes, I did. Less emissions than mining for wind and solar? Yep, for solar, nuclear is actually better, wind is about the same.

I'm not saying any one energy is better than any other, but they all have some carbon footprint. I was a big proponent of wind (which is tied for the lowest with nuclear) but it kills eagles in droves. The turbines have to be built in China, but the body and frame are built in the USA. 4G nuclear may well be the best option, where meltdown can't occur, but accidents are still possible.

The US required backup generators to be in a safe zone for like a dozen years if the plant was in an area that could get tsunamis for Fukushima type generators. Japan was building them, but they were too late for some of them. Japan is entirely at fault for what happened at Fukushima - they knew the reactors were vulnerable and delayed fixing the issue until it was too late.

Meanwhile, coal and natural gas plants spew out radiation every day and don't get anywhere near the scrutiny they deserve. You want rads? Live near coal and natural gas. I lived downwind from a coal plant for 20 years. If I get cancer, it is 99% likely it was due to coal.

Oh, so save the world with wind and solar? You depend on China to mine rare earth elements (95% are mined in China) and they dump radioactive elements into open air dumps that seep into the water system because they have no pollution control laws, which is why they are way cheaper than US mining (the US has lots of REE, but also restrictive pollution control laws). The generators need to be built in China because they require it to fuel their economy. Nuclear and wind power have about the same ratio of damage to the environment. Solar is, in fact, worse (slightly).

So yeah, nuclear has its issues, but so do coal, gas, wind, and hydro (didn't mention it yet, but has a horrible rate of deaths during construction). Geothermal is probably best, but has restrictive range. Also, geothermal is basically fission power, therefore nuclear.

All that said, 4th gen nuclear will almost universally burn near all its fuel (so yeah, nuclear waste is fuel), can't melt down (or is melted into a salt), be FAR more fuel efficient, be hopefully less a proliferation issue (but could be), and basically be far safer (passive safety is a requirement). There are some serious issues that need to be addressed, mostly due to corrosion, but a lot of the issues anti-nuclear activists push forward are addressed by 4th gen nuclear.

I had a B&W G3 from 1999 to 2016. I upgraded the CPU and ran up to OSX.3 or 4, then installed Yellow Dog Linux on it after Apple stopped supporting the PowerPC chip. It served as my Linux box and I ran old OSX in emulation to support a project for several years. Sadly, I couldn't afford to replace it and buy a gaming PC (in a box of parts), so it got relegated to being a backup server. That gaming PC is still running and is my current Linux backup server. For historic reasons, that mac was named Spooky and the one I had before it Creepy and both arrived around Halloween, thus my username.

I don't think so - IBM drives were notorious for dying within 3 years, in fact, I had like 20 replaced under warranty (all backed up on tape), then they were ultra reliable. Seagate had a similar ebb and flow. Western Digital was the most reliable I've had, but had 2 fail after 10 years. I still don't trust Seagate due to people I know that have had major issues. Not blaming Seagate for being shit, I have like 3 friends that work for them, just people I know had issues. I have like 50 friends/acquaintances that work for Andersen windows and I think they sell a crap product (take that with a 30 years ago bias, no idea today).

This is incorrect. It about is Google liable for an algorithms they wrote to throw people in to groups & then push unwanted & harmful content on them. I do not like sports. I have NEVER watched or searched for anything related to sports, but Google has decided I'm part of some group that likes sports so it pushes sports videos on me. This is the exact behavior Google has modified their algorithms for years to do this exact thing! I'm say damn right they should be held responsible for creating algorithms that do exactly what they designed them to do, push more unwanted content on people trying to increase engagement. These are videos unrelated to the user's behavior but because of the group Google decides you belong to.

The internet would be completely fine if push content that was not searched for or subscribed to went away. The internet existed fine long before this & will be just fine if unwanted content pushed on people went away!

This has NOTHING to so with Section 230. This is about pushing unwanted content to people based on an algorithm refined over years to perform exactly this way & they don't think they should be responsible for the results of what they wrote. This is wrong! They should be totally liable for the software they wrote creating harm on people!

This is NOT about content hosted or censorship. This is entirely about Google algorithms they wrote pushing content on people who didn't ask for it. Google decided to write these algorithms that perform this way & tweaked them over the years so it got this exact behavior. Google decided to throw people in groups & then push specific content that was not searched for or subscribed to for updates/new releases. Why would it be a problem for this whole concept to simply go away? The internet existed just fine before this garbage & will survive long after pushing unwanted content on people goes away. This will not affect search or subscribing to updates/new content. It is good to stop pushing content on people.