Cool, and I bet it will be just as trustworthy as WhatsApp (i.e. not at all).
Telorand
It's one of their best pieces of software, hands down
"Should they?" No. Games are a form of art, and they have no obligation to be anything more than what they are.
That said, if their goal is to reach as many players as possible, they will miss out on a (likely) growing demographic by excluding PvE, especially if the framework is already there. Many people have no interest in duking it out with sweaty tryhards, and even if a game is lucky not to have those types, there's still people who make it their mission to grief others whenever possible.
So I don't think they "should," but it's shortsighted not to.
If we Americans can't sensibly regulate ourselves, seems like the reasonable thing to do.
It's good to know what we can do to reduce our own use—we all have to live on this planet, after all—but these kinds of articles pop up and, at the very least, make people think their efforts will have a meaningful impact. They go to sleep thinking they're solving the problem (barring extreme situations like war-driven scarcity, for example).
But if every household stopped using electricity, many countries would still have a massive energy problem on their hands, because households aren't really the problem.
This is actually an excellent use case for AI. Physics and chemistry as scientific disciplines are lots of complex pattern recognition and manipulation. AI is just a pattern recognition and generation engine, despite what the tech bros and apologists like to tell us.
What these engines generate will ultimately be vetted by experts before it even goes to trials. Scientists don't just take things on blind faith simply because a robot or even another expert comes up with something; their entire deal is to understand their particular field of study in great detail, after all!
You are correct, but who said it would be the Democrats doing the work?
This is one of the things that frustrates me about my current boss. He keeps talking about some future project that uses a new codebase we're currently writing, at which point we'll "clean it up and see what works and what doesn't." Meanwhile, he complains about my code and how it's "too Pythonic," what with my docstrings, functions for code reuse, and type hints.
So I secretly maintain a second codebase with better documentation and optimization.
I don't use it, but I knew someone who did, and for them, it was about min/maxing their software. Because everything is built from source, everything is optimized for their specific system in theory.
I'm not aware of any comparisons on speed, but I would suspect that it's negligible in real world use cases, but it's still important for some.