Yep, they literally cannot work any other way than as a ponzi scheme. Because the people “earning” want to take more money out of the system than they put in, and the company is taking money out as well just to keep the game running and the employees paid, as well as to make a profit. So you need substantially more suckers buying into the system than the money that is being paid out.

Eventually, somebody is gonna be left holding an empty bag.

This is an extremist take on a correct conclusion. Just like how “vote with your wallet” and “no ethical consumption under capitalism” can co-exist, so can the idea that there are people in these jobs who simply don’t care about the harm as well as people who do but don’t have the power to do anything about it - even something as simple as changing jobs.

An easy example is the people left at Twitter. When employees started quitting in droves after Musk started tearing the company apart, I saw people quickly theorizing that the people still working there fell into 2 groups: those who were morally bankrupt enough not to care, and those on work visas who couldn’t quit because they risked being deported.

The majority of these companies are based in the US, where workers’ rights and protections are often tenuous at best. Whistleblowers have almost no protections and, more often than not, end up serving years or even lifetime sentences in federal jails for their efforts. In most states, it is completely legal for companies to fire you for whatever reason they feel like, and even if you get severance, it can take years of legal battles to get what you’re owed. Add to that how long it can take to find a new job (the average time in the video game industry is 2 months), and it’s easy to see how that can quickly spiral into putting people into a dangerous financial situation for daring to speak out.

It’s easy to lay the blame at other people’s feet, but just like saying, “Well, just don’t use their products then,” it’s never that simple.

“No ethical consumption under capitalism” is the new “just following orders.” If you can afford the product, you can afford to buy something more ethical.

Sure, but if you really cared, then you’d put in the effort. Or are you “just following orders”?

The point is that he blames the people working for these companies with a blanket statement while not taking any responsibility for his own agency in the situation. It’s a lot more nuanced than just “why don’t these other people do x.” It’s like “vote with your wallet” vs. “no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

There are some major exceptions to that. Many people on work visas have almost no choice, like the theorized majority of people who stayed on at Twitter after Musk ruined the place. Their choice basically boils down to keep working for the company or be deported.

Better than blaming addicts for being addicted.

As usual, vote local, vote often applies here, but personally, I’m in 100% agreement that the odds of it happening in our lifetime are slim to none.

But when people think “whale,” they think of the rich idiots with more money than sense. They don’t think of the addict being fleeced like kids by cigarette companies. And we need to change that mentality. Because we’re just victim blaming here. You can’t shame a heroin addict into a sober person.

And there are plenty of irresponsible parents. There was a story about 5 years ago I remember of a young kid (like 6 years old) who literally emptied his parents’ bank account on mtx in an iPhone game because they didn’t know it had mtx in it.

And saying that people with mental health issues need to git gud is like saying that people in wheelchairs need to git gud and use stairs. What we need to do is replace the idiots with people who understand how bad this shit is so we can get something done about it.

Unfortunately, the biggest group of people buying mtx are those with mental health issues/addiction issues and kids who have no concept of fiscal responsibility. And as the saying goes, there’s a sucker born every minute.

These companies have literally hired psychologists to tell them how to best exploit the human brain for maximum wallet extraction. They’re doing the equivalent of casinos pumping extra oxygen into the room to keep you more awake and not having any windows so you don’t realize how long you’ve been in there (plus the easy booze to loosen the purse strings).

Nothing’s gonna change until we can hold these companies responsible for their actions. Ironically, I think review bombing on Steam actually helps since it can make people aware of the exploitative practices these companies are doing and make them avoid these games.

Except the big money isn’t coming from the whales. It’s coming from the gamer equivalent of the little old lady at the casino with her bucket of quarters.

So the answer is neither.

Whales are largely a myth created by game companies to create a false class war amongst us rather than holding the truly responsible parties at fault. No different than pitting the middle class against the poor.

Do whales exist? Absolutely. However, the vast majority of mtx money comes from people with addiction problems, mental health issues that make fiscal responsibility difficult, and kids who don’t know any better. Many of whom who are spending money that they can’t afford to spend but can’t help themselves from spending.

These companies quite literally hire psychologists to tell them exactly how to exploit people’s own brain chemistry against them to most effectively extract money from their wallets. Epic Games got in trouble because it was believed that they were trying to create a culture in Fornite that shamed kids for having default skins. Everything from daily login bonuses to seasons and battle passes to rotating stores are designed to keep you logging in and playing and therefore paying. They turn logging in into a habit and then hit you with the FOMO and completing your collection needs.

You’re not going to fix this by shaming people any more than you can cure drug, alcohol, and gambling addiction by shaming people.

