EldritchFeminity

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.

This is why a museum would be perfect. You'd have trained employees to maintain the cars, including taking them for a drive. Plus, you could even sell rides in some of them the way they sell rides in F1 cars. Add in car shows and a cycling of the cars on display the way museums don't have their entire collection on display at all times, and the cars would probably hold up better in the long run.

Ideally, you'd do this with government money pulled from a wealth tax or a foundation rather than trusting some billionaire to do it and maintain the museum.

The short of it is: why is he making that much money in the first place, especially at a time where the game's industry has seen record-breaking layoffs for the past 2 years - worse than during the 2008 financial crash.

The long of it is that they're symptoms of the same problem and show the ever increasing wealth disparity between the aristocracy and the commoners in the US. In 2020, the wealth disparity in the US was said to be on par with France just before the French Revolution, where the price of a loaf of bread hit a full day's wages for the average worker. To add to this, at least one of the people laid off was going on scheduled maternity leave the next day, which is probably in violation of some workers' rights law, but because the majority of states are "at will" employment states, Bungie won't face any consequences. The average time for people in the industry to find a new job is 2-4 months, and with all the layoffs, plenty of these people will never work in the industry again. And on top of that, these workers are already exploited so badly for their passion for making games that they could see a 50% or more pay increase with lower responsibilities for the same skill set just by changing industries. There are people working at Activision-Blizzard-King who are living out of their cars because they don't get paid enough to afford rent within commuting distance of the studio.

People are waking up to the fact that the boss makes 10 grand while we make a dime, and they're getting pretty pissed about it.

How about putting that money towards museums for these cars that allow the general public to appreciate them as well instead of letting them languish in somebody's private collection. This would also have the benefit of creating more jobs and helping to improve the flow of money in the economy.

Got anxiety? No you don't. Need to study for a test? Your new photographic memory says otherwise. Wish you could play a game again for the first time? Can't wait to play that new game I just heard about, it's gotten all kinds of praise!

Yep. It's been a thing for a long time now, at least since 2001, but "it's just a joke" became a way for bigots to disguise their hatred, and was picked up by "edgy" teenagers in places like 4Chan...which would later reveal as they got older that they were actually just bigots themselves all along or the joking had normalized that mentality in them to the point where they started believing it. It's definitely not just an American thing, but Republicans in the US tend to be extremely sensitive and volatile emotionally (despite calling everybody else "liberal snowflakes" for how easily offended they claim they are) while being very emboldened by the events of the past decade or so to openly spew their hatred and bigotry.

There's a great stand-up bit about it by James Acaster from 2019 called What's Wrong? Too Challenging For You!?

Fun fact, there's an industry term called TTP: Time To Penis. It's the estimated amount of time before a player draws a dick in your game, whether through bullet holes in a wall or something else. It's often measured in seconds.

Didn't it also have something to do with a brand deal? Like the suit got extra funding for the movie by making a deal with Duracell to have their batteries in the movie or something.

Coal is often radioactive when it comes out of the ground, and thanks to poor regulations, is often radioactive when it goes into the powerplant, leading to radioactive particles coming out of the smokestacks and landing anywhere downwind of the plants.

More people have died from radiation poisoning from coal than from all of the nuclear accidents combined. But, as you said, 200 years vs. 70 years. But, also, nuclear is much more heavily regulated than coal in this regard due to the severity of those accidents. The risk of a dangerous nuclear power plant is nowhere near as large as commonly believed. It doesn't take long to find longlasting environmental disasters due to fossil fuels, from oil spills to powerplant disasters. They're used so heavily that it's just so much more likely to occur and occur more often.

All this to say that fossil fuels suck all around and we should be looking at all forms of replacement for them, nuclear being just one option we should be pursuing alongside all the others.