Liberia and Myanmar also use imperial units, but they’re both starting to move towards metric in recent years so soon the US truly will be alone in that
The $.99 Grilled Cheese Food Truck. Conveniently located next to the $1 Grilled Cheese Food Truck. Come with $1, leave with a grilled cheese and money still in your pocket (yes, we give change).
Why does this matter? Do we need to appease the shareholders or something? Do we need endless month over month growth, lest the world completely stops turning?
It just signals that this platform is flawed to the point where it’s bleeding to death. Keep in mind, a bigger userbase = more active community = better platform.
If there are no users, there will be no new contents added.
If there are a lot of users (many more than there are now), there will be enough people around to support all sorts of niche communities, like Reddit had.
Active user count is probably the single most important metric to whether a platform is successful and stays alive. Even above quality of content, as proven by many other social media platforms that thrive despite being flooded with trash content.
As a Lemmy shareholder, I’m outraged. If Lemmy doesn’t get more users soon, I am going to stop the thrusters that keep the world turning. You have been warned.
For what its worth, it seems like the board is claiming that Altman’s constant wheeling and dealing of the technology, including giving Microsoft a minority stake in the LLC, rubbed them the wrong way, and they felt that his increasingly transparent desire for profits was antithetical to the original purpose of the OpenAI Non-Profit, which was to safeguard AGI, not to market and sell it.
Honestly, I felt that way too, so I’m on the boards side with this one. It felt pretty clear that Altman had tossed out the “beneficial for humanity” goal in favor of “beneficial to me and my wallet.”
I highly doubt it. They are one of the largest investors in OpenAI. If the board ousted him for ethical reasons and they hire him, they could very easily destroy their relationship with OpenAI, and they want to stay ahead to make sure they can capitalize on AI money
True, but he’s a CEO, not a scientist. OpenAI’s head scientist, Ilya was part of the reason behind him being ousted, and he has spoken about the importance of AI ethics in the past.
What money train? Sure, he’s famous now, reasonably understands ai, and has a reputation around it…
He doesn’t actually have the ability to advance AI tech. He’s a figurehead chosen to represent engineers and handle the logistics for people who do have the ability to advance this miracle technology
What’s his money train? Joining the circuit of short time CEOs?
For better or for worse he’s got a lot of friends within openai. Sounds like many of them have threatened to resign if he’s gone. If he goes and starts a competing company without the ethical guardrails, I think it’s likely a lot of folks will follow him. He also has very tight ties to the investing community so he would likely be able to raise funds quickly. I think there’s a solid chance he could make a credible competitor to openai within the next 5 years, especially if they lose talent/money over this.
does it have to do with the name? first Sam Bankman-Fried, and now him lol. seeing his interviews makes me think he’s more of a wannabe cult-head guy, just like most of silicon-valley bros.
PS: seen his worldcoin thing? it’s whole another level of privacy nightmare.
Yeah, that’s a good way of looking at this… I didn’t understand the Microsoft move at all. Why would an “open” non profit want to build business relationships with tech monoliths. It seemed antithetical, but I honestly had assumed that was more of a board/share holder decision… Sounds like that probably wasn’t the case.
I thought the board was on board too… But it came when Musk pulled promised funding on the run up to gpt4. It was a shit bird move, but it seemed like it was just picking the best of bad options to keep the lights on in a critical time
I mean, no arguing that he sold their souls to Microsoft though… They’ve made openai products part of every service they run, and seem to have nudged their trajectory significantly
Well, safer and better in the driver’s mind until they fly too close to the sun and realize following the accident that there was a puncture or that the rubber delaminated off the belt during the commute. This happened fairly regularly at the track I worked at, though that was more from folks running their slicks too long.
The tyres are worn down to a point they were never intended to run at, I don’t know but the rubber compound could be completely different that far down, not to mention the risk of punctures.
This is another occasion where I really hope the lesson isn’t “Female leads don’t sell”. Probably an obvious observation, but Captain Marvel always struck me as a boring, flawless, invincible hero without much personality.
The Superman problem. Main sources of conflict tend to involve depowering, fighting another godlike, or threatening people they care about. Over and over again.
