Idk if that would be a good business decision. They would want it to be free and easy to start a channel still, so it would mean once your channel gets to a certain popularity google makes the deal progressively worse. This would create a big incentive for competition if all your biggest content creators are suddenly paying over cost to subsidize smaller channels.
Not that this would be a bad thing, but I don’t see why google would ever want to risk it.
Seems like a lot of stuff like that though. At this point I only use windows to play games and I want to interact with the OS as little as possible, so I don’t understand why I would want an updated UI with more ads and Microsoft integrations when it does nothing to improve what I actually use it for.
I watched their video about this and I don’t think it’s really that simple. Yes, approval voting means your first choice will never harm your second choice, but your 2nd choice can still absolutely harm your 1st choice. In a situation where there are 3 (or more) approximately tied candidates, voting for any candidate which is not your favorite is likely to harm your favorite’s chances.
Also, their example of a “spoiler” effect doesn’t really convince me. Sure, they negatively frame it by calling the winner party “bad”, but that candidate got more first round votes than the other candidates so it’s logical for it to have an advantage over a candidate who is mostly a second choice.
It doesn’t seem like a likely scenario either, it requires a scenario where voters who prefer candidate A want B as their second choice, but voters who want candidate B have no agreement with candidate A.
The mentioned but unsupported link to “general intelligence” reeks of bullshit to me. I don’t doubt a modified LLM (maybe an unmodified one as well) can beat lossless compression algorithms, but I doubt that’s very useful or impressive when you account for the model size and speed.
If you allow the model to be really huge in comparison to the input data it’s hard to prove you haven’t just memorized the training set.
It’s not that it’s too hard to maintain, but that in order to make sense it would have to be cheaper than building and maintaining the solar panels on some larger and less valuable patch of land 30 minutes out of town.
If we’re talking about some sort of tax on employers based on the commute of their employees, it’s going to disproportionately affect the poor anyway. If you tax employers though you’re incentivizing further control of their employees lives.
Yes, higher gas prices would increase the cost of shipping and therefore most products, but there’s no world in which we hold corporations accountable for their externalities and consumer goods remain as cheap as they are.
Unity has been rent seeking for awhile. In my mind, a big issue is the unity asset store, which apparently is where they actually make most of their money. Unity collects a 30% cut of all sales and imposes pretty restrictive licensing terms. This is annoying, but not a huge deal for things like art assets, but it creates a huge perverse incentive when you look at plugins and tools.
The best way for unity to make money in the business model they’ve created is to add a bunch of seemingly simple but not very comprehensive systems to the engine. Then, rather than refine these features they can wait for 3rd party developers to fill in the gaps with plugins that must be sold on the unity asset store. This allows unity to scoop up a bigger revenue stream on top of the licensing income without having to do any additional work.
It really depends on how you’re using unity. If you’re dependent on a lot of the built in components or asset store plugins or the rendering pipeline you’re going to have a hard time.
I’m sure someone will try, but it seems nearly impossible to do this in a way that’s actually useful. Most game engines are going to have fundamental differences that won’t easily map to the unity way of doing things
So…limewire?