jj4211

My boxed copies of Loki games beg to differ.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what 'regulatory measures' you are referring to that would run counter to the argument. I can take that overly simplistic phrase a number of ways ranging from "doesn't make sense at all" to "maybe I could discuss the nuance", but it's impossible to continue a discussion based on the dismissive vague comment.

I imagine you see the undue burden as a mandate to keep running the game servers yourself when you have no income to do so.

Once upon a time, the norm for exclusively online games was to provide a hostable server so that any third party could host, because the game companies didn't want to bother with hosting themselves, so at most they owned or outsourced a hosted registry of running servers, and volunteers ran instances.

Then big publishers figured out that controlling the servers and keeping the implementation in-house was a good way to control the lifespan of games, and a number of games kept it closed.

So the remedy is to return to allowing third party hosting, potentially including hooks for a third party registry for running game servers if we are talking more ephemeral online instances like you'd have in shooters. One might allow for keeping the serving in-house and only requiring third party serving upon plan to retire the in-house game.

I think Israel didn't bother to 'talk', they just Leeroy Jenkinsed it up and the military decided they had to ride or die with it...

I frankly don't know about Apple and Tim Cook specifically, but broadly a lot of enthusiasts may not be as excited about revenue and profit as they are about how good the experience is for them.

For example, looking at a well executed enjoyable game with no bullshit micro transactions or loot boxes or anything most would agree that is a good game.

But revenue and profit wise some random low effort mobile game with micro transactions would blow that good game out of the water business wise.

Unfortunately, lots of "better business" is explicitly screwing over the customers as much as they can possibly get away with, so I'm not super excited about arguments around revenue, profit, and market cap as a measure of a company I should like to buy from.

Octopi two finger swipe from above is search apps.

In settings you can enable swipe to open a folder, tap to launch one app from it.

It has it. It's in launcher settings "swipe up/down on folders to open them"

It's putting whatever you want and what you don't want on the home screen, including for example launching into search.

My phone stock launcher search dialog that once would have been to type the app name became a 'multi-search' that would do internet search and AI search and app search was sluggish and third set of results. So I go for a launcher that keeps the app search field just a quick name based search of applications.

It does also do things like let me opt into fitting more icons on the screen at a time, since the default launcher has some ludicrous small number of icons on screen at a time.

Also, the scrolling lets me scroll letters to rapidly get to apps starting with 'm' for example without typing, though I never use that.

It also presents a different 'folder' design where a tap on it launches a default app from the group, and a quick slide opens it up to select a less popular, alternate app quickly.

Also, two finger swipe from top takes me straight to typing app name to launch.

Someone else I knew swapped launchers just to have a different wallpaper behavior that their stock launcher wouldn't do.

Currently using Octopi.

I think the point is that while your point is broadly true, in this specific scenario the treatment might not have been available anyway. Looking up on the named procedure, it seems likely most nations would have declined to offer this treatment, considering it futile in his situation.

Yeah, one would think that would blow a grand jury ruling. Vandalism, arson... ok.

If it weren't an external gate and was instead someone's front door, then maybe, but as it stands, it's all property damage and attempted murder is a crazy reach...

I think that would apply to people tricked into reading/watching AI slop video, but I think his definition is a likely one that could apply.

You try to google search, you get an 'ai overview'. In a bizarre scenario, DuckDuckGo made a big deal of asking the users and showing the users overwhelmingly wanted to skip AI results by default, and duckduckgo still defaults to AI summary unless you take measures to opt out.

An analogy is dificult, but I suppose imagine a subway dropped off someone and there's no stairs up, only a tunnel for a Tesla to take you to the next stop. You "use" a car, but were given no option to do otherwise because you were stuck underground and they forced you to take the car to carry on.

In either case, his definition certainly is a likely one for a Gen Z respondant to be thinking when they respond "yes they use AI". On the flip side some probably felt as you do and responded that they did not use AI, because they did not voluntarily do so.

You are correct, and the critical number is that sodium is over 3 times as massive as equivalent lithium.

But to keep in perspective, we are talking about an element that's only about 5-7% of a pack, so theoretically you could maybe get to only 10-15% more massive as a penalty for swapping out lithium. Which is some applications is still unacceptable,but broadly we have seen a lot of accepting that same tradeoff going from NMC to LFP...