Brooksie359

On 5/3/2024 at 6:31 PM, Eaglerino said:

It was pay to win with the increased stash sizes, more starting money, and better reputation with the more expensive versions. Fans would huff copium because it wasn't the "pay to get 100 levels instantly" kind of pay to win, but still a large benefit for a new player. 

As far as I understand I thought those were only in the 250 dollar version not the 150 version. 

15 minutes ago, Caroline said:

I can't imagine how long the guys' who paid $150 for a rancid multiplayer game neckbeards are. Unbelievable.

 

And now they double down and charge $250 for the SAME game lmao not even Ubisoft went that far to milk wallets, and they know the true hardcore gacha addicts are gonna pay for it again no matter what.

For people who like the game alot and play it alot 150 edition is a nice way to support the game and didn't really have any elements that were scummy. The issue is that they retroactively changed it so the 150 dollar version wouldn't get the new game mode to force people to buy the 250 dollar version. That is super scummy and likely false advertising based on previous marking of the 150 dollar version. Not only that but the new 250 dollar version has pay to win elements which is huge deal concidered the game had none prior to that. 

On 4/24/2024 at 7:51 AM, Avocado Diaboli said:

I love when people make fun of the genius ideas of the world's richest baby. Even his only good idea out of this whole debacle, which was to open up community notes (which already existed before he took over, so he doesn't get to take credit for that, because everything he touches already existed) to the public is used to make fun of him whenever he spews constant nonsense. Heck, even just the fact that it has been almost a year since the rebrand and everybody is still just calling it Twitter, with media publications doing the "X, formerly Twitter" thing is hilarious. We let Facebook get away with their Meta rebrand, and yet, Elon just can't manage to convince people that "no seriously guys, X is like the cooles letter of the alphabet, so we gotta use that as our umbrella". 

Honestly I don't know anyone who refers to Facebook as meta. I think the meta rebrand was just as stupid tbh but I guess that's just me. If anything whenever I hear meta I am reminded of the metaverse demo they had which is significantly worse than VR chat even with a stupidly large budget. 

On 4/26/2024 at 12:21 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Within a company you could have essentially the "publisher" and "developer" still.

 

Just like the whole concept of "engineers vs marketing department" [with almost the real  world case of RCA being the example].  You get the pencil pushers who come in and demand certain things, and the developers are stuck essentially doing that...so in this case there is still a potential the dev team might not have known/wanted it a certain way but the team in charge of essentially the numbers were the ones who pushed it.

 

In general in regards to this case...I would be pretty mad.  It will be interesting to see what the original terms were though, as how they define DLC...if they didn't really specify I could see a class action.

 

Overall as well, I'm not 100% sure how to feel about this.  If it were me, I would be mad, but at the same time if it is a greatly different feature set that changes gameplay itself I could see it as being not DLC, but at the same time it really sounds like it's in a whole grey area.  After all, I'd argue a lot of DLC could also be considered a "feature" it's just about to what degree it is a feature.

 

At the very least, I think those who had purchased the previous pack should have been granted a very small fee to also purchase it...as they are the whales and you really should pander to them more instead of making them feel ripped off.

No they 100% mislead customers. When they said that the 150 dollar version would receive all future DLC an example given was a new PVE mode. I'm sorry but clearly they had originally planned to have the PVE mode be included and then changed their mind so they edited the marketing on the 150 dollar version retroactively so it no longer referenced the PVE mode. Good thing internet archive is a thing so people can see the original. Honestly I don't know why they wouldn't just do more premium skins and other cosmetic stuff to make money. Clearly they have a good game with a dedicated fan base but nope gotta do the dumbest monetization model around. 

37 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Who knows if it'll be illegal to train a model on copyrighted data. Movie directors can train by watching other director movies, Artists train by watching other artists. Writers train by reading from other writers. Engineers learns by studying and copying other Engineers work. Programmers copy code of other programmers.

 

"LLama 3 trained on all Marvel comics issues from 1990 to 2020."

