To convince the public he's guilty. It's one of the ways they skew the narrative.

Remember in the movie "SWAT" where that monster guy who entered the country illegal to kill the one guy and then offered money to get him out? That's Hollywood doing their part to put the idea in our minds that this kind of thing is warranted.

People do want to help Luigi and that scares the shit out of them too. They expected people's moral compass to make them side with the CEO he shot. But that's not what happened. The general public is very much pro Luigi.

The people leading the push for his prosecution are very much out of touch with that reality though. Cops and prosecutors have some of the best healthcare in the country.

Police used a series of drive-by shootings as a reason to secretly install a bunch of flock cameras without telling the city counsel or the public.

It is unclear if the Mayor knew about the deal.

City council found out from complaints, investigated, and paused funding for the cameras until they could talk to flock about security and public safety concerns.

Mayor decided to declare a state of emergency to override city counsel.

City counsel is now suing the Mayor.

The cameras are still being funded and still operational.

Sounds to me like more public officials need to be recalled via non confidence vote. Starting with this mayor.

The US has the personnel to go through 5 years of every tourists personal social media history? I think fucking not.

If the AI Agent counts as an employee then the company "employing" it is liable for what it does.

My guess is the argument will be that "it's a tool", not an employee, and therefore they take no responsibility. Though I'm sure that argument is not going to fly for very long. If your air hammer harms someone because the person operating it wasn't using it correctly, you're still liable.

The irony of calling out Wired for "Dishonest Reporting tm" while saying this nonsense in your leaked memo is staggering:

But this isn't the first time in recent months that NameTag has been in the news. In February, the New York Times reported on an internal Meta memo in which Meta discussed plans to install NameTag into its smart glasses. In the striking memo, the tech giant noted that the ethically-fraught feature should ideally be launched "during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns."

So you know this feature is controversial, you absolutely do plan to release it to the public according to your own internal memos, and you have the nerve to call out a publication for explaining what the feature is and why it's bad before they explain that it's not currently implemented and you claim it won't be. Sloppy work, guys.

I bet there's some correlation there. After all, if you're religious you're a lot more likely to believe things told to you by a supposed authority figure. Still, correlation does not equal causation.

"Fertility rate drops" suggests that people are becoming less fertile.

The article itself says that people are taking measures to have fewer children due to cost, the economy, the political landscape, etc.

Infertility is not the same as choosing not to have children.

"Polling in recent years has indicated that the number of adults who never want to have children has grown, and that men and women plan to have fewer children than previous generations."

People find AI to be irritating because of its flaws and failure to deliver. They are also angry about big tech suggesting that AI will force real humans out of human spaces. The arts, media, research, science, the work force etc.

The "anxiety" is mostly fear of exactly what's being promised at the detriment of the people expected to fund it. Anyone who's got eyes and ears knows that the venture capital well will run dry eventually.

There is no return on investment for the vast majority of regular every day humans living in this world at this time. Not where AI is concerned. It isn't hard to follow what is being marketed to its conclusion. Tech Oligarchs have been saying the quiet part out loud since the begining.

AI will replace workers. AI will replace people who make art and music, and write things. AI will replace.

They even tell us they know it's a flawed replacement that they can't make better. And they pretty much tell us that they haven't found a way to monetize it so it's sustainable which basically means one way or another they will be looking for people to pay more for it.

People have started thinking about what that means and naturally they don't like it. Tech Bros are selling this dream of replacing us but we don't have any money to pay more for a product that doesn't produce anything worthwhile for the cost. Especially not if you're replacing them and there is no safety net.

Seriously, what the actual fuck.

Yeah. I've got an 870 that's still cleaning. It gets stuck under furniture and needs to be rescued at least once a week, and last week it lost its ass dustbin somehow mid clean, but it's still kicking.

There was a point where tires were expensive but they lasted a long time because so few people had cars and they didn't drive them often. So two brothers who owned a tire company were trying to figure out how to sell more tires to the few people who owned cars.

The answer was to get them to wear their tires out faster by providing a list of places they could visit that would warrant the expense of wearing down their tires.

So the stat rating was more of a "this place is worth a visit/road trip system. And they published this list and it caught on and then restaurants wanted to get Michelin stars for the notariety and the essentially free press.

Aren't we already seeing that though?

The vast majority of people who surf the web don't use a computer to do it. People who do belong to niches. People over a certain age grew up with and still buy computers. People who game still buy computers or consoles. People who stream/create content still use computers and other electronics for that purpose, same with like. Engineers and hobbyists using CAD and other software in creative spaces.

But the smart phone has overtaken the computer as a personal computing device by quite a large margin now. And at every turn companies are trying to make cell phones a den of ad service, slop, and addictive content while stealing any user data that's not nailed down to increase their revenue and continue the circle.

Really disappointed that you just linked to the reddit post instead of copy pasting or at the very least giving a TLDR.

This BS again. "In exchange for selling Steam Keys of your game on the internet (using steam as the vendor for your game), you, the developer agree to sell those steam keys at the cheapest price you offer. Steam doesn't set the price, takes the same cut from each key sold as almost every other platform including Nintendo, Epic, PS, Xbox, and GOG.

So I am struggling to understand what is anti-competitve about this.

https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2019/09/GameRetailerCuts_infographic-1.png

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard

That's a badass cape cloak.

Came here to say this. The BBB is not the good guy in this scenario. It's basically extortion.

They will just stop making stuff consumers want to buy and keep making the crap that AI firms want so they can ride that wave as far as it will go.

We know this because the collective buying power of US consumers isn't propping up the stock market anymore. AI firms are.

What I'm hearing is that you don't want to support the creators who's work you repost here.

I don't agree. These types of ads are the few that I'm actually okay with. because it's an artist trying to support themselves, not a corporate schill using AI or trying to push a big corp.

The War and Peas comics artist has a patreon. I can't afford to support them directly but I do want them to receive support.

Why don't you want artists to get paid for their work?

This is a threat. They know that they're using the stock market to fund their greed and that anyone with savings tied up there (Retirement funds that are invested in the market) will be on the hook. Plus the tax payer money they're going to ask for because they're "too big to fail".