[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Why would Disney demand that?

Why would they choose slack if they want to host, maintain and be responsible for the internal chat themselves?

They choose slack because they do it for them so that they don't have to do it themselves. That is the selling point for them.

Businesses buy cloud services, because they do not want to manage stuff themselves.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Protects against what?

What I read here is just a vague critic from him of the relation between hard- and software developer. Which will not change just because the ISA is open source. It will take some iterations until this is figured out, this is inevevable.

Soft- and hardware developers are experts in their individual fields, there are not many with enough know-how of both fields to be effective.

Linus also points out, that because of ARM before, RISC-V might have a easier time, on the software side, but mistakes will still happen.

IMO, this article doesn't go into enough depths of the RISC-V specific issues, that it warrants RISC-V in the title, it would apply to any up and coming new ISA.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

My point is there never will be enough people to leave. Consumer boycotts do not work.

Between thousands of different factors to consider wherever to buy a product from a certain producer or not, child labor, environmental waste, political attitude of the CEO, etc... it isn't possible to make any decision on what product to consume.

It isn't about 'unless enough people leave" it is about "unless enough people protest to the government for market regulation" and "unless enough law makers care".

The free market is not self regulating, at least not with a long term positive effect.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is the "consumer choice" argument.

The problem is that consumers likely don't have that choice. The "free market" is really bad in incentivising good long term behavior, they favor short term gains for their stockholders. Thus they likely all switch to practices that seemingly lower cost or raise short term profits. If they can fire employees and replace them with AI, they will do so.

If they would think long term, they would prefer to hire humans instead of AI, because that way they would give their future customers money to buy their stuff. AI will not be their customer. They would pay them enough money to be a happy and good consumer.

Customer choice doesn't matter here, they either just have to buy whatever is cheapest, or die, because their employers (if they even have one) don't pay they enough for them to have choice, because short term profits.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"Copying is theft" is the argument of corporations for ages, but if they want our data and information, to integrate into their business, then, suddenly they have the rights to it.

If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software and AI models, as well, since it is available on the open web.

They got themselves into quite a contradiction.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because this is fiction, where there is good and evil, right and wrong, the good people are rewarded and the bad people punished, successful people earned it and the poor deserve it, and complex problems have simple answers. Where every argument only has a pro and a contra.

But we are living in reality, where most things are in shades of grey, and everything is more complex than it appears. People have to make decisions based on partial knowledge, to not get stuck in indecisiveness. Where even the middle ground solution might be wrong. And with so many distractions and propaganda.

Just be kind and understanding to other people with different ideas, the real world is a complex one, and easy to get lost. Sometimes people like to flee into their simple worlds of populism, maybe through talking and listening we can help them find their way again.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

No, publicly traded. One of the first steps to enshittyfication.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 103 points 1 month ago

I only play single player games, but couldn't care less about achievements. It is all about exploration, story, game mechanics and modding for me.

People treat achievements as if they are a status symbol. I mean sure, if you don't know what else to do in a game, they can give you some goal, but IMO the game itself should encourage you to reach the goal, not some external badge. The experience doing the task should be the reward in of itself.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 63 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

True, private companies are generally more focused on customer satisfaction, but that can suddenly change, for instance when the owner dies, and the new owners don't share the same ideals.

Private companies have a certain single point of failure built-in by having often just one or sometimes a small number of owners.

Nobody really knows what will happen when Gabe dies.

I just hope that valve becomes a worker cooperative... That would be the most stable form of company that probaly stays focused on customer satisfaction long term, since workers tend to favor providing long-term profits via good service instead of short term gains, for high frequency traders.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 70 points 8 months ago

What I really like is that they double down on hackabilty by switching to metal torx screws, etc.

That, and a Linux system are IMO the main selling points of the SteamDeck, compared to any clones from Asus or Lenovo, etc.

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago

At that point we get a tag system. Content Warning: politics, Content Warning: bad news, Content Warning: dangerous cuteness...

view more: next ›

cmhe

joined 1 year ago