 

As long as the output is derivative, I see an argument for there to be no copyright violation with training a model on copyrighted material. I can make my own paintings in the style of Van Gogh and sell it, and it's fine. It would just be a very bad painting if I made it without the use of a Generative AI.

  

This is an issue for legislators, I can't say what it will become. I suspect the final draft will be something that favours large IP holders like disney. The regulations are decided by the big money, as always.

Keep in mind enterprise AI trains on data from a whole lot of companies internal information with the expectation that the information wouldn't be used in any other capacity. So combine all the companies that were used to train the data and Microsoft or other large companies that own the AI and I don't see how that would have any less money behind it than say Disney. Granted I think you could add something about not needing to list data that was used with permission. 

6 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I fully support this proposal.

 

I'm sure that the lawmaker understands nothing about it, but it happens to be for the best. All training data for all large models ought to be public. It was scraped from the public and it has to be given back to the public. Large corporations can't just scrape without giving something back.

 

I go further, and demand that the weights and the models themselves have to be public.

 

What large companies are allowed to keep secret, is the "secret sauce" of how they turn training data into models. That is the actual original work they are doing, and they are allowed to have that as trade secret.

It's already being stored, likely in a preprocessed tokenized form in storage near a supercomputer. One idea, is to have LLM makers make the manifest with metadata about source publicly accessible, and have a form to request access to the database paying just the network/storage fees involved.

 

Another idea could be to have custodian for the databases like LAION that license access to the data and audit data source and who is using it.

 

There are many way to tackle the problem. Technically it's not even a problem, it's a regulatory/political problem.

I could see this being a huge issue honestly. I know alot of commercial AI trains on data that people wouldn't want as public information. Not sure if this would apply at all to that information but if it did then you would see huge issue crop up especially because it's retroactive so the only way to prevent disclosure would be to scrap the AI tool trained on the data. 

28 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

The biggest potential issues I can think of are your storage if you have mechanical hard drives, and your GPU if your case doesn't have a vertical mount.

 

Way back in the days of old you could mount hard drives in shock-resistant brackets in optical drive bays, but most cases don't have those anymore. You could kludge something together, or just run SSDs exclusively.

 

If your GPU has an anti-sag bracket that stands inside your case, that should be enough to prevent it from getting damaged. (Frankly, if your PC is shaken hard enough to break an anti-sag bracket, you've probably got bigger problems to worry about!)

Just put it on its side and instantly get rid of gpu sag. That said if you are running an AIO or liquid loop I guess that might not be an option. 

Yeah this seems like a stupid decision imo. This gives China one more reason to take over Taiwan and in turn tsmc which produces the majority of the world's high performance chips. Also not sure how much such a ban is going to slow down china's AI infrastructure realistically. 

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

For the same reason why DRM and copy protection on DVD's and Blurays dont stop people from pirating. Anything done digitally can be faked for the most part. Fake ID's do exist. Like stated above there are no databases that these companies can check an ID against.

 

Furthermore people steal social media accounts. My uncle had his hacked. The dip shit hacker even changed the picture to himself. We had to get in to the account and delete the whole account. If they cant stop hackers for stealing accounts they cant stop kids from making accounts.

Like I said it's mostly about making it difficult not impossible. Maybe it was different when I was a kid but for the most part the ones who were on social media the most were girls that weren't the most tech literate. Just stopping them would already be doing alot especially because they are the ones who likely are negatively effected the most. 

16 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The difference is the clerk looks at a physical ID, and to a certain extent they are trained to look for anything out of place on said ID and the picture has to match the individual who is purchasing the alcohol. A Facebook employee is not going to show up at your house to verify that ID. So that means submitting an ID to Social Media is fucking meaningless.

Alot of social media websites have photos already so it's not like they could simply use an ID that is totally different than what they look like. Also they figured out a way to do some sort of verification on dating apps to make sure you are who you say you are. Really I am not sure why you are so sure that there is no way that these companies could reasonably make it difficult for children to get on social media and more importantly ban those that do somehow get on but are later found out. 

