Dude, counting downvotes doesn’t help, nor does going off on some political rant about Elon Musk. It does look like a graph that would be promoted by an Elon fanboy, but my observation had nothing to do with that. I said it looks somewhat deceiving because it makes a big deal of just one datapoint and one estimate. But I know nothing about rockets or space exploration, so maybe the underlying fundamentals are solid.
This is somewhat deceiving, as the drop only looks steep because of a single data point (falcon heavy) and an estimate.
Still waiting for the ultimate all-in edition of this one
I know the feeling, happened to me with Elden Ring.
With BG3 I also had some occasions where it felt difficult to pick up again, especially when I had to do plenty of inventory and party micromanagement and figure out where to go next. It’s a game that especially in earlier stages didn’t feel like something you can easily pick up again, play a little, and drop again whenever you want. There’s too much going on at times. It also didn’t help me that I couldn’t care for the story or for companions early on. But it does get better and easier as you become better at party and inventory management, and is often saved by the fact that the moment to moment dialogue and gameplay are stellar.
Oh ass-man it is make no mistake
Honestly you sound like you are part of the problem with America if you would rather see your country ruined in some self-fulfilling prophecy just so that your political opponents will lose next election.
Unfortunately unless you are a tiny niche community that isn’t ever targeted by spam or idiots (and how common is that really), moderators are a necessary evil. You probably don’t hate moderators. You probably hate bad/aggressive/biased/etc moderators. Or maybe sometimes you are the problem, I don’t know. It is not a problem with an easy solution. Usually large forums with no moderation become quickly unbearable to most people. And then moderators become in turn unbearable to some people.
Maybe a trusted AI can do a better job at this - like give it the community rules and ask it to enforce them objectively, transparently, and dispassionately, unless a certain number of participants complain, in which case it can reverse its decision and learn from that.
Hey thanks, both AW1 and Control are games I might pick up again. Didn’t hate them, they just didn’t really hook me.
I found the pacing of the first few chapters in the first Alan Wake sublime, in terms of storytelling. The gameplay frustrated me on the other hand, became quickly monotonous and tedious for me. So I only played like a third of the game, much as I liked the story and was curious to see where it went. Then Control I was left completely unmoved by. So I’ve been hesitating to take up the second Alan Wake, basically because I didn’t much like the first iteration, or Control, which I’ve heard is somehow connected. Maybe I’m missing out. Or maybe these games appeal only to a certain audience.
I guess apple just missed the boat there. I don’t know that they will ever catch up on AI.
Never used this. Never cared for it 🤷🏻♂️
What you are saying is you don’t want creators to be able to make a living off their work. Because that is what “professional” means.
Do you use the integrated AI in new versions of Excel or do you ask ChatGPT or some other AI to write it out for you?
Since some commenters on here seemed a little too eager to go with “fuck copyright” and outright dismiss the particular copyright claim the story was about, I thought I’d help make sure they understand that it’s not all bad. Too often have well intentioned people been too quick to dismiss a setup, only to replace it with something worse - or without really having any idea what to replace it with. You seem to understand that copyright serves a useful function in the current market-based economy, warts and all.
It is very difficult to make money in a market economy if you cannot sell the products of your labor. And to be able to do that, you need to have some ownership over said products. Ownership means exclusion, no way around it. Then you can transfer that ownership to an employer in exchange for a salary, or trade in an open market as a freelancer. Or create a collective wherein you share ownership. There are different models, but culture, to an extent, has always been monetized one way or another because creators have always needed to make a living, so they can continue to practice their craft while sustaining themselves and their families.
Copyright abolitionism sounds cool until you’re a professional creator with mouths to feed in this economy.
Of course there are smart ways creators can make money while also waiving their rights under copyright, but this does not work for everyone and many really just need to be able to sell the product of their labor to make a living.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, not by a long shot. But there’s no easy solution either.
I understand the sentiment, and you are right, that copyright is an obstacle to some forms of creativity, especially anything that involves direct reuse of somebody else’s work without their consent. It has also enabled a marketplace for content that has, like many other markets over time, led to the concentration of market power in a small number of business concerns, who effectively dominate their fields with extensive content libraries and armies of lawyers and lobbyists to promote their interests.
However, one should still not forget, that if you’re just an independent creator who depends on their creativity to make a living and at some point manages to create something of great value, it is more likely than not that other small or big fish will try to take that and sell it without giving you a penny. And your only recourse will be copyright law. As in this case here. Saying “fuck copyright” without critically engaging with what is actually at stake in a specific case, can lead to a problematic stance where you may find yourself defending grifters against honest creators trying to make a living off their work.
Well if you want an argument based on ‘first principles’, because the photographer actually put work into producing this picture, let alone their knowledge, likely expensive equipment, and hard earned skill to take a truly great shot, whereas you did nothing for it. Unless you are a professional model, but then you probably got compensated for your work as part of a deal.
Now the uses you describe are very different. Some are more casual and non-commercial in nature. Courts will consider such factors in a copyright infringement case.
Now does the above mean you have absolutely no say in what happens to a picture of you taken by someone else? Not exactly, you can also prevent third parties from using the likeness of you for purposes that might be damaging to your dignity or reputation, again, in some jurisdictions, I do not know the details. I am not a lawyer and it was a long time ago I studied these subjects. But basically my point is that the fact that it’s you in the picture may matter to an extent, depending on laws protecting personhood in your country, but not in the way you assumed where every photo of you is yours for the taking.
Chill. Most people liked your post anyway. Hiveminds are outside your control, so you gotta roll with the punches and move on. I’ve been at the receiving end of a lot more downvotes than this. Trust me, you get used to it 😂