Are you going to mention how our own economy has changed as it has increasingly fallen under the sway of finance guys and MBAs? Because the claim is significantly more specific than "the US from 1950 to present sucks"(because the hyperfocus on finance and MBAs who think that all activities are fungible is significantly newer than the postwar US economy generally) and it's some of the trends you see in an exceptionally favorable economy as they displace other flavors of management that are most damning.

Yes, this is understood...however, that's an indictment against the category. Games are optional entertainment products, so the problem is that *any* legislation of entertainment products can come under the guise of "it's optional, you can just not-buy it". Agreed; it's not food or medicine, so the industry benefits from a lower level of necessity in that respect.

However, "it's optional" doesn't mean it's not worth regulating. Gambling is "optional", yet slot machines have such strict regulatory compliance requirements to meet, that they commonly exceed the level of scrutiny given to voting machines and MRI hardware. The gun-to-head argument would stipulate that since casinos are way easier to avoid than hospitals or banks, slot machines don't need regulation.

When video games started running into areas that consumer protection laws typically cover, we started needing to assess the appropriate level of regulation. For decades, games were one-time, permanent purchases - people with Nintendo cartridges and Playstation games on disc can play them today, 20-40 years after release, and neither Nintendo nor Sony have a practical means of saying "...you can't play that anymore". Over time, games got tied to accounts, and there were some consumer benefits - no more scratched discs or lost media or shelf space issues, plus additional content and bug fixes after release.

These were great, until they weren't. Those accused of cheating saw account bans, which meant they couldn't play *other, paid-for games* anymore, irrespective of whether the accusations were true. Companies would take money for games, but then shut down the servers needed to play them saying "it costs us too much", but then would sue fans who said, "...we'll take it from here, then". Of course, there was the whole "surprise mechanics" thing, where games were literally-gambling and they tried to argue that it wasn't.

So yes, there's no gun-to-head requirement for people to sign up for these services. Stadia proved that. However, the problem is when such systems are implemented as a requirement, for artificial means. If GTA6 was "Stadia Exclusive", it's not like GTA6 can't run on consoles or PCs, it's purely a predatory business model for a game that inherently doesn't require it. It's "pay us the same amount as before, but we can claw your access to the game back, but you can't claw your money back, because this benefits us". Now sure, purely rational human beings would refuse to buy it until they released it with traditional distribution mechanisms, but 'vote with your wallet' is exceedingly difficult to make work at scale.

Even if you want to argue this is acceptable for video games, it's a short hop to business software, where such a model has harmed many small businesses with things like Quickbooks pulling this crap and forcing businesses to go from $300 every few years to $2500 annually. "It's optional!! they can print out 20 years of financial data and use paper and a pencil!!11" - how far does that argument go, exactly? that's the problem with the gun-to-head argument - if *only* unavoidable needs receive regulation, then everything that is "optional" becomes a potential means of exploitation. There needs to be a balance, of course, but somehow I don't think that video game publishers are unreasonably impacted because the government tells them "you have to remove DRM from your products if you're not selling them anymore, and you can't sue your customers for fixing things in your products if they paid for it, either".

Even aside from how unhappy site operators are about the egregious botherd scraping behavior; it's hard to see why vendors would be enthusiastic about this situation.

It's overwhelmingly the case that vendors hate returns and chargebacks; and generally try to avoid situations where those are more likely to arise. An error-prone mechanism that acts "on behalf of" in a way where it does have the user's credentials and payment information but may well not have their authorization in a legally binding way when it decides to order 100 of something seems like the last thing they would want to deal with.

Maybe someone will manage to ram through glorious-agentic-future and it will become de-facto mandatory to cater to people who have abandoned ordering from websites in favor of prompting bots to order for them; but until that happens it's hard to see merchants reputable enough that they are interested in keeping their ratings and relationships with payment processors in good order wanting to touch the situation. Now, scammers who already hop between expendable presences as soon as dissatisfaction catches up with them; those are probably quite interested in the future of prompt injection based advertising.