The original comic was rather popular at the time, and as a result, it became an early meme before mass-scale meme culture had really taken off besides doge memes and “I can haz cheeseburger.” So it quickly entered the cultural zeitgeist of the early internet because the kinds of people into memes and gamer culture at the time would’ve been about the size of the terminally online crowd today.

Another possibility is that she’s XY, but the Y never activated, so she developed female but with a single “faulty” X chromosome.

I don’t remember my biology classes well enough to say, but wouldn’t that also mean that potentially neither of her parents were colorblind, since the Y would’ve come from her father while the faulty X would’ve come from her mother? And, if she were XY in this scenario, wouldn’t that mean that she’d pass that trait along to her kids as well?

I mean, you’re really just arguing the semantics of phrasing.

Developing the ability to see green through random mutation was potentially an evolutionary advantage that allowed them to become better adapted to survival. Which is what they meant by “needed.”

You should check out this article on the attacks on paintings by Jewish American artist Barnett Newman. Especially this quote on the piece Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III, which is basically just an 8’ by 18’ block of red with a blue stripe:

After the 1986 attack on Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III there was a conversation concerning who would do the restoration of the painting. Despite the work provoking a lot of anger in museumgoers due to its simplicity, the painting was incredibly intricate, and experts knew that it would be nearly unattainable to complete a faithful restoration. Although the work was mostly just an expanse of the color red, both the shade and technique Newman used were difficult to replicate. Prior to the slashing, it was almost impossible to see brush strokes on the work with the naked eye. Additionally, one of the cardinal rules of restoring paintings is that everything done to the work should be reversible, something that would be very difficult to do with such large cuts through the body of the work. The painting sat damaged for many years because no conservationists wanted to touch it.

The dude who did eventually volunteer to restore it more or less went over the entire painting with a roller and red paint, and you can tell immediately.

Me when people are lying about images being generated works and submitting them to art contests and winning stuff like college scholarships:

AI “Artists” are idea guys. They don’t care about the process or the knowledge or the experience of creation, only the Content that gets produced that they can consume. They’re middle managers claiming the work created by the skills of the workers under them as their own effort. Image generators simply allow them to do a corporation and avoid paying people for those skills or putting in the effort to learn themselves. It’s just a new form of coloring books, only created using ethically dubious methods because the companies creating the programs are likely violating fair use laws.

Edit: This isn’t to say that people who use coloring books are inherently bad or anything, but when you’re trying to pass your page from a coloring book off as a gallery-worthy exhibit and the book was made by a company tracing artwork and using it without permission to make a profit? Yeah, then you’re a bad person. Especially if you go on to talk down to artists because you made yours so quickly, etc.

Calling pieces where an artist used an “AI” to do things like touchups “AI art” is like calling a piece where somebody used the magic wand tool “Magic Wand art.” Because that’s what the magic wand is - an algorithm written to identify similar elements and isolate them. That’s essentially the beginning steps of an LLM. “AI” has been used in this regard for decades now, it’s only that AI has become a buzz word for companies looking to replace worker skills with a cheap fascimile so that they don’t have to pay their workers that has led to the concept of “AI art,” by which it can be safely assumed is referring to generated images.

And I believe the word that OP was looking for is intent. As Adam Savage put it, AI art lacks intent. Whether a piece is good or bad doesn’t matter, you can feel what the artist had in their head and what they wanted to express with a piece, and that’s what he cares about when looking at a piece of art. When a 6 year old draws a dog, it doesn’t matter whether that dog is a stick figure or a work comparable to the Mona Lisa - you know that they wanted to express that they like dogs. AI has no intent. It simply combines pieces of its data set, transforming art created with intent into a pile of different details that no longer have their original context.

I could see this as part of a metrics thing - if Google sees a big drop in users right after the rollout, it’s harder to brush it under the rug as having no correlation.

For those who don’t get the joke, bagels are a Jewish food.

Also, I’d argue they got a good thing going there. Got the gravlax, bagel, and egg on top. Sounds like a delicious breakfast sandwich to me (just get rid of the silly kebab spear and give me some fruit on the side or something).

On top of that, it doesn’t even do a good job of preparing kids for work since the majority of jobs will be in a team based environment while schools focus on individual/isolated learning almost exclusively.

The modern school system was largely developed around the early 1900s with the intent of creating factory line workers: people who could remember and perform 2 or 3 repetitive tasks. This is further compounded by the rise of standardized testing, which provides a good base level for quality of subjects across the range of individual teacher’s skills but has become an administrative crutch that puts test scores above everything else, leading to a cycle where kids are taught only to remember stuff long enough to pass the next test and then dump it from memory for the next set of test subjects.

Schooling needs a major revision from the ground up for the modern age.