masterspace

Also, tabloid journalism predates magazines.

Some of the replacement stuff is bad, but some is good. I personally get more out of my favourite podcasters going in depth on their feelings on a game than I get out of whoever is running reviews at IGN right now.

Like even in movies, pre-youtube, pre-social media, people flocked to individual reviewers they liked, more so than publications. It's why Roger and Ebert / Siskel got so huge, people agreed with their tastes, trusted them, and sought them out specifically. That's not that different from today's world of following your preferred YouTuber or podcaster, but rather than everyone following the few individual who can publish, you end up with a giant web of individuals following and influencing each other's opinions.

And to be clear, I think games reviewing has merit and value, it's just that outside of reviewing and technical analysis, there's not much in the way of stories to cover on a regular basis. So you end up with dedicated games journalists having to write about tripe half the time just to fill word / article counts.

I mean I also grew up in the 90s reading video game magazines, I'm just still growing up.

There is definitely journalism around consumer media.

Yes, see my comment about tabloid filler

I mean what is games journalism? How many full time, major publication, food-packaging-industry journalists are there? Where's our aluminum can reporters? Who's covering the waxed cardboard beat? Where's the lifers on butcher paper?

I mean food packaging is a $500 Billion dollar a year industry, roughly double the size of the video games industry, why are there zero full time journalists focused on them?

I grew up reading a ton of early video game blogs like Joystiq, but games journalism has always been a breath away from celebrity chasing, drama stirring, tabloid filler.

There's one end of it that analyzes the in depth technical details of engines which is interesting to some, and there's one end that is reviewing and discussing games as art, but otherwise there's very little journalism to do full time on any given industry. Journalists should follow the story, not insist on finding one in the industry where they want to look.

When I switch copilot to a reasoning model like o1, and am working through some really annoying bug I'll often get rate limited.

But the rate limiting is per model, so I can switch over to say the Claude model, and then use that til I'm rate limited, then switch to another.

Pretty much literally having to give each LLM a nap and only play with one at a time.

Bruh, I get how you feel, but your complaints are with capitalism, not algorithms that are wildly better than previous ones at fuzzy pattern matching.

Here is an example of how AI has already literally revolutionized science through one targeted project:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI

This work won the Nobel prize in chemistry.

And my best friend literally did his PhD in protein crystallography, is at MIT doing a protein structural analysis Post Doc, and the work of the new AI based protein structural predictions has literally completely changed the direction of their lab's research, basically overnight.

Because, yes AI algorithms literally are able to solve a new class of problems. It's literally what this old pre-LLM xkcd is talking about: https://xkcd.com/1425/ and while it's asking for confirmation of a 'bird', identifying photos of say, cancer, is the literal exact same problem from an algorithm standpoint, and is a huge amount of other fuzzy pattern matching problems.

Yeah there's a lot of dumb tech bros over hyping AI, and a lot of giant corporations that care about using it for literally nothing but getting personally richer, but you're going to be misinformed the other direction about its genuine usefulness if you just read nothing but AI doomer blogs from people who don't actually bother trying to use or understand the technology.

A reminder: MacOS is also American.

Lmao, and all that history and economics taught you just these two lessons?

• If something wasn't illegal previously, that makes it impossible to make it illegal
• Marketing is cool and awesome, and totally a necessary part of society that has always existed in every society, so there's no point trying to ban it

Let me guess, you went to American schools? Learned all that America History (TM)?

So do you work for the marketing industry or is it a loved one of yours?

This part of the chain is me calling out. your false equivalence as you compared graffiti to river dumping which you keep trying to claim isn’t invalid

Because I never claimed they were equivalent, I said that river dumping laws are an example of how to make something illegal, after your dumb ass claimed it was impossible to make advertising illegal because it's been around for a long time.

It seems really easy. You ban companies from paying for product placement.

If someone talks about it organically they can.

There's no grey area there.

I'm not being sophisticated, I'm trying to keep you on track.

If you want to have a different argument about whether or not advertising is deserving of jail sentences, steep GDPR level fines, slaps on the wrist, or nothing, that's fine, we can have that one.

But this reply chain was about whether or not it's possible to make advertising illegal, which it is.