This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he’s making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they’re doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he’s repeatedly flaunting credentials that don’t change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.

Claiming it’s “door in the face” is a little crazy here. If this is where they wanted to be, the “bait” changes could have been much much less bad than they were, and they still could’ve walked back to this.

Hell, they could have announced a 10% revenue split and it would’ve looked much better than what they pitched. And they could still walk back to 2.5% and looked like heroes. And it wouldn’t have lost them nearly as much trust. Nor made them look as bad.

If this was what they were trying to do, they’d have to have been even dumber to have made it this bad.

I’m more willing to bet they’re just fucking stupid. Or that a few people on the board had this as a fucking moronic idea, and the rest managed to take back control after it went totally sideways.

But claiming that it’s a door in the face requires them to be evil enough to do it, stupid enough to not realize they’re overdoing it, crazy enough to think it’d work, etc. It seems way too contrived.

They do that because that’s the only way they can survive against AMD given how much behind Intel is in terms of CPU and GPU tech.

This is just blatantly false and disengenious.

Sure, Intels GPU tech is pathetic. But it’s also not their business. Their only reasonable market use case is making a serviceable on board gpu for people who aren’t going to buy a real GPU. AMD makes actual fucking graphics cards. Of course their GPU tech is ahead.

But Intel CPU tech is not blatantly behind AMD. Sure, there have been points where AMD has leapt ahead. But the same could be said for Intel. Sure there are advantages to some techs on the AMD side, but the same could be said for Intel. They’re in competition and neither is wholy ahead of the other.

Yeah, you go on to pinpoint one specific use case that you have, which is very specific, and something less than 1% of 1% of 1% of their customers care about. Same could be said the other way.

iOS is way worse when it comes to support for things like this. IOS started super restrictive and slowly allowed for slightly more background app support, but anything off the beaten path of “open app, view stuff, leave app” is not well supported on iOS.

Android would historically allow apps to do whatever the fuck they wanted, but in the past like 6 years started adding restrictions, and then started adding some mechanisms for users to allow exceptions.

It’s very unsurprising for Android to support these cases better, but they’re honestly both getting worse, because “battery optimization”, and it really hurts “off the beaten path” applications.

I mean, yeah, sure, but that doesn’t change anything I said - even if he’s using it to cater to Russia, he’s still catering to Russia, playing god, pretending he’s a general, and it’s worse than the original quote of him criticizing the Ukrainian offensive.

It’s 2023 and Nintendo is still churning out the same minimum effort bullshit Pokemon and Mario games, and they still haven’t figured out online multiplayer.

True

The max resolution of the Switch is 1080p 30 FPS. Nintendo is a joke and a shell of it’s former self.

Yeah, I wouldn’t go anywhere near that far. The N64 is the only console that was ever really top of its class in raw specs. That’s never been Nintendo’s game, and they’ve never even tried. And, the FTC leaks have shown Xbox is considered 3rd behind the Switch.

Arguably the GameCube was the most complacent and behind the times console they’ve ever released and it did extremely well.

The Wii started a huge “motion controls” revolution, and even if it didn’t stick around, it was fresh and everyone and their mother was trying to buy a Wii.

The Wii U was probably their biggest failure. They tried to do something new and misread the market.

The Switch also brought something entirely new to the market that has redefined the portable. It sold out like crazy and has done extremely well. I know people who own switches that have never purchased any console or handheld.

The Switch isn’t trying to compete with Xbox / PS. It’s competing with Gameboy and PSP but also allows you to play Mario Kart with the boys. And it has built an entire new device segment with Steam Deck and a million spin offs at this point.

Local couch gameplay has always been Nintendos bread and butter. They’re not aiming for hardcore gamers. And they’re still succeeding at exactly that.

Musk said he made the decision fearing that Moscow would retaliate with nuclear weapons.

I feel like this part is even worse. His opinion sucks and is fucking stupid, but he’s literally saying he’s making decisions (which have an impact on thousands of lives) because of his speculation on the Russian response.

He’s not a fucking general, this shit shouldn’t be his decision. He is not informed or educated on these decisions and he’s playing with people’s literal lives. He’s literally trying to play god with his space toys.

How much has single core performance really changed in the past decade? You might as well be comparing a 2016 i5 at that point.

Not to mention the i9-13900K is made for multicore performance, has lower single core performance than it’s own alternate models.

The guy who owns the company knows what it means for the long term stock price: a plummet. He knows that’ll come eventually if these changes go through.

Investors may react positively to the news, but when they see the damage it actually does, they’ll pull out too.

The guy running the company has shares that are valued way higher than when he earned them, he is sitting so high right now it’s far worth selling here instead of gambling on the response to the news. It’s just simple “quit while you’re ahead”.

It’s more like the law is saying you must draw seven red lines, all of them strictly perpendicular, some with green ink and some with transparent ink.

No, it’s more like the law is saying you have to draw seven red lines and you’re saying, “well I can’t do that with indigo, because indigo creates purple ink, therefore the law must change!” No, you just can’t use indigo. Find a different resource.

It’s not “virtually” impossible, it’s literally impossible. If the law requires that it be possible then it’s the law that must change.

There’s nothing that says AI has to exist in a form created from harvesting massive user data in a way that can’t be reversed or retracted. It’s not technically impossible to do that at all, we just haven’t done it because it’s inconvenient and more work.

The law sometimes makes things illegal because they should be illegal. It’s not like you run around saying we need to change murder laws because you can’t kill your annoying neighbor without going to prison.

Otherwise it’s simply a more complicated way of banning AI entirely

No it’s not, AI is way broader than this. There are tons of forms of AI besides forms that consume raw existing data. And there are ways you could harvest only data you could then “untrain”, it’s just more work.

Some things, like user privacy, are actually worth protecting.