koreth

I don’t think Netflix actually cancels shows after two seasons any more often than other networks do.

Somehow people got it into their heads that Netflix is far more cancel-happy than its competitors, but if you look at the numbers, traditional TV networks have had like a 50% cancellation rate for decades.

Even TOS was cancelled after two seasons!

If Netflix is more prone to cancelling shows at all, which I’m not convinced is even true, it can’t be by an enormous margin.

I think this is a more subtle question than it appears on the surface, especially if you don’t think of it as a one-off.

Whether or not Scientology deserves to be called a “religion,” it’s a safe bet there will be new religions with varying levels of legitimacy popping up in the future. And chances are some of them will have core beliefs that are related to the technology of the day, because it would be weird if that weren’t the case. “Swords” and “plowshares” are technological artifacts, after all.

Leaving aside the specific case of Scientology, the question becomes, how do laws that apply to classes of technology interact with laws that treat religious practices as highly protected activities? We’ve seen this kind of question come up in the context of otherwise illegal drugs that are used in traditional rituals. But religious-tech questions seem like they could have a bunch of unique wrinkles.

Tunic, but that was kind of the point.

Their track record isn’t that bad, is it? Castlevania and Edgerunners were pretty good adaptations. Dragon Age was all right. And Arcane was amazing, though Netflix wasn’t involved in that one early on. So there’s reason to be at least cautiously optimistic, IMO.

Not just by the time of Kirk. He’s already gone by the time of “The Cage.”

EDIT: No, I got my timeline screwed up. “The Cage” predates SNW. Oops.

Saw this at the Comic-Con screening and it works better than I expected, especially the physical comedy. The exaggerated cartoon antics are still there, but toned down just enough to not seem out of place in live action.

The “developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity” condition is part of why people are up in arms about this. If I’m at work and I run into a bug and submit a patch, my patch was developed in the course of a commercial activity, and thus the project as a whole was partially developed in the course of a commercial activity.

How many major open-source projects have zero contributions from companies?

It also acts as a huge disincentive for companies to open their code at all. If I package up a useful library I wrote at work, and I release it, and some other person downloads it and exposes a vulnerability that is only exploitable if you use the library in a way that I wasn’t originally using it, boom, my company is penalized. My company’s lawyers would be insane to let me release any code given that risk.

The AR wall was obvious but it doesn’t bother me that much. Environments that require active suspension of disbelief have been a Star Trek staple since the 1960s.

This post begs for a list of games whose stories avoid most or all of these traps.

I’ll start with an easy one: Disco Elysium.

I think this is about Waze, the mapping/navigation app.

ChatGPT is certainly no good at a lot of aspects of storytelling, but I wonder how much the author played with different prompts.

For example, if I go to GPT-4 and say, “Write a short fantasy story about a group of adventurers who challenge a dragon,” it gives me a bog standard trope-ridden fantasy story. Standard adventuring party goes into cave, fights dragon, kills it, returns with gold.

But then if I say, “Do it again, but avoid using fantasy tropes and cliches,” it generates a much more interesting story. Not sure about the etiquette of pasting big blocks of ChatGPT text into Lemmy comments, but the setting turned from generic medieval Europe into more of a weird steampunk-like environment, and the climax of the story was the characters convincing the dragon that it was hurting people and should stop.

GDPR protects things implicitly (albeit completely untested–perhaps even problematic)

I will grab my popcorn the first time someone seriously tries to pursue a GDPR erasure request for their fediverse content. I don’t think it’s even possible to honor such a request in theory, let alone in practice, given that nodes can come and go from the network and when they go, they could easily keep their local copies of everything.

I don’t understand why people are saying this will reduce misinformation. The fringe sites peddling things like genocide denial aren’t news organizations to begin with, so users will still be able to share their content freely. It’ll become harder for other people to counter the misinformation by linking to legitimate news sources.

Wish people wouldn’t do this, though I do understand the motivation. IMO it ends up punishing other Internet users (who are the ones getting value from years-old comment threads) vastly more than it punishes the owners and employees of Reddit, Inc. (who get most of their value from people participating in active discussions and seeing ads along the way).

The end result is that you search for “how to fix a broken curtain rod” on Google and the search results are full of comment threads like

• Anyone know how to fix a broken curtain rod?
  • [deleted]
    • Oh, that’s a good idea. How do you unscrew the end if you do it that way?
      • Hello! I have removed my comment from reddit because I don’t like the way they’re running their company. You can find me on Lemmy.
        • Thanks! That worked.

Reddit still gets the revenue from the ad at the top of the page, so the only person you’ve successfully stiffed is the person who was looking for an answer.