Who's being greedy? The company that wants to keep more profit for themselves, the employees who want more pay for themselves, or the customers who want to pay less for the same as before? Everyone is greedy.

The only meaningful way for employees to earn more is for there to be an alternative purchaser for their labor or for them to own stock in the company that they work for. A good way to achieve both at the same time is for those employees to quit and form their own business to compete against Google. If they're short on cash, there's apparently a large number of groups in the area that will provide that cash in exchange for a stake in the business.

You need to change your diet. Cutting back for a while and then returning to whatever lead you to needing to cut back in the first place is only going to get you right back to where you started. You don't even need to do it all at once, and it's probably better that you don't. Most people don't have the willpower to commit to something like that for more than a few weeks or months. But if you drink a few sodas every day, always have a bag of chips as a snack, etc. then just cutting that out will probably have some big effects.

Also take a week or two and actually write down everything that you eat. No need to calculate the calories or anything like that as you're doing it. Just make sure you are accurate and aren't bullshitting yourself. After two weeks calculate the calories and be amazed at how it's much larger than you actually assumed. You'll probably be able to identify one thing you could cut out that will make a big impact.

Finally, lift some weights. If you're really overweight trying to run will just wreck your knees and joints. Swimming is fine, but weight lifting will burn calories as well as cardio and building muscle will mean your body consumes more calories at a baseline. Don't expect to lose a lot of weight or become ripped in a short amount of time either. If you lose 2 pounds a month then after a year you'll be about 25 pounds lighter and hopefully have developed some habits that will allow you to stay that way.

Punishing honesty isn't a good thing. Unless they're changing their practices, what does this really do beyond appeasing s mob that will settle back into the same situation as before? Does anyone really think that her replacement will think differently?

California is large enough in many cases, being about 12% of the country's population. It has about the same number of people as all of Canada as a whole. Canada is a pimple on a blister of a wart in the global scale, particularly considering anyone who wants a game badly enough will cross the border for it given the proximity to it of the majority of their citizens. I'll bet the ones that don't want to make the drive can work out how to use a VPN.

Or Canada doesn't get those products and companies rely on Canadian consumers to just import things they want which aren't sold locally. They aren't exactly California where they're so large that they can expect everyone else to bend over backwards for them.

Canada isn't a big enough market to enforce this as it's effectively requiring companies to do this everywhere and too many of them have a business model based on this year's game being dead just after next year's game ships. The likely outcome is that they stop direct sales in Canada and rely on Canadians (most of whom live within 100 miles of the border) driving south to buy the game there.

The easy solution is to just remove the ability for companies to sue or prevent anyone else from creating a server for older games that allows clients to connect to as opposed to first party servers. It's not too different than what the World of Warcraft community was doing for several years with unofficial servers that ran the original game instead of the latest expansion. If there's a market, it will emerge.

Unless you can make some testable prediction that we can measure you may as well be saying that the gods are angry with us. It's even more stupid in a way as people who understand science really ought to know better. It's perfectly fine to identify and report on a pattern without having any idea why it has emerged.

It seems that most of these impersonation schemes could be defeated by having the person at the company hang up and call the executive back.

It doesn't matter whether it's consumers or corporations that use the excess money supply to chase the same (or slightly increased, but still relatively fewer) goods and services, it will in the end cause inflation. Perhaps giving it to consumers directly speeds up the process and causes the market to adjust faster than if those dollars first have to work their way to that point, but the end result will still be the same.

This latest round of inflation has been particularly nasty because the handing out of "free money" coincided with a reduction in the production of goods and services. In other words, we were getting it from both ends.

Best case scenario is that the AI still rejects papers that have new or novel results that don't adhere to existing published results. There are some contentious fields where humans will reject something because it doesn't fit with their hypothesis, but it seems like that usually leads to splinter factions for any theories that have at least some amount of popularity.

It's really doubtful that the AI could spot any of the mistakes that would cause someone to reject a paper (even if the reviewer did agree with its conclusions) because of improper methodology, etc. I'm not sure the LLMs can make those kinds of statistical inferences even if they were trained on a really good set of data.

Apple has some of the best hardware you can buy. It may not suit your needs, but the sour grapes attitude is not befitting anyone who has needs that don't align with Apple. The new iPads aren't for everyone, but you'd be hard pressed to find equivalent alternatives in either the Windows or Android markets that fully stack up. Go look at the kids these days and find anyone that doesn't have a wireless Bluetooth set of earphones. Maybe you can, but they're rare. I think those have become a new status symbol more than the phone you have.

The government is an association of people. Do they not have a collective first amendment right? What about unions? You're shortsighted idiocy would kill more than you wish it to.

Someone should edit their Wikipedia page to let everyone know they pay for slashvertisements. Or just more generally for the press to write stories about them. I'll accept that the latest crop of /. editors are stupid enough to post something that would be marked as binspam by anyone with a brain.

I think it's more of a realization that they pushed out a lot crap they just assumed would make money and people weren't interested. At the height of Marvel mania, they could do that and apparently people would go see films they otherwise wouldn't just because they were building up to a bigger conclusion. Once that finished, people stopped caring.

For reference, Captain Marvel had a $1.1 billion worldwide gross against a $160 million production budget according to IMDB. It's sequel, The Marvels, had a worldwide gross of slightly above $200 million against a $240 million production budget. The first Ant-man grossed a bit over $500 million on a $130 million production budget. The sequel had a worldwide gross of $620 million against a $160 million production budget. The most recent entry had a worldwide gross of a bit under $480 million on a $200 million production budget.

Needless to say, these productions aren't safe money any more.

I like the 4:3 ratio. I use my tablet for reading books, and the 4:3 ratio is a lot closer to that of a real book. Of course that's for the 9.7" iPad and I don't know if it's feel quite the same with on of their 13" tablets. The only thing widescreen is better at in my opinion is watching television shows that were shot for 16:9. Older shows naturally work better with 4:3 though and most movies don't have a 16:9 ratio, so even widescreen displays are going to have bars.