No 3rd either, so the king can even do that in time of peace!

Here's the lyrics to a fairly typical, average kinda tune:

We used to swim the same moonlight waters
Oceans away from the wakeful day

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Scent of the sea before the waking of the world
Brings me to thee
Into the blue memory

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Into the blue memory

A siren from the deep came to me
Sang my name my longing
Still I write my songs about that dream of mine
Worth everything I may ever be

The Child will be born again
That siren carried him to me
First of them true loves
Singing on the shoulders of an angel
Without care for love ‘n loss

Bring me home or leave me be
My love in the dark heart of the night
I have lost the path before me
The one behind will lead me

Take me
Cure me
Kill me
Bring me home
Every way
Every day
Just another loop in the hangman’s noose

Take me, cure me, kill me, bring me home
Every way, every day
I keep on watching us sleep

Relive the old sin of Adam and Eve
Of you and me
Forgive the adoring beast

Redeem me into childhood
Show me myself without the shell
Like the advent of May
I’ll be there when you say
Time to never hold our love
-------

But there's next to no repetition in it.

Movies have become more derivative every decade since the motion picture camera was invented. This is the "low hanging fruit" observation.

People only have a certain number of desires, and only desire a certain amount of change. As it gets more difficult to come up with something new that people like, something old will get repeated more. As there gets to be a longer history of "something old that people liked", something new will be created less often.

It's not just movies. You can see it everywhere. Consider, e.g., software. A new edition has to change something noticeable, but it gets harder to come up with something new that people will like as much.

For content creators? Sure. They're going to get screwed.

But for viewers? Pretty much anything that anyone can do that isn't watch YouTube is competition. It doesn't have to be streaming video. It could be games. If enough people decide it's more worth their time than YouTube, it could be watching grass grow or paint dry. It doesn't really matter.

Exactly. If YouTube makes the viewing experience miserable enough, people aren't going to decide "I'll subscribe to YouTube!" they're going to decide "screw this, I'll do something else."

It's one thing if there's arguably a value add for a service, like better quality or earlier access or something. But YouTube Premium's "value add" is basically "we'll stop intentionally poking you with a stick." That's not a good way to get people to pay, that's a good way to get people to do something else, and there's a LOT of "something else" people can do besides watch videos on YouTube.

The time when we could (sometimes) rely on legislators to mandate basic security was back when they understood how basic security worked. In these areas only (some) tech specialists do.

Hellgate: London?
This is not a new concept (and yes, I know about the "re-release")

That is, indeed, the most ethical. It's the way I chose. But I never deluded myself into believing that it would alter the behavior of the companies. Only two things (that I've thought of) stand a chance of doing that.
1) If you stop selling something that you are the monopolizer of sales in, you lose all associated copyrights. (And possibly all associated patents.) I.e. legal action to make things that you buy act is if they are yours.
2) Massive community on-line attacks whenever a company disables something that it's sold.

I don't think either of those have much chance of happening, and the second would be quite dangerous.

If you are going to steal a lot of money, leave the country the moment the cash is in your hand. Don't hang around pretending everything is fine and no one is going to discover your theft...leave. Now.

I suppose the fact that this story has been up for an hour with only three comments answers that question.

But really, does anybody care? The PS5 basically didn't exist for the first three years it was out. It's only been readily available for the past year, and even then, pretty much everything released on it (including Sony stuff) is also getting released on PC. The PS5 might as well already be dead.

Plus, Nintendo's new console is also expected out next year. The Switch has proven that a dedicated portable gaming console that supports docking with a TV works. Why would I want to get a large, expensive box I can only use with a TV? Especially when Nintendo is almost certainly going to be coming out with a cheaper console that, while expected to be far less powerful, will play a far greater assortment of exclusive titles?

Sony's going to have to provide a pretty compelling reason to bother with a new, even more expensive PS5. A better framerate or higher resolution graphics isn't it. The Switch has proven that pretty conclusively.

There's probably no "the" filter. It's probably a raft of multiple pieces. Some species won't be able to survive away from their home planet. Some will be aquatic (or other heavy medium). Some won't be able to tolerate the communications lag time. Some will kill each other off in suicidal war. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And another part of the filter is, since FTL appears to be impossible, (if only because of collision with grains of dust) once you've spent thousands of years in space, that's what you're adapted to, and then you don't want to (or can't) visit a planet.

In the case of Ukraine, the success rate is very high because anybody in range is likely an enemy soldier.

Israel's success rate may be as low as 0.1%. That tells us that robots can't tell civilians from military. A large enough stockpile of human shields would be a serious problem.

And we know drones et al are vulnerable to GPS spoof attacks, making such an attack risky against a technologically advanced enemy with intellectuals and engineers forming a scientific take on special forces.

Why bother with a missile? You're here, so a geek. You know GPS jamming is effective, as is GPS spoofing. All you need is a parabolic dish and a high power transmitter. There's simply no possibility of a wide-angle transmitter on a satellite matching a narrow beam that's broadcast from a hundredth of the distance. Sure, there'll be authentication keys. And social engineers have compromised most of the world's governments, which means the keys will be for sale somewhere.

The only way I can the robot army being effective is if they flatten everything at long range, indiscriminately. And that is going to cause its own problems. Especially if the software gets hacked prior to install. Which will happen, because hiring and training an army of hackers in Mitnick-style social engineering tactics costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the expense of maintaining a wall of tactical nukes that can EMP the robot forces.

The robots work OK, but the AI doesn't. Israel is using AI extensively to target Hamas at the moment, with the very best AI that exists and the very best military minds the world can produce. The success rate is somewhere between 1% and 0.1%.

Face scanning tech also depends on the data set being valid. The DOD has been compromised many times by airwall violations, security violations, improper screening, and extremely buggy software from Cisco and Microsoft.

All the enemy needs to do is write a rootkit that flips a couple of bits. The robot army now faces the other way and friends are identified as foe. I wouldn't put it past a group like the Lazarus hackers to be capable of such a stunt. We already know the enemy is capable of GPS jamming and GPS spoofing, because they've done so to hijack US drones, and that's another potential vulnerability.

US military robots are also known to have severe problems identifying that a person dressed as a tree is a person, not a tree. A skillful enemy could walk through US robot army lines without impediment, unless the US robots shoot indiscriminately. But if the US robots are genocidal, mutually assured destruction becomes a viable tactic. You can't be more than dead, after all.

And if the US includes a death switch, given that US defence contractors don't always wipe hard drives and the military don't psychologically screen very well (Manning was known to be seriously mentally unstable prior to deployment, for example), there's absolutely no guarantee the enemy won't simply learn it and spoof it.

I just don't see how the US think this could possibly work.

Its success rate in Israel stands at somewhere between 1% and 0.1%.

One gun can shoot at one target at any one time. If your AI-guided robot army is shooting up chicken farmers and goat herders, it's ergo not shooting at the army that's flanked it which threatens to overrun the opposing side's now largely undefended turf.

A robot army can also be taken out by EMP weapons - basically tax nukes. Since robots can't distinguish between soldiers, civilians, and cake stands (AI is pretty dumb), the defending side already faces complete genocide. You can't get any deader than that, so there's no incentive to not flatten the enemy with nukes and a very slim chance they won't fire back, because it's hard to maintain an expensive nuclear defence and an extremely expensive robot army at the same time.

(Basically, same reason the US is now outgunned on fighters, the new ones are so expensive they can't afford that many. The US relies utterly on them being more destructive faster, but again, what's the point in NOT invoking MAD when your enemy has demonstrated they're genocidal and no respectors of the norms and laws of war?)