It may be that the users have already learned, through trial and error, that game designers are more likely to include poorly-considered gimmicks as "puzzles" instead of real puzzles. And that even when they try to create real puzzles, they suck at it.

It's exactly what a layman would understand the right to a jury trial to be; if you disagree with the fine, you can wait until they prove it in court to pay.

That's exactly how every other fine works.

You were so eager to agree the gubermint is bad that you didn't even rub two brain cells together before deciding what you think the dispute is about, nor did you put on your thinking cap before choosing an angle of attack.

Thanks! It's amazing how awful most of the headlines are. Here at slashdot we have

which is not at all true, it has nothing to do with the President or any decision or policy that he or anybody in the administration made. It's actually, as you point out, corporations challenging a government power nearly 100 years old.

It would be just as reasonable to say, "Supreme Court Sides with Carter Administration," which of course would be silly.

Over at SCOTUSblog, a more reputable source of news, their headline reads:

which is a lot more accurate.

You can quibble, but you're wrong. Username checks out.

If that's your understanding, then every time in your life you've heard people talking about it you misunderstood them, and even now when faced with the actual meaning you simply refuse to look into it.

"Mindless trial-and-error learning" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard anybody say all year.

And I read the news.

Good, I wouldn't accuse you of that, either.

Luckily for them the copyright holder gets to choose what uses to give permission for, and what not to give permission for.

On paper. I guess we'll find out from this situation if UK businesses operating in the UK actually have the rights the UK (and the US) promises them, or if some UK court will step in and invent a loophole.

"Your honor, see, the victim isn't actually a victim at all, because if they'd just stayed home (an option available to anybody) they would not have been attacked!"

The part I don't understand is why? Why do you shamelessly shill for big corps abusing people's rights? It seems unlikely they'd actually pay you to do it.

Tip: That's what they're asking for. That google be held to the same rules as everybody else. Those rules include not being allowed to copy and republish their content without their permission.

Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?

I have no idea what you're doing with your phones, then.

The only Android phone that I used for any length of time was a Nexus 4 and it would die in 1 hour when I went to the pool because it would burn all of its energy desperately trying to get a signal from inside a locker.

My current iPhone 16 Pro lasts the whole day unless I'm using it actively and playing a game on it. It has notoriously poor battery life under load because it's not well cooled, but when idle? Days of battery life. I've been on trips where I've tossed it in my bag and not gotten back to it for hours, and the battery has basically not moved, even WITH the radios on.

Yes, that they're mad that you don't understand what a union is.

I'm not gonna make any claims that unions are perfect, but a union is just a way for a collection of workers to have more leverage for bargaining rights. The most prosperous times for workers in the last century have been during times of heavy unionization.

Reagan busted the unions, and with them, he busted middle-class prosperity. As is often said, we owe weekends and the end of child labour to unions.

As a long-term worker in the industry, I'd love a union, particularly if I were to go back to work at one of the huge game companies like EA (ugh) or Rockstar or Blizzard.

Not especially. Remember, Google pays Apple about $20 billion/year to be the default search in Safari. The reports are that Apple pays Google $1 billion for Gemini.

And if we're honest, Gemini is not the clear-cut best model, it's just that Google and Apple already have a pretty good relationship. Given the amount of Capex Google is putting into AI/Gemini, they need to make money from SOMEWHERE, and Apple is a reliable partner. I'm sure they're extremely relieved that Apple is going with them instead of Anthropic. Though, indeed, there's no reason for Apple to only rely on one vendor.

This whole thing shows that LLMs and models are already being commodified. Who knows if some of these companies will ever make their money back.

There's no such 'well known fact'. Apple Phones have historically had some of the best battery life in their generations, with occasional outliers. (If we compare the latest Samsung vs. the latest iPhone, for example, the iPhone has significantly better battery life.)

On the other hand, there are occasional Android phones with absolutely absurd batteries that last a couple days on a charge with the tradeoff of looking like a pound of butter. The fact that these have better battery life is not surprising and is the actual outlier.

Crucially, in all but a few languages, whitespace doesn't matter at all. The parser throws it out.

Whitespace is a HUMAN affordance for a HUMAN audience. If you think it looks kinda okay, that's all that's needed. You absolutely cannot do that with code that actually does something.

I suppose, fundamentally, all code is for humans to read; the CPU doesn't care how the bits got organized. But LLMs can't just jump straight to the compiled output, they have to come back to the intermediary of human-readable language, and that means they're bound by the limitations of the languages we've asked them to write in. That also means that they write bugs and bad code because they're trying to produce readable tokens that possibly do the thing you ask, and they're not writing the code and testing it and refining it in a tight loop before delivering it.

When I write code, a function may see multiple passes before I even show it to anyone else. If you don't understand the output the LLM is giving you, but it compiles and vaguely does the thing that you ask, you might take it at face value on the first pass. And since the code is only receiving "yeah, that looks right," level scrutiny, it's so much more likely to be bad.

It won't.

Making games isn't actually that easy? I've been doing it for 25 years, and making a game that's good that people enjoy requires, in no small part, that you yourself enjoy playing games, and that you understand what fun is.

It's not just the designers that make games fun, either, even if they're responsible for a lot of the mechanics. Every breakdown of job responsibilities I've ever seen (which we use come review time) has something in it about how you understand game mechanics and your ability to make contributions in that regard, and that's regardless of whether you're in design or art or programming. As a programmer, I'm not tasked specifically with making the game mechanics--I'm there to make a platform for designers to execute their vision--but I have made changes independently that have shipped effectively untouched in the final game.

So all that to say, if you use AI to write your games and you're not a solo designer, your games will probably be worse. The bigger the game gets, the more you'll feel the lack of scrutiny from individual contributors. Any of the small, interesting, fun details you've played in a game up until now was almost certainly put there by a real human that wanted that to be in a game themselves.

There's a possibility that AI will make my job easier or make me a bit faster, but I'm not losing my job to AI (though a greedy CEO may blame it on AI). There are ALREADY a zillion games out there. The barrier to making games is low. If all you want to crank out is slop, bad news: humans have been doing that for decades now. Slop by an AI agent isn't actually going to do any better.

As always, "overthinking" happens when an idiot approaches a problem and doesn't think about it enough to support their conclusion.

A baseball bat is a better analogy than you realized. As with the baseball bat, if you intentionally accelerate it at somebody's head then it's a weapon. If you use it for it's intended purpose, it isn't. Duh.

tldr; if you're trying to drop it on somebody that is when it gets the label "bomb."