Asking an AI, especially one from an adversary to assist you to summarize draft legislation or sort your email is just a terrible idea. It's about education more than anything else but there needs to be auditing and naming/shaming if someone decides the rules are for other people.

And the worst part is the platforms have reporting tools as a box ticking exercise. They should feel financial pain for the scams they allow on their platform, especially if the scam is in a recognizable form or pattern than any responsible site should have the means to identify and eliminate quickly.

I see scam ads all the time and believe me I'm not susceptible to them. But I know why I'm seeing the scams - I have personalised ads disabled, and I live in Ireland where the amount of legit advertising is relatively low intensity. I assume most of the scammers are putting the minimum amount of investment into each ad campaign so this is the shit I see when impressions from the legit ads runs dry.

It is quite possible if I did choose personalised ads, that I might be unlucky enough to be in a demographic receiving scams. It would actually be an interesting study for researchers to figure out which demographics are most targeted with scams by kind - work from home, investments, apparel, gadgets etc. It might clue platforms in a bit as well.

Platforms can fight fire with fire. AI can be trained to to spot fraudulent activity based on some very recognisable patterns scammers use. The way that accounts are set up, the IP addresses they come in through, the ways campaigns are set up, the images, video and audio transcripts used by the scammers, the links the campaign leads to - burner sites, DNS entries etc.

There is sufficient information in that data for a platform like Facebook, or YouTube to at least red flag accounts and get some humans to look at it. If that's too much effort for a platform, then make it easier for users to report scams. Even a toggle flag close to the ad which allows people to say "I think this may be a scam" instead of making them fill in a frigging form.

Some EVs have 1 pedal driving modes where drivers don't use the brakes at all usually. But all EVs use regen to slow the car either through 1 pedal, or the car software applying regen when the driver softly brakes. The only time actual brakes would be employed is when the driver pushes hard to rapidly slow the car, like in an emergency stop.

Since brakes are used less, some EVs have even gone back to using drum brakes on rear axle and only have disc on front. Anyone driving an ID platform car (VW, Audi, Skoda, Cupra, EU Ford etc.) has such a set up. Drum brakes are enclosed systems so they don't even release dust except when being serviced and since the brakes aren't used so much that may not happen in the entire lifetime of the car.

So basically, an EV puts out WAY less brake dust than ICE.

And the sad part is all this was predictable and obvious well before anybody had to die from this negligent design.

Tesla's door external handles should be fine physically as they don't extend or retract per se, they're on a lever flush with the door. BUT the actual unlatching is electronic - you can pull the lever but if there is no power then nothing will happen. The only way to get in the car if this was the case is to smash the window and reach inside for the mechanical release.

So that's a big safety fail. On top of that, only the front passengers have an accessible mechanical release. The rear passengers technically have one but it's under a hatch, under the lining at the bottom of the door bin. i.e. rear seat passengers will panic and die in an emergency.

So I don't see the handle being a problem but the lack of mechanical release is a major one, front and especially back. And if you're in a Cyber Truck (not in China of course) with your "unbreakable" glass, then don't expect anybody to be pulling you out of the fire, or the rising water in time to save your life.

The fix to these issues is simple and the default on most cars - the handles inside and out should be mechanical. In the loss of power, somebody might have to yank the door hard since the windows are frameless and seated into the door but they should still be able to rescue occupants.

It's garbage because big game studios (i.e. the project leads & management) are so risk averse they regress to a mean - new thing has to be like the old thing. And that message is hammered into the people there making the code, artwork, music, plot etc. I don't expect any firings of people who deserve to be fired, just those creating content in the narrow confines they're allowed. If things were bad before then AI slop will make them worse. Hopefully a major studio relying on slop will go bust and the others will learn that maybe, just maybe that creating games should be a human endeavour.

Amazon had a serious issue if they truly had 16,000 managers to layoff. Personally I think this is just company speak for removing people they want to get rid of regardless of their role, even if they were extremely competent & productive but had the misfortune be on a dud project. Since this Amazon I would be surprised either if there was plenty people let go who were victims of vindictive performance reviews by blame shifting managers.

That's what I suggested the "if you want to get fancier" method. You look for the slots where the most people can attend rather than all of them. I'm sure teams and other groupware software implement simpler or more complex strategies depending on the number of invitees. I'm just trying to say this stuff is not rocket science so I don't know where the AI angle fits into it.

Nor is it for me or anyone else to think the current system is at all acceptable. Steam are defacto dominant because they happened to launch their system with a premium game and it took off. It was by no means the first such game store - I remember using Stardock's service before that. And Games for Windows was a headless service. But Valve had Half Life 2 to propel it onto many systems.

Gaining dominance was great for Valve but it means lack of competitiveness, lack of choice, stagnation for everyone else. And of course the likes of EA / Epic et al want to avoid a 30% cut of their profits going to someone else. The problem is they want the cake to themselves and that's not going to happen either.

Which is why they should have and still should federate. However as I pointed out, that's unlikely to happen because greed.

I don't think it matters how many people there are. You break each person's schedule into slots surrounding the proposed meeting time, then OR each schedule in turn to a result and when you're done any gaps of sufficient size are where the meeting is possible. If you want to get fancier the algorithm could compute sums for each slot of available / unavailable for required / optional and then make a suggestion based on the maximum attendance possible.

But I also block book lunch and after 4pm most days in my calendar. It normally means I get to eat my lunch in peace or go home on time.

Finding an available slot where all invitees are free is not a hard problem to solve and certainly not one that an AI is required. Although it does point to a problem of trusting Google in the first place to plan meetings this way . Maybe its time to bring this sort of thing back in-house.

Not so great for the supposed victims who presumably number in the millions and will therefore be lucky if they receive even a dollar in compensation.

I will not be surprised if the download clocks in at 250GB or more. I wonder how many people have that amount of space to even spare on a single game.

Not that the physical media will help since it'll probably copy most of the files over to the SSD but at least users have a copy of it - at least for a little bit. Because the normal trend these days is to crap out a broken gold master and immediately drop a massive patch over the top.