Nintendo seems to be the outlier in the video games industry in that they are very much willing to foster talent over a long term. People who started doing sprite work 35 years ago are still there today and directing games. It's almost like the secret to long-term success is developing a roster of highly-skilled professionals, rather than treating your staff as disposable.
> The "non-greed" case for mergers is often that while it may result in a dominant position in a narrowly-defined market ('supermarkets'), they are sometimes needed to preserve the existence of that category as an alternative to another giant that has expanded into a new market, in that case mainly Walmart and to some extent, Amazon, both of which can afford to subsidize something like Ritz Crackers with the profits from selling tires, lawn furniture, or AWS.
Ah, but then is the argument that we should allow a merger among smaller players because it prevents a narrowly-defined market from being entirely consumed by larger, broader businesses; or should we argue that the larger, broader businesses that can exert influence over large swaths of the market prevent the existence of a competitive marketplace?
I'm going to be humble that I don't have a perfect "fix" that I'm confident would be a net positive. If anything, the most suspicious business practice being done anywhere in the US currently is the AWS cash cow subsidizing everything else Amazon does, to the ruin of dozens of other markets. I just don't know how I'd even word legislation that would rein that in, in a way that wouldn't be overly subjective (and thus subject to the whims of ultimately, the Supreme Court), not trivially bypassable by structuring ownership creatively, and also not having terrible overregulatory impacts. Like, should "Bob's Corner Store & Cigarettes" be able to sell milk for just $2 a gallon to try to bring people in to buy cigarettes, whose profits more than pay for that loss? Probably? And he should also be able to use the profits from his successful cigarette operation to run a money-losing arcade next door, if he wants.
But at what point does it become distorting the market? I deeply hate regulations which punish behavior "only for sufficiently succesful" players, and I've seen how the existing "special competition rules for monopolists" lead to endless debates of "but I'm not a monopoly!" and it seems really clear that all of the trillion-dollar-market-cap companies are too powerful (they own too many politicians) to ever let themselves be classified as such, no matter what.
Wouldn’t a “simple” fix for the AWS thing just be to force amazon to split aws out into its own company? Google (alphabet) and Facebook (meta) should probably get split up too.
It's funny, because on the scale of things that are annoying an uncool, I find someone saying the word "retarded" as a pejorative in the year 2026 to be far, far more annoying and uncool than a harmless anime-inspired mascot for an open source project.
They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. The phrases "opt in" and "opt out" will always be contextual based on what is being opted, so it really falls to the reader to pay attention to that context. Please don't give English language advice as though you are an authority; there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable.
Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever.
Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.
I read it as though he was trying to say '[you are] opt[ed] in by default'.
Now granted, he did not say that, and I only reached that conclusion by the rest of this conversation, but I think to have meant that and said '... was now also opt-in by default...' isn't unreasonable.
Just sharing since you mentioned you couldn't see how using that term for the opposite would make sense.
Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself).
In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.
Even read this way, it doesn't make logical sense. It's a great example of newspeak - corporations know people use "opt-in" as a purchasing signal, so they're trying to redefine the word by abusing it enough times.
"Opting someone else in" is essentially the same category of error as "consenting for someone else". People can only consent for others in specific circumstances and even then only for specific people (e.g. legal guardians), trying to argue "but I consented for them!" in front of a judge usually ain't gonna work.
> The property of having to choose *explicitly* to join or permit something; a decision having the *default option being exclusion or avoidance*; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.
You're just using the term wrong. That's okay, I've used words wrong before, and it just means you've been presented an opportunity for learning a new fact.
But there's no argument to be had except with the dictionary.
> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine
"Opt in" and "by default" are contradictory phrases. They mean literally the opposite of each other. The only reason it's coherent is that most native speakers will elect to believe "by default" was used correctly because it's the easier to use term.
> there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable
I think you're using emotionally inflammatory language, possibly unintentionally. no one is refusing to accept what they wrote.
That being said, the way they used "opt in" is categorically wrong. It's the opposite of the dictionary definition.
> The property of having to choose explicitly to join or permit something; a decision having the default option being exclusion or avoidance; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.
Because not everyone has the infrastructure to run that with better performance? Anyway, Mistral serves GLM 5.2 through their global and European endpoints, so if you wanted to leverage their services and use a more powerful open model, that seems to be an option.
It's a pretty reliable career for hundreds if not thousands of mid-list authors who generally stick to genre fiction. It's entirely possible that AI could core out the middle of the pack as well as the bottom, which would threaten not just jobs but a wealth of institutional knowledge that those authors share among their peers and especially new up-and-comers.
Oh thank goodness. I was honestly shaken just thinking about how horrifying it would be to be a college-aged student who managed to expose themselves to dimethylmercury. Even if they were doing something stupid and reckless, that's a horrible way to go.
I don't think we can be that reductive. Plenty of the US technology industry is concentrated in blue states like California, Washington, and New York. Likewise, I don't think all blue states can be considered equally resistant to the excesses of the federal government. I'm not going to go so far as to say "never buy American," but I am going to say that as with any boycott it takes research and diligence to decide who does and doesn't align with your values.
Ok, but the president's executive order does not officially change the name of a place or feature. In the US, that function is overseen by the Board on Geographic Names. While they did enact a change for the Gulf of Mexico (now the Gulf of America in US documentation), it doesn't happen immediately. While I imagine the BGN will update Lake Ontario eventually as well, Google tips their hand as being eager to please the admin by updating their maps before there is a corresponding change from the appropriate governing authority.
We can't even accuse Google of consistency, because they show Türkiye as Türkiye, for example, even though (as far as I can tell) the US Gov still uses Turkey.
I'd argue showing Türkiye as Türkiye was consistent; in this case it's the Turkish government that's more likely to kick up a fuss and make life difficult for Google if their preferred nomenclature isn't respected
reply