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

But how would you verify the ID is genuine and that it belongs to that person?

You just need to make it hard enough. Also just having it restricted allows them to ban when people are found out for violation and you can do something about the social media usage. Really you are more so trying to dissuade the use rather than make it impossible. I mean you need to be 21 to drink but really determined kids still figure out ways around that too but I wouldn't say we should just get rid of the restriction. 

Depends on what you want it for. I personally bought my blackwidow tournament edition just for the wrist rest. That combined with a sit stand desk for perfect desk elevation totally got rid of my wrist issues. 

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Prove you are over the age of 14 right now. How would you do it. You certainly aren't going to show your state ID/DL to rando's on a forum. Yet if some sites start requiring this, then people will get mislead into posting their ID's publicly, and then those ID's get used to "authorize" kids elsewhere.

 

All a kid will do is search "free drivers license" or something on the internet, and they've jumped over that hurdle. 

https://haveibeenpwned.com/

Look up any of your emails. My email has been , oh pwnd "10 times". 4 of these were  in the last 5 years.

 

Now imagine what will happen when a site that requires your ID to be verified gets pwn'd. Now all that information is out there and verification is absolutely worthless.

 

Honestly it would be fine if this verification only was required for social media over a certain size because the real issue is big social media websites. Small forums aren't what's really having a huge negative impact on kids. 

12 hours ago, Kisai said:

No, this is about consequences of mandatory ID to access services.

 

If you needed ID to access social media, the chances are you can reach out to mental health services online approaches zero. Because few people will want to talk openly about social issues. You know how I know this? Because I got on the internet exactly when I was 12, before the "web" was a thing. People joined IRC channels if they knew about IRC or usenet (Which "required" your email address.) You know what is scary about IRC? All the ERP and Piracy channels that make looking for anything in the channel list a hazard. How you found anything on IRC was from usenet which was equally a hazard. Before there was Youtube, Tiktok or Discord, "IRC" was king and people were pretty bold about what their intents were. My sister's friend was un-afraid of going onto IRC and just treating ERP as a joke. They were 14 around that time.  They also bragged about it afterwords. 

 

There are many people who treat the entire internet as a joke, and are pretty shameless about it, and they are super popular, kids want to "notice me streamer!", and that's what leads to a lot of these incidents of children being harmed trying to show off and get their streamer "Friend" to watch their video. Some of these big streamers are basically "america's funniest home videos" without any rules.

 

Let's say, that you needed to plug your state ID/DL into the computer before the computer would let you access the public internet. No ID, you get "kid internet" a whitelist of "babysitter" sites . Plug your ID into the computer and the ISP will check if your ID matches the internet subscriber, if it matches, you get to go on the public internet, if it doesn't, babysitter internet. Babysitter internet includes the local banks, government services, a subset of wikipedia in the local language (no talk or history pages,) curated youtube kids, and maybe a few other curated sites by the city council that have no third party ads on them.

 

That is of course a very exaggerated possibility, akin to a mandatory ignition immobilizer on cars that would require the drivers license. Would it keep people from stealing cars or driving drunk? Of course not. People who want to steal a car would just get a tow truck. 

 

What generally happens is we get a slippery slope of closing access to services that people need. Look no further than the situation with credit card payments. People are forced to send cash in the mail if they want to buy things that are legal to possess but not purchase in-state.

 

Yeah I don't see your point. It's just ID verification not that you would have your ID publicly tied to the social media account that anyone could see. 

11 hours ago, Bitter said:

Because the laws are not about protecting children. They're about restricting and chilling access to information deemed "immoral". If they wanted to protect children there's substantially more effective ways to do that like healthcare, social services, nutritional access, childcare, health screenings, immunization programs, gun safety training, improving vehicle pedestrian safety, and so on and so on. These laws are never about the children, that's a dog whistle meant to illicit an emotional knee jerk response from voters.