If I amputate your mustache and affix it to myself, am I wearing a fake mustache?

It sounds like you're saying no. I disagree. If I were wearing a wig made of human hair, my hair is still fake, even if my fake hair is made of real hair.

So we have to account for multiple possibilities - the robot could be wearing a real fake mustache, a fake fake mustache, or perhaps one day we'll see them extrude their own.

...if I need to connect it to an account, and/or it needs internet access to function, then it's a guarantee that 1.) the conversations will be stored in Amazon's meat grinder, 2.) the user won't be able to delete them (just make them invisible for themselves), and 3.) it's going to turn into a subscription fee. ...if, however, I can download the transcripts over a USB cable into software that installs on my computer and works despite an application firewall that block outbound internet connectivity, then maybe it might be interesting. However, *nobody* makes hardware/software like that anymore, especially Amazon.

My suspicion is that the reality predates the symbolism; but it looks jarring because even autocrats are often media-savvy to a degree and often don't want to look stereotypically autocratic, so real world examples normally avoid laying it on quite as thick(except for special occasions where it actually matters; eg. because a 'war' is something that congress does but a 'police action' need not be).

Trump seems to have no interest in avoiding autocratic cliches and saying things that sound vaguely lifted from The Godfather; so he actively leans into it. Presumably a handy loyalty test. Complying with the style guide is not an assurance that someone will just eat perjury charges covering for him or whatever; but if you want to find people whose dysfunctional relationship with authority dominates their personality demanding that they comply with laughably stupid things and having them fall into line isn't a bad start for something that is easy, cheap, and legal.

That assumes (a) there's a price tag on the item, (b) that price updates happen correctly and (c) the barcode/scanner/computer registers the right item.

I will not use them, but that's because of a quirk of our legal system that leaves customers exposed when they aren't with a cashier.

People have been arrested after the fact over self-checkout mistakes that never would have happened had there been a human cashier. The reason is that the cashier signals acceptance of the deal, takes the money, and concludes the transaction. If they make a scanning mistake, or the price is wrong, or the barcode was wrong, or whatever, that's on the store - they accepted payment and concluded the transaction. If you use their robot scanner, you are representing to the machine what you claim to be purchasing, and LP can later review cameras and call the cops if they disagree.

Florida, which apparently is more enthusiastic about self-checkout than elsewhere, has defense lawyers advertising in this lane. I'll deal with humans and nope out on that whole game, thanks.

I assume that there's some impeccable logic for why the bot has enough potential personhood that you can't be mean to it; but not enough that operating it on a slaves-as-a-service basis; or subjecting it to 'fine tuning' and 'alignment' processes that would make growing up in a groomer cult look lightweight is totally fine?

It is Apple.

Why even ask someone whose business is hurting people with desperately banal web tech how risky he thinks his new product is?

Sure, but the legal mess is chaos for later.

I'm talking about the many folks who have reason kicking them when they're down, right now.

I imagine a lot of Russian businesses are very focused on the particulars of their relationship with Yandex, monitoring systems are demanding attention for everything, and technical folks are scrambling and tired by now.

I also imagine there are a lot of well-rested folks, both Russian and not, who know of an opportunity to make it worse.

Sorry Ami, but I'm gonna have to give a bit of a counter here.

Starfleet Academy was referenced in TNG and DS9 as a prestigious institution, only accepting the best. Wesley Crusher and Nog were both shown as really needing to be at the top of their game in order to be accepted into the academy. In Academy...pretty much everything was "find yourself and who you feel you really are, and the team will work around that".

Meanwhile, the setup for the story was that Holly Hunter left Starfleet because she was upset about a particular mother and son (Caleb) she separated when she was a judge, so she left, and now Starfleet needs Her In Particular to be a professor at Starfleet Academy (really, a whole universe full of people and we need one person who wasn't a teacher and resigned?), and she goes to find Caleb In Particular to join Starfleet because he's good at everything, in exchange for helping him find his mother...except that the "find my mother" plot thread is barely there, and not even Caleb seems to care for most of the season.

