PlzGivHugs @ PlzGivHugs @sh.itjust.works

Posts

38

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

A "profit all the things" CEO would be running the casino themselves. IE: Many of the big mobile games. Hell, I don't play many modern triple-A titles, but it sounds like they've largely gone that route too.

AI content is low-quality slop. That said, sometimes low-quality slop is the best option for what you want, and in that case, it can make sense to use. That slop can also make a useful ingredient for other, better works, so long as its just a small peice used appropriately.

I don't, but I also don't have autocorrect on. I've just given up on trying to remember.

No, it wasn’t, and that’s exactly the problem. Car dependent infrastructure is so bad for society and he was proposing a concept that would entrench it to a degree that would make today’s anglosphere look like a utopian Nordic paradise by comparison.

Ignoring the fact that its already entrenched and not going to change without dedicated infrastructure that happens seperate to the development of individual vehciles, at that point, you're asking him to make a video on urban planning rather than AI. Its an entirely different field. Might as well ask for him to make a video on vaccine development or something at that point. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong about the importance of pedestrian and bike infrastructure, but it's importance doesn't mean that cars can't or won't develop further. Frankly, given the fact that Grey has lived in both American and Europe, I doubt he'd disagree, given the first-hand experience.

Ending it and then saying nothing for months, before having your cohost release a lie stating that it hadn’t ended is unreasonable by any metric. It would have taken so little effort to put a post up on the subreddit saying "thanks for all the good times, but we’ve decided we’ve exhausted what we can talk about, you can keep up with me on my YouTube or my productivity podcast at these links."

Given the unscheduled, (relatively) umplanned nature of it, its likely they just didn't fully know what the plan was. Again, not suprising for what it was. Its entirely possible, for example, that they do hope to come back to it someday. Declaring the indefinite hiatus a lie just because it hasn't ended is an overreaction. They could very easily decide that in the last five years, they've amassed enough new topics to come back for another 100 episodes.

You don’t get to give your fans cutesy nicknames and invite them to send you postcards en mass to vote on a community flag and then pretend to maintain the sort of faceless transactional relationship you described there. You just don’t, and it’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

I mean, companies and organizations do that sort of thing all the time. Providing a banner for fans to rally to doesn't make them any less of a buisness. I wouldn't consider myself a friend of the head of the Nationa Research Counsel just because I was a big supporter of Boaty McBoatface, nor was that their goal.

I should add one more point to the list though that I just ... .... ... interested in that, Grey and Kurzgesagt ended up leaving.

I was not aware of the Kerzgizart or Nebula drama. If true, that would be a much bigger concern to me, and yeah, would paint him as much more of a scumbag.

I do agree with the criticism against him in terms of Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I think the criticism of his automation and self-driving cars videos is a bit of an overreaction. These are videos trying to predict the future based on current trends. At the time, many were very optimistic about the progression of AI (and not just Tesla). At the same time, whille his predicted timeframe was off, its also not seeming unlikely that his predictions will come true. We're already starting to see AI automate a bunch of jobs. If I remeber correctly, he also talked about the original video on Hello Internet about five years ago and basiclly said what I am now: his timeframe was optimistic but much of what he predicted still seems feasible if not likely. As for the traffic video specificly, it might be overly simplistic, but the idea is to give an idea of how traffic management might change in the future. It's focus isn't on bikes and pedestrian, and while not covered in the video, its not like they don't fit in to that model. You literally just need a signaled crossing like is used now, or if you insist on ensuring near-maximum efficiently, a bridge, underpass, or otherwise separated infrastructure (which is usually better for pedestrians and bikes where possible anyway).

I also don't really think the end of Hello Internet was esspecially out of the blue, or unreasonable. It was very much an improvised, talk-about-a-random-topic type of podcast, so after about 200 hours of talking, its not suprising that they would find it difficult to come up with new topics that they can both engage with and make entertaining. IMO it was very clearly fizzling out well before they stopped, and post covid, it would have only been more difficult. The lack of announcement is annoying, but I would hardly consider it a betrayal.

I know its very blunt but, it sounds like you were far more attached to him than was warrented. I always read his talk of fans as very clearly viewing them as a seperate group - appreciated customers, not friends. For example, his talk about using the Grey alias to seperate himself from his work, trying to keep himself faceless and mostly anonymous, and the treating of all of his works as a buisness. IMO he never tried to sell it as anything more than a buisness.