 

And it's not an imaginary scenario.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/08/paxton-transgender-child-abuse/

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/texas-bill-could-send-parents-prison-providing-gender-affirming-care-n1264060

 

We are talking about age requirements on social media usage. Social media is very well knows to cause mental health issues in young people. Well it probably causes mental health issues for all people but it's worse for children. If you think this is about immoral information then you are wrong. There are very legitimate concerns that this would address. Also you are not getting the point. You have an issue with the law you linked not the law about social media usage. If that law you linked didn't exist then the issue you have wouldn't exist which is my entire point. It would be like saying they should get rid of cps because they can be used in the way you described. 

13 hours ago, Bitter said:

 

Imagine if you will your child is trans and you live in Florida. A teacher overhears your child talking to a classmate about that and reports it to the school as they are required by law to do. Child protective services go to the police who then access your ID and check what you've been doing online, your child confided their feelings in you, their parents. You went online and found a social media group supporting other parents of trans youths. The police decide this is probable cause to start a child abuse investigation with child protective services. Child protective services takes your children into protective custody while the investigation is conducted. Police seize all computers and smart phones in your house. They find that you looked up out of state doctors who could provide gender affirming care. You're charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Your children are wards of the state placed in the foster care system.

Imagine coming up with a scenario that has little to nothing to do with this age restriction law being an issue. First and foremost you don't know if the police would have access to that info without a warrant or if that information is even stored. Second is that with a warrant or sometimes even without a warrant they cN get this type of info even if there isn't ID verification. Last thing is that you are only saying that this could make it easier for people to get caught breaking the law which shouldn't be a bad thing. The issue you are describing seems mostly to hinge on the law that is being violated being not good. 

50 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Warrant is the key thing there. That's at least a small check on their surveillance powers.

You can pay cash still you know?

Yes and are you assuming that police would have access to the data used to verify age for social media websites and could look up all the social media a person uses without a warrant? I would doubt that would be the case and honestly I am not sure what information they would even get anyways. Also do you really think the police are that busy to go stalking you like that even if they did have access? 

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

They don't record your ID# and keep a database of where you bought it and how much you bought each time you buy a beer or cigarette that could be accessed and used by law enforcement in the future if they see fit. If they did you bet your heiny I'd be against that too. That's the key difference here, that it opens a gaping hole for abuse by law enforcement and historically speaking any time you give law enforcement something they can abuse they absolutely abuse it. Just look at civil forfeiture if you want a great example of giving law enforcement a tool that they take and abuse against the public.

Yes there isn't a place that records financial transactions that you make that the police couldn't get access to with the proper warrant. I'm sorry but this is stupid because we already have the ability to even use location data of phones if the police have the proper warrant and you are afraid the police know you use social media? 

On 3/27/2024 at 10:07 AM, Bitter said:

Shifting legal repercussions onto individuals while still allowing the corporation to do "the things" is a backwards way to fix a problem. Fixing a problem at it's source is much more effective.

Say that to prohibition or the war on drugs that made weed illegal. We have numerous cases where the source was outlawed and I would hardly say they were effective. Also an age restriction is super commonplace in law so I am not sure why you are acting like this is some bizarre method of regulation rather than a pretty typical age restriction that is used on something that is detrimental to underdeveloped minds. 

9 hours ago, Bitter said:

Rather than making everyone jump through hoops and ID themselves and the content they're viewing online, how about we fix the actual problem which is the purposefully harmful and addictive highly profit driven social media? Oh no we can't do that. We can pass laws that legislate what an individual can do but how dare we pass laws that might legislate what businesses can or can't do.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

These laws are never about protecting children, they're about matching up people to what they're doing so that marginalized and minority communities can be targeted as 'boogeymen' to rally the political masses against to distract them from the real problems. It's happened before, it's happening now, it'll happen again. Divisive politics, divide people into stereotyped faceless groups that are always the 'bad ones'. It's an age old tactic and one used in the 1940's to whip up nationalist sentiments and stoke fear and hate of 'the other'. Until one day suddenly YOU are 'the other'.

