Why would they though and out of which which principle? Microsoft’s principle is “generate as much profit as possible without antagonizing customers to much”. Microsoft is, at its core, a profit driven business and not a business driven by ethics.
Err basically yes. In my head there’s a difference between “business driven by profit” and “business driven by ethics”, but maybe that’s because English is not my first language.
I expect that it’s because we’re not in the EU that measures like this can be passed there. Maybe in 10-20 years time we can rejoin an EU massively improved by our absence.
Not true. There has been big moment against the MS monoply by the EU, pre-Brexit. Truth is, the UK hasn’t been powerful enough to stop these large antitrust cases for a long time. Brexit or not.
This is cool and all, but why do we always stop at Microsoft? I think it would be more impactful in 2023 if we can uninstall Safari from iOS devices and Chrome from Android?
In one of the fastest-moving news stories in recent memory, there have been several substantial developments since the announcement that the OpenAI board of directors staged a 21st-century coup, kicking out the face of the company Sam Altman.
In the last few hours, The Verge gave us all whiplash with the quite head-turning report that Sam Altman is in talks to return as CEO of OpenAI.
Satya Nadella has to correct this as soon as possible so that the Microsoft share prices, which are now completely intertwined with the fate of ChatGPT and OpenAI, don’t nosedive.
There are now updates from Bloomberg’s @emilychangtv on X (Twitter) stating that Satya Nadella is involved in the talks to reinstate Sam Altman.
OpenAI was already losing ground as Google Bard and xAI’s Grok gained momentum, and this choice couldn’t have come at a worse time, especially for Microsoft.
And if there is anything I have learned through the last 18 months of court battles as Microsoft fought governments in acquiring Activision, Blizzard, and King, I would always rather have Satya Nadella fighting for me than against me.
The original article contains 655 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Long in development, Treyarch is gearing up to show off its latest entry in the Black Ops series, as most have been expecting for some time now.
Via multiple sources familiar with Activision’s plans, we can now confirm that Call of Duty 2024 is indeed Black Ops, but we now have some more details on the theme.
According to multiple sources familiar with Activision’s plans, Call of Duty 2024 will sport the Black Ops moniker and once again follow some of the West’s more shadowy military dealings in global conflict scenarios.
U.S. President George Bush senior and UK Prime Minister Margret Thatcher deployed troops alongside Egypt and Saudi Arabia into Iraq after the Hussein regime invaded Kuwait, in what formed the largest coalition of militaries since World War 2.
From what we’ve been told, Black Ops “6” will attempt to explore a nuanced narrative of the Gulf War, with a critical focus on different participants within the conflict.
While I can’t fully corroborate this (yet), it was previously shared on Twitter (X, via Insider Gaming) that Call of Duty 2024 will feature returning maps from the Black Ops franchise, including Grind and WMD.
The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Does anybody even care? They could sell the CoD name for masses even if it was set in the 70s hippie era, where you fight John Lennon regardless of lack of innovation and copy-paste features. For all I care they can slap the name on another mobile game, where you must buy 5 different crystal currencies to progress and people would still buy it.
windowscentral.com
Oldest