Its a posting of his video from years ago.

While I've been disappointed by his lack of modern content, I don't see a reason to call the productivity techniques he likes nonsense, nor to lose respect for him as a whole. Is there a particular reason?

If you want another CS level, Italy Inferno has a ton of photogentic spots in both Source and GO. I'm also particularly fond of Lake, but that might be partly the 500 hours of Wingman on the map speaking.

Edit: or for Valve games in general, theres the dam from Half Life, Ravenholm or the drained shores from Half-Life 2, or an overgrown chamber from Portal 2.

In my case, its even just if packet loss gets too high - not rare on wifi.

Basically, Valve's game, Counter Strike sells cosmetics for the game. They can be bought from through in-game lootboxes (a form of gambling itself, but not what's being refrenced here) or, notably, from other players in an open market. Valve provides the infrastructure for managing this, but doesn't charge players for its use or otherwise moderate it. For a comparison, when NFTs were popular and people were saying it was already a solved problem with fewer issues, markets like what Valve set up for Counter-Strike cosmetics were the existing, non-blockchain version.

Ultimately, as this is an open market, with free trading, this has significant benifits and significant downsides. On one hand, I can buy hundreds of $0.02 skins to use in the game without every touching the $3 lootboxes, or can trade items with friends or other players. On the other hand, this is an largely unregulated market. Valve controls the "wallets" but doesn't have direct say over trade negotiations, and governments are either ignorant or intentionally looking away. This means scams, money launderers and illeagal or sketchy casinos can use Counter Strike Cosmetics as a currency or intermediary without having to fear oversight or law enforcement.

These casinos are the gambling being refered to here. Because they have have effectively no oversight, they can use every scheme in the book to abuse their players from rigging results, to ignoring normal casino legal payout rates, to advertising to children, to using bureaucracy to make receaving payouts as slow and difficult as possible. The casions advertise aggressively and are able to make millions and millions off this.

The reason Counter Strike, and to a lesser extent DotA benifit from this is because the items being used in this, are cosmetics in their games. As the only practical way to use these cosmetics (besides selling them) is in-game this encourages players to play the game. For example, if a player wins a jackpot in the casino, they might play a round of Counter Strike to show off their valuable new cosmetic item before the sell it. This adds to the games population and acts to advertising the costmetics in-game.

Shallots

Oh god, its contagious. Its going to take me weeks to get that out of my head.

But why not just have the people who can pay reparations, can punish those running illegal casinos, and can do it without catching others in the crossfire do it?

It absolutely still can, but its not quite as enticing. For example, you open a lootbox, get all the slot machine animations (usually with misleading visuals to play up your odds) and then a glowing red "legendary" item. You don't know how much its worth without looking it up, but you do still get the risk and payoff regardless. Even if you can't resell if, it can still be enough for people to get addicted to. If anything, its worse in a lot of new ways because its usually harder to avoid (Ie, mobile or sports games where lootboxes are needed to play the game) and can't be cashed out. The sunk cost without any way to cash out is often an intentional decision to to help keep users (esspecially those gambling) from leaving. You can see this esspecially in games that go to great lengths to show you your "earnings" at every turn. They're known as anchor purchases if I remeber right.

c/nostupidquestions might be a better spot to post this. asklemmy is more for silly open-end questions, or more poll-like questions rather than questions that expect a genuine, well research answer.

I know, I was more expanding on your comment mocking the prevelence and acceptance of gambling by the industry as whole. That said, quite a few other the others do have external markets for selling accounts, often with rare items (from lootbox gambling) being a major factor in the value. I know my War Thunder account is worth well over a grand at this point, for example, because of some of the rare drops I have on it.

And the dark non-secret is that them and basically all the other top-grossing multiplayer games on the list are there because gambling is also their primary source of income.

What competition has such a rich gambling scene though. No other game I am aware of (Maybe TF2 but, still valve)

Most mobile games? Apex? Overwatch? Keep in mind, a lot of the CS gambling happens off-platform and Valve doesn't collect any direct revenue from it, which is why Valve can't directly intervene in a lot of it.

Age verification on the marketplace transactions is the more likely scenario, and again, no other game I know of has as much of a gambling community so I don't really get why other publishers would leave if it doesn't effect them.