 

Banning the selling of a product is basically the same as banning people's right to buy the product. Anyways I will say that I would be on board for more regulation around social media but I think it would be pretty hard to do right and I am not sure I have much faith in lawmakers to do it correctly. I mean restrictions around what age can use a service is relatively easy to make a law about but a law targeting harmful tactics that social media uses doesn't seem nearly as easy. 

38 minutes ago, Lurick said:

I didn't say that, but there have been dramatic differences between abuse by banning someone from having any exposure to something and taking a different approach where it's not presented as taboo their entire life and then suddenly BAM they have full unrestricted access. See certain countries in Europe where they will let younger people have wine and whatnot compared to alcohol abuse rates in the US.

Letting kids have wine a meal vs Letting kids have unlimited access to social media are way different. Not only that I think parents could expose their kids to social media in small amounts even with this law in place so not sure it makes any sense to not allow the law. Also not sure what would be the healthy equivalent of social media use would even be for a kid. 

1 hour ago, Lurick said:

Ah yes the old "ban things I don't like" method.

Define social media, please, and do it in detail.

Should we ban social gatherings in person as well because someone might get hurt?

How about we ban text messaging since people can still be attacked that way. While we are at it let's just ban all forms of communication and the internet as a whole because it's been shown nobody can use it responsibly....

 

OR how about we stop this "ban everything" horse crap and take a holistic approach to addressing the root cause of the damn issue? Because that's complicated and can't be used for political grandstanding. We need easy "wins" for the votes, not actual wins for the people.

 

This law reeks of nonsense, first it's "the parents should be in charge of their children and supervise them" and from the exact same fucking side its now "upload identity verification to a third party website if you want access to websites because the government needs to know you're safe". This will have the same impact as banning other things, it won't work, people will still get access, people will still be exploited, and nothing will change for the better in the end.

True why would we ban alcohol and smoking for minors or people under 21. We should take a holistic approach to the problem. Parents should be the one preventing their kids from abusing alcohol or cigarettes. Why have any age restrictions on anything.

3 minutes ago, zombiepunk10 said:

There is times when they cant just "play outside" together. Like, if the parent doesn't allow it, maybe its raining, maybe they wanna talk to someone outside of their town, you have to think about those things too.

The suicide rate had a dramatic rise when kids had access to social media so not really sure the idea that not being able to talk to people all the time is a fair point. Also this is even assuming that kids would be talking to each other rather than doom scrolling or any number of psychologically destructive behaviors. I would even bet that use of social media leads to less social interaction ironically enough. 

20 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I guess this time at least nobody will be crunching to implement shrinking horse testicles. In general, delays are a welcome sight from a customer perspective, but the money well will eventually run dry and the publisher will demand a return on investment, so don't count on this delay actually meaning the game won't have any issues at launch.

 

Not that it matters, because if the previous 3 games are anything to go by, it'll be another by-the-numbers open world game with sub-par driving and bland third-person shooter mechanics telling a third-rate crime thriller story that completely forgets the satirical roots of the series. The way Rockstar continuously try and fail to thread the needle of doing wacky hijinx alongside a serious story and how fans lap it up uncritically is bewildering to me. 

GTA V driving is pretty good and I wouldn't call it subpar at all. Also I think the biggest reason why alot of people like the GTA series isn't really the story to begin with at least not with the newer releases especially GTA V. I mean GTA V is basically printing money from GTA online is its pretty clear that is what attracts alot of people and not the storyline. 

51 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Id get a tv id I were you. At that distance even 32 inch is kinda small.

 

Also keep in mind this curve is optimized for around 60cm away not 1.5-2m. Its important that you dont have too much of a curve at a distance else your experience will be compromised by weird squashing you can experience from the image.

 

Depends on the tv. Like lg lcds go as low as 11ms which is pretty average in more budget gaming monitors.

Usually 165hz monitors are going to be pretty good for latency so I would still think you would be much better off with a monitor for gaming. But yeah I agree that at 1.5m 32 inches is pretty small but it sounds like they are already use to using a 25 inch monitor at that distance so 32 will be much better.