Does it make more work than it saves, or will it replace character artists and level designers?
The problem with your question is it is binary. Both situation could occur as AI creates more work for the people that EA did not lay off because EA thinks they could reduce staff that they could not. Remember EA specifically is being bought out in a leveraged buyout. The new owners may only care about the quarterly savings they get when they continuously reduce staff as they sell EA assets piece by piece.
The current CEO's focus is not going bankrupt. The last CEO spent too much and almost killed the company.
Citation needed.
Virtually no laws require data to be held "on premises", but a few do require it in country.
Not directly but HIPAA requires everyone who has access to the data must be cleared first. When the data is in the cloud, a company has less control over the access of their cloud provider. Adding to that is complication of things like notices of breaches.
One problem I have with Windows has been the ongoing obfuscation of controls. Replacing Control Panel with Settings is something I suppose needed to happen eventually. I personally dislike the style of Settings over Control Panel. However it appears to me Settings is just a front end to actual controls and Windows can lie/hide things from the user. Before Control Panel showed the actual settings.
For example, Add/remove programs appears to remove optional Windows components but in reality it does not. For example in the latest build, Weather and News apps are still present and running despite "uninstalling" them in Add/remove programs. The user can go to Personalization and add them as apps to the Lock Screen. So they are not really "uninstalled"; they were just hidden from the user. Also both appear to ignore the privacy settings regarding Location. They know exactly where the user is are even if Location is turned "off”.
I also believed that the reader would understand that coal power needed machines to produce power in that the reader would not be a child and so would have had enough experience of the world around them to know that to get electricity from coal we'd need coal fired power plants. Must I spell out everything?
No the problem is your need to quibble basic facts. Collecting solar energy is indeed free. It costs money to acquire the technology to collect solar power, but so does every other form of energy. Trying to contest that argument with deceptive points does not win your case. It makes your arguments appear dishonest.
It takes an "interesting" interpretation of my statements to believe I'm claiming that we can get energy from coal without a power plant.
It is "interesting" that you chose to fight against a statement that is true by leaving out facts.
I didn't make any claim that coal was better, only that solar is like coal in that neither are free. Energy from the sun isn't free, in fact it costs more than energy from coal. That doesn't necessarily make coal better or worse than solar, only that if we are to define solar energy as "free" then that same definition applies to coal.
This is a classic strawman argument on your part. Collecting solar energy is free once the equipment is acquired. No one said 100% of solar is free.
You are really, really, trying to paint me as defending coal with a comment on comparing solar and coal.
So you didn't use only 1 factor in your argument that coal is better? No, you did. You still are using only 1 factor: EROI.
I chose to compare solar with coal because I believed everyone reading would understand that coal requires supply chains and produces pollution. You do understand that solar energy also requires supply chains?
Zero part of EROI takes that into account. You seem not to understand this point.
And produces pollution? Are you ignoring those facts?
Zero part of EROI takes that into account. Again your reliance on 1 factor weakens your argument.
When I make a long post in an attempt to anticipate every possible counter argument I'm mocked for being verbose.
I am pointing out you presented none of these arguments before but someone expect everyone to have known them as if we know your inner monologue.
When I try to keep things short and to the point I'm accused of ignoring some vital detail. There's no winning here. I'm getting the impression that Slashdot is full of children, most of the adults have left for more sane places.
Pointing out your arguments do not present the whole picture is the situation. But that makes everyone "children". No it makes you easily offended when people point out the flaws in your arguments.
Huh? I don't follow. It seems you are reaching for an excuse to be upset with my comment.
Sigh. When you leave out obvious facts in your arguments to make a case, it weakens your case. But your problem is not that you did that. Your problem is that I'm "upset" when I point them out. How about the acceptance that your argument was weak?
The studies on the Wikipedia page I linked to. Most of the data on EROEI came from Germany.
The point here is you made arguments relying on those links before you presented the links as if everyone knows what is in your mind.
I'm relying on as much of a single factor as the person I was replying to. If the reason to use solar power is because it is "free" is ignoring the cost of building the machines to collect, convert, and distribute energy.
Again: No one said solar is 100% free. No one. You misinterpreted that or using a strawman argument. The point is collecting solar is free after (obviously) acquiring solar generating equipment. Television shows and movies are free with OTA broadcasts. Music is free if people buy radios. Basically your argument is that content is not free because people have to buy electronics.
If we are going to focus on the single factor of solar power being "free" then even a minimal amount of research will prove that false. Solar energy is quite expensive when compared to other options. Many of those options also produce less CO2 than solar, and if the goal is lowering CO2 emissions then that is another factor against solar.
Buddy, you are tilting at windmills. You created a fight and do not see how
The cost of coal compared to other options has been highly influenced by government policy, it's hardly a level playing field. It's the policies that have been favoring solar power in spite of the bad EROEI that's been making better options like onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission less profitable.
Buddy, in red states with private companies, coal is being abandoned due to higher operating. This is not due to "policies" despite what you make think. As I stated earlier EROI does not factor in things like transportation, maintenance, and capital costs. When factoring transportation costs alone, coal is far more expensive to operate than natural gas. When factoring maintenance and capital costs, many red states like Texas find it easier and cheaper to install wind and solar. I repeat: Texas through private companies has installed wind and solar over coal. You seem fixated one a single number that does not begin to portray the real world.
That money comes from government subsidies.
So oil, coal, and gas has no government subsidies?
That's my entire point, solar power is not "free" and it bothers me greatly to see people make such claims. Solar power is just as free as coal, both are there for the taking.
No they are not: all forms of energy generation require capital and have operating costs. The fact remains that collecting wind or solar energy is free compared to coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. Your denial of the difference in cost of collecting those resources when they are not the same is the problem.
Do you see a problem with calling solar power "free"?
I'll say it again: When people say solar power is "free" they specifically said COLLECTINGsolar energy is free. Your misinterpretation and quibbling with that makes you appear to be a denialist.
If we use that singular factor of "free" to explain why we'd want to use solar power then that's ignoring the costs of building all the devices to collect that solar energy and make it do useful things for us. If we scratch the surface of what it means to be "free" then we find things like LCOE and EROEI to prove solar power is far from free, and measures up poorly to other options. If you want to take pollution and CO2 emissions into account then we still find solar not measuring up well with other options like hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission.
Your argument that "We should take all factors into account . . " is undermined by your "Based on this single EROI factor . . " argument.
Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.