This argument is specifically in the context of lootboxes as gambling on Steam. Think how much people will spend in lootboxes on your average free to play game. If they aren't allowed to do this on Steam, games like Apex, CoD, PUBG, War Thunder, ect. won't stay on Steam.

Ultimately, I think you're missing the point of coffeezillas video, which is that a lot of people who were in the skin gambling community are actively or, started in it, as a minor. You are here trying to find all of these excuses for valve not to be held accountable for facilitating gambling to a minor.

This is exactly my point about Coffee's argument being muddled in this video, making it hard to discuss. There are three parallel problem here that the video combines into one: third-party casinos, CS lootboxes, and lootboxes in the industry in general.

In terms of Valve shutting down illegal/third party casinos, they don't have the means to impact this without also shutting down the entire market for everyone, innocent or guilty. Why should I, as someone who has never even bought a lootbox, nonetheless run an illegal casino be punished for their actions. Even then, casino owners aren't held responsible, they're just stopped. On the other hand, with government intervention, no one is caught in the crossfire and casino owners could actually be held responsible for their actions with fines or worse. Why wouldn't this be the better option?

In terms of Valve selling lootboxes themselves, yes its immoral, but as Coffee said about the casinos, they're competiting with other products doing the same and you can't reasonably expect one side to just role over and accept their loss. Instead, you need to change the system so neither side can use tactics like this. Instead of asking Valve to regulate themselves, and expecting their competition to do the same, you change the law (or just actually enforce it) to ensure that noone gets away with it.

A) Valve should not stop casinos from profiting off vulnerable people, because they have already made money off those people and it would somehow be unfair to stop now, which to me sounds ridiculous.

My argument isn't that Valve shouldn't ban them if they have the means. Its that Valve cannot effectively ban them without penalising unrelated users just as much or more. The body that does have the means to do so without putting random users in the crossfire is the government.

You are using this as an argumentation that the government should ban them instead of Valve, but the end tesult would be the same. The casinos would walk away with the money, and the victims would be left to cry over it.

In a lot of these cases, even under current law, the government could be fining the individuals running these casinos. As they are run with effectively no oversight, many are blatently rigged, rely on false advertising, or use shoddy, under-the-table finances. That was what the first big crackdown was over - not the existance of these casinos, but the revelation of how rigged they were. As exemplified by the mob tactics being used by these casinos, they haven't changed. Depending on the location, laws could also be implemented in ways that do go into effect in more aggressive ways, upto and including fining casinos for past actions if its really needed (and to be clear, I wouldn't be opposed to fines like this being applied against Valve either.)

B) Poor Valve could not compete with their competition if they didn't have the money they are gaining from their gambling-adjacent market, which to me sounds even more ridiculous. When Epic attempted to pry open the market using one of the biggest and most successful games ever as a leverage, they largely failed because the Steam user base was too entrenched. Steam is literally printing money right now and they don't need the CS skin money to compete with anyone.

When talking about CS, we're talking about an individual product, and one that is competing with other products where lootboxes and other manipulative tactics are already the norm. As you said, this isn't about Steam. Valve is still a buisness, and their products are still a part of the market. They're not going to just spend money to run a game they lose money on. Even if they do stop selling lootboxes, that doesn't fix much because you've got thousands of other companies also trying to hook the same addicts on their gambling products. Instead, you need to impose limitations industry-wide, to ensure one product can't get ahead by just being more abusive. Since we obviously aren't going to have Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Epic, ect. all come together and agree to stop putting gambling in their games, we need a higher power to do so, that being the government.

And saying Valve is morally earning money while the competition does not, its not a fair thing to say.

This was arguing in the hypothetical that Valve stopped acting immoraly. I'm not trying to argue that Valve is in the right here. I'm arguing that they are a player in this game as well, along with their competition, and so shouldn't be singled out as the ones required to change or to enforce new laws.

Valve could give gamblers 2 weeks to take their skins off the sites and then block API access to these casinos

This just gives the casinos warning so they can pull the rug more cleanly, and have more time to spin up a replacement casino.

or just shut down the API completely.

Then this punishes every other user for the actions of a tiny, tiny minority. Even ignoring users using the open market for legitimate and fair buisness, said market provides a way to obtain skins without relying on Valve to set prices or distribute skins. As such, unless Valve also removes their own lootboxes at the same time, it means that users can only interact with skins through gambling.

The one solution that would address all of this at once and wouldn't substantially affect unrelated users would be governments