Yes? That’s why loans with collateral charge a lower interest rate than unsecured loans.

There’s a mile of difference between saying “consumers need to get comfortable not owning their games” and “we want consumers to get comfortable not owning their games (but using subscription services instead)”.

The former statement is extremely arrogant. The latter is just obvious. And it’s reasonable even if you or I personally don’t want to get our games on a subscription model - millions of people get their music through Spotify and it suits them just fine even though other people don’t want that. So it’s a way of straw-manning the people pushing subscriptions so you can hate them.

The point of the dishonest article is to make you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off. It’s rage-bait. Did it work?

Misinformation. An article not as blatantly trying to manipulate people: https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-exec-says-gamers-need-to-get-comfortable-not-owning-their-games-for-subscriptions-to-take-off?utm_source=twit

You say this:

interpreting casualty numbers that a militant group releases with clear propaganda intent in a light most favorable to them…

but just said this:

Statistically, half their forces are minors.

Pull the other one. If all you wanted was for people not to interpret casualty numbers “in a light most favourable to Hamas” you’d be acknowledging how high the death toll is while making your point instead of trying to distract from it.

There is no need to “play devil’s advocate” - if you believe something, argue for it. If you don’t believe something but think I’m missing something, you can point it out and make a case for why it’s important without being confusing about what you actually believe.

All evidence I have seen is that Hamas does not systematically use child soldiers. We can see the indiscriminate tactics of the IDF; we can put that together with the high death toll to make a reasonable conclusion that vast numbers of civilians have been killed. You’re trying to cast doubt on this idea but the amount of doubt is akin to flicking water from your fingers onto a housefire.

Hey if you’re colourblind, all blues can be blurple. And so can all purples!

Most of the death toll is women and children (7k and 10k, respectively). Even if you assume all men killed are Hamas fighters, which is not true, that is very high when compared to the attack which triggered the war.

The requirement to not track users with cookies does not extend to cookies that make the site work in the first place, such as those which track your login session, or your refusal of other cookies.

They analysis shows that, were the last election fought on the new constituency boundaries, the Conservative majority would be 14 seats larger. It also reveals that the swing to Labour required for the party to achieve an overall majority increases by 0.7 percentage points from 12.0 to 12.7.

So this is less representative. However, you’d be hard pushed to find anything that really looks like clear gerrymandering.

It had two buildings. Is that difficult to understand or what? Historically they were separate schools built close together. (Probably a boys and girls school but I don’t remember)

Each had a main part that was a single corridor on 4 floors with classrooms off it. There were extra bits that weren’t part of the main corridor, too, which weren’t as tall, and the main part also wasn’t all classrooms; in one building the bottom floor was, I think, just toilets and changing rooms, then admin offices, and only then were there classrooms, but I can’t remember for sure. In the other building there were 3 complete floors of classrooms and I think one half floor, with the rest of the bottommost floor occupied by a gym.

Surely any kid who went to only one high school is going to have, at the time, thought it was perfectly normal because that’s all they knew? I think our school had 4 floors in both buildings

Tesla is headquartered in an ally of the EU; BYD isn’t. Maybe Tesla’s subsidies are a problem to the EC - I don’t know. But you’re looking at it in a slightly simple way, as if it’s very important that this process needs to be fair.

It doesn’t need to be fair; it needs to be good for the EU. Is it good for the EU to impose tariffs on subsidised Chinese vehicles coming in (if indeed they are subsidised)? Quite possibly. (Quite possibly not: how important is it to have a big car manufacturing industry, versus your population having cheaper cars?) Whether it would also be good to impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles is also a valid question to ask, but those questions don’t have to have the same answer.

The article doesn’t suggest it’s impossible. It’s difficult because you have to build up a competitive business from nothing in addition to the one you’re already building up.

It’s like any number of blog hosts that have gone before it.

Absolutely true that this isn’t covered enough - the cuts were massive. They’ve also only been topped up by increases to regressive council tax, so it’s yet another way the Tories are worsening inequality through tax.

But the important question at the end - what the next, presumably Labour, government will do about it - seems unanswerable. It’s not just that Labour are now allergic to saying they’ll spend money. It’s also that paying debt interest is now a significant expense due to higher interest rates and our economy is barely growing, so taking on government debt no longer makes financial sense.

The Tories have done the opposite of fixing the roof while the sun was shining - they neither reduced public sector debt nor did they reinforce our services by investing cheap money into them. Now we’re left with the consequences and I don’t see how anyone can fix it.

If the US said they were going to stop providing military support and tech it may well stop it…

That’s OK, I sicken and horrify me, too

Fair enough, I genuinely misread and thought that was within the quotation marks. But her message is still wrong because she is still talking about AI in general, but her argument applies only to a) AI whose data is derived from data scrapers like Facebook or b) AI put to surveillance tasks. That does not apply to Stable Diffusion, which is why I mentioned it, but it is caught by her assertion, “AI is a surveillance technology.”

AI absolutely has the potential to be used for surveillance; its use in facial recognition most obviously. But the person quoted in the article didn’t say “AI has the potential to be used for surveillance” - she said “AI is fundamentally a surveillance technology”. So if she’s not talking about LLMs and image generators, why is she saying that it’s a fundamental part of the technology? It’s not very fundamental if these two year-defining AI technologies aren’t included in it.