The enjoyment of going to parties typically relies on the attendees of the party and how much you like or dislike them. This specific party is full of people who bought monkey JPEGs and turned them into their entire personality. So, presumably, I would not like this party.

Why are you intentionally leaving out the rest of that sentence?

it’s apparently nevertheless a concern that some mods might be deemed offensive in a way that requires tighter controls on modding.

They are specifically talking about restricting modding.

This sounds like a load of corporate bullshit that they’re going to use to justify preventing modding of their games.

Yeah, embedded systems for military applications is exactly the same as consumer software. You’re right.

No amount of in-house testing is going to catch everything that can be experienced on a nearly-infinite amount of hardware/software configurations that are tested once a large userbase gets a hold of a product.

This is a terrible idea. What stops me from uploading a broken piece of shit fork that puts others at risk while I’m driving?

I don’t have a recommendation but this really seems like a trivial thing to code.

I’m still not sure I would believe it at that point.

deleted by creator

I don’t get what your point is. Are you trying to generate images with Stable Diffusion and upload them to Shutterstock? Because that’s the only situation when the thing you’re complaining about applies. Nobody is stopping you from generating images and using them. What they are doing is preventing you from generating them and then trying to profit from them on the Shutterstock platform, unless you use their tools. Why is this an issue, in your opinion?

You can still think Disney is a shitty company while acknowledging that this is a stupid article/headline. They’re not mutually exclusive.

You’re not a business whose sole purpose is to sell/license images. If you read the article, it explains that their models are trained using only images from their library, which seems like a sensible approach to avoiding copyright issues.

Read the fucking article, man. It’s not a stock image of a character, it’s the spiral clock background.

I also got 10/20. The second one is fairly obvious, though, in my opinion. Look at the shape of the glasses – the lenses are uneven and don’t match.

deleted by creator

I mostly agree with this. I really enjoyed the more insightful, introspective Johnny and there wasn’t enough of it. With that being said, I’m a few hours into Phantom Liberty and it seems that we get a lot more of the meaningful conversations with Johnny.

That seems high to me as well. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I’ve introduced probably 20 friends/family members to VR and none of them have had issues with motion sickness.

That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do if you’re taking a picture of a milkshake.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I haven’t and likely can’t think of a good solution to handling the scenarios you’re talking about. They are good questions that someone smarter than me should address. However, to use those scenarios to completely admonish advertising platforms for blatantly obvious scams is asinine. “Well, what if a legitimate business starts scamming people?” should have little relevancy to the question of “Should we accept this ad from a user advertising that they’re going to double your money if you give them access to your financial accounts?”

I’m not saying it’s simple or quick to solve, but there is very obvious low-hanging fruit that could be dealt with but is somehow not because these platforms aren’t held accountable whatsoever. It has to start somewhere.