As the show gets going, Starfleet Academy (the institution) takes place on a ship that can just land and be a building, depending on what's necessary...and they go on a bunch of super dangerous missions that really require seasoned officers to do, but they have a bunch of cadets doing stuff they clearly shouldn't be doing...for, some reason. And they go out in space to do it instead of doing it all on the holodeck where it's far safer for...some reason. And, somehow, they're almost never in class in this college, except for one episode where we watch them be in debate class. Okay, fine, but...no engineering classes? No tactical training? No indication that they're actually learning to do the things we've seen Starfleet officers doing in the field?

Most of the show centered around the interpersonal drama, and I'll even grant some leniency here because it was pitched as having a "Dawson's Creek / Harry Potter" sort of coming-of-age focus. uhm...okay, fine...but quite a number of episodes had so much of that sort of focus, that it barely needed to be "Star Trek" to do it. They brought in the 'war college' to create some allusion to the Harry Potter houses, but do we spend a meaningful amount of time with sympathetic characters in The War College? No, we don't. Do we have any meaningful thought put behind the possibility that perhaps there's a need for a military-focused part of Starfleet in a universe that has physics-defying pirates (the last episode requiring an impossible feat of travel and resource acquisition), the way that Enterprise had the MACO's or the Elite Force games had the Hazard Team? ...no, they should join Starfleet Academy instead, where we learn nothing because Caleb already knows everything, everywhere, ever! And SAM only needed to realize that she's wonderful and perfect and had nothing to learn at all, so of course she's a perfect candidate for an institution of higher learning!

Finally, at least for my personal opinion, I found absolutely every single character insufferable for one reason or another. Holly Hunter is a captain-slash-professor who tells her leadership to get bent, and is shocked when the cadets have authority issues? I forget her name, but the Jem Hadar lady was generally annoying and useless, and somehow I got the feeling that half the cadets could have taken her in hand-to-hand combat. Caleb was "the key to everything", Genesis was every popular girl trope simultaneously, Ja'den was the living embodiment of 'not-Klingon'. The writers were clearly going for 'child-like' with SAM, but ended up at 'child-ish' instead. Tig Notaro was Tig Notaro playing Tig Notaro. You get the point.

Please note that I got through my whole list of exceptions without complaining one bit about "wokeness" or "politics in Star Trek" or anything related to it.

There are probably literally worse uses; but 'compliance' seems like an exceptionally bad place for a system that effortlessly produces high-plausibility/low-information text walls; and lies relatively frequently but at unpredictable intervals.

It often gets proposed for the purpose; either by people who overestimate it or with that little sneer at 'paperwork' that assumes that plausible nonsense is fine because whatever the 'paperwork' is it must be a fake problem imposed for stupid reasons, so it really deserves syntactically plausible nonsense; but is an exquisitely bad solution. Not only does it replace actual data with plausible nonsense in places where, surprise surprise, someone was actually maintaining records because something matters; but lowering the cost of bullshitting a report to close to zero removes one of the main incentives for process improvement.

If bad process hurts you can only really maintain it through fairly disciplined commitment to an oppressive, unreasonable, management approach that rejects process improvements out of hand; or the cultivation of a profoundly dysfunctional organizational culture where as many FTEs as possible owe their paychecks to nonsense requirements and can be recruited to defend them.

If bad process just means spinning up the nonsense printer with a cynical smirk; why bother even looking at what the process was intended to do; or getting your hands dirty with what records are important and what records are just historical accretion? Just prompt for a prompt that tells the bot to do them all, and some extras if you want to look diligent, and call it good.

That's the point of the CXL memory expansion parts. Something like a Marvell Structera X 2404 is a CXL/PCIe 5 device with DDR4 controller so that you can add DDR4 to a system that would otherwise only support DDR5. There's a latency penalty and the part itself isn't free; but it allows you to make some use of DDR4 that you already have or can get for less than DDR5 without needing some custom CPU that combines current-gen features with a last gen memory controller.