Actually makes me appreciate so much more that one set of writers managed to make a semi-compelling show that focuses on Lois, including her personal growth, all while discovering that her plucky goodboy intern is in fact the man of steel. (Referring to My Adventures with Superman in case it’s not obvious)
One of the things a reviewer highlighted as very important to that show was that it didn’t praise Lois’ rebelliousness and spunk as having no consequences. I basically just didn’t see any of that journey in the first Captain Marvel movie.
The problem is that even Superman deconstructions get shat on. Snyder tried to do something different but everyone wanted a hokey silver age comic supes
Snyder's films were crap tho, and he didn't understand the characters - you can't deconstruct Superman and Batman if you don't understand Superman and Batman. Plus the lighting and pacing were awful. That's why they got shat on
this is so interesting, we were just talking marvel today with my best friend and she pointed out captain marvel as one of her favorite mcu characters. and it’s specifically because she’s a strong female character who’s allowed to be strong without being hyper-competent or incredibly cerebral or anything like that. she’s just a woman who stands up for things and punches shit occasionally and is allowed to win through sheer brute force.
and yes, she’s way too powerful in many of the same way as superman, which is a narrative defect, but i find it extremely hypocritical how much more scrutiny people point toward captain marvel on that, while superman continues to be one of dc’s most popular heroes, despite marvel using her better than dc uses superman.
It’s new to me that Superman evades that criticism. There’s a reason Batman gets so much more media than him lately, in large part because of the “What if Batman is actually bad for Gotham” philosophical junk.
Even the Zack Snyder films, for all their flaws, examine the two-toned mistakes of the hero more than the power, eg “Maybe a god X-raying us at every occasion and destroying buildings to fight his rival is perhaps too oppressive” versus “Maybe he should’ve used his X-ray vision to see the bomb in that guy’s wheelchair before he set it off.”
he doesn’t evade that criticism, but there aren’t constant “scandals” around him regarding that. half the time you hear about captain marvel, it’s someone criticizing her for being too powerful (sometimes with accusations of “wokeism” thrown in, but not always). nearly all the time you hear about superman, he’s just there, it’s a regular positive-ish portrayal you’d normally see around any character, with a bit of critique thrown in of course. that’s the difference in scrutiny i’m talking about, the internet doesn’t tend to blow up every time they make a superman movie the same way it blew up for captain marvel because god forbid we see a woman in the same position as supes.
(also, i suppose many of her critics were the same people who criticize stuff like female thor or black captain america by saying go make original heroes – this is the treatment you get when you comply. underprivileged groups always get higher scrutiny, and it easily propagates to otherwise well-meaning people too.)
yeah, an important clarification on that is i base my superhero stuff entirely on movies. i made a genuine effort to get into the comics but i just couldn’t – it might just be my luck but i’ve literally only read either canon or good stories from marvel and dc, nothing i tried managed to hit both. but for what it’s worth, i presume the majority of people are the same way, comics just don’t have the same degree of mainstream cultural penetration that movies enjoy.
i do agree with you though, clark is far more interesting than superman. i used to be an ardent superman hater specifically because the movie portrayals sucked and most online fans i interacted with were like “my fictional character could totally beat your fictional character” but i do really enjoy very human stories about the dude. and hell, sometimes his powered stuff can also be kinda cool – but the same applies to captain marvel as well and that’s usually the part that people don’t like to accept.
Yep! I’m not a big fan of any of the modern Superman films, I think there’s way too much punching and not enough super-human feats. And by that I mean rescuing people, or performing “miracles” that only he can in order to help the greater good.
Clark will let a monster punch him in the face dozens of times if he thinks he can save both the people and the creature’s life. That’s what creates dilemmas for me when I enjoy a decent Superman story, an ethical dilemma that can’t be solved by hitting something as hard as possible.
The cool thing about Superman isn’t that he has these fantastic powers, but that the person who wields them will always try to do the right thing, because they know nobody else can.
The original Superman movie nailed that aspect. Clark was confident and maybe even a little cocky because of his abilities… but when his father suffered a heart attack, all the super strength in the universe couldn’t save him.
You are 100% correct in that a lot of superhero discourse online seems to aaaaaaaalways come down to “who would win in a fight”, which has always baffled me, because comic books are LOADED with ethical and moral plays which are suppose to make us question whether violence is even a good answer for anything in the first place.
It’s about using your own strengths to help facilitate the weakness of those who can’t help themselves.
You may not realize it, but unless we’re talking processors Apple almost always puts old tech in their devices.
Their laptops still sell with 8gb of slow RAM, and tiny hard drives. This is an upsell tactic so you pay them extortionate amounts for cheap upgrades. Then their computers… Oh man, just don’t. They sell a stand that’s $1,000, do we even need to go into the rest?
Even their phones STILL lack the latest features of their competitors. Though most competitors have vastly given up dramatic innovations. Check out the cameras, the screen refresh rates, the RAM, the screen brightness, and side-by-side user comparison testing of their poorly performing GPU’s.
I’m not laughing… I find the whole thing kind of depressing. Real talk, though… I’m just as pissed off at Google and many other huge companies.
I’m tired of huge companies exploiting the ignorance of average folks and damaging the progression of consumer technology. We deserve better than this.
If Apple sold their products for a pittence, I’d be their absolute biggest fan. They not only push aggressively overpriced tech, but they convince impressionable people to buy into their “ecosystem”.
What the heck is that, even? What is their “ecosystem”? Macs, iPads and iphones all work with windows and Linux. Heck, Mac IS Linux at a core level. I’ll tell you what it is… George Carlin give me strength, because “it’s all bullshit, and it’s BAD for you.”
It’s hard and it particularly slows down the asset production process which is already a disproportionately slow and expensive part of development. Way easier to let the artists go apeshit exporting everything at 8k and a billion polygons because storage is cheap in a production environment.
Compression could help in theory, but then you’d have to decompress assets on the fly which takes a significant amount of processing power. The industry is trying to reduce the latency of getting assets into memory, compression would be moving the other way from that.
If you’re conspiratorially minded then you might also conclude that it’s to prevent people from having another major live service game installed on base model consoles, making you more likely to keep playing the one you’ve already installed. A kind of walled garden effect.
I mean I get that decompression can be expensive, but there’s nothing stopping them from having a base version of the game with smaller lower quality assets and allowing players that want to download the huge assets do so with a free dlc. Many games have done this in the past.
Nothing except the work of creating lower quality assets and splitting off the HD stuff into a separate download. Totally doable and I’d love to see it, but I doubt studios will commit the man hours unless they can be convinced that it will really make the game sell better.
Why decompress on the fly? For a lot of things the crazy high-res textures aren’t needed or appreciated while playing. I downloaded some newer FTP Quake title. It had 30 fucking GB for like a dozen maps or so. It is a god damn arena shooter. You are way to busy jumping around, making fast paced shots and so on, to ever appreciate that the texture is still detailed, when you are pressing your virtual face against ist. And it takes so much more ressources because the texture needs to be loaded in the VRAM and then scaled down anyways because you aren’t pressing your face against it.
Same question as No Man’s Sky, though. Sure, the game wasn’t good on release… but they stuck to it, fixed it, and now it’s better. So what matters more, that they screwed up initially or that they managed to patch it up over time?
Yea CDPR doesn’t really belong in this picture. They always put in a ton of time and effort on their releases to make right by the fans. The other guys, not so much…
Arr you nuts? Of course they belong. They released a game that delivered nothing of what they promised, and it straight up didn’t work on old Gen consoles. They are absolutely guilty.
And this is exactly why OG Blizzard (WarCraft 1 (1994) to StarCraft 2 (2010)) was so beloved. They saw that they could stand to make games that lasted well past their 1 - 2 years after launch, in making them money long term.
Blizzard Entertainment leaders were often quoted as saying, “It’s ready when it’s ready.”, and “We won’t release it until it meets our standards.” Hell… it even became a meme that they would be asked when a game would be coming out, and they would just reply with “Soon.”
Well, they did invest more time after making millions on profit enough for online discourse to shift to the point people argue that the launch wasnt that bad (it absolutely was worse than bad)
I actually just bought it for Xbox Series X about a month ago and I’ve been having a blast! Yeah it’s got glitches lol no shit but they’re not that awful at least on xbox but I heard they’re worse on PC
I always browse newest, not because i want to lift up new posts so more people can see it, but because i only get like 3 posts an hour in my subscribed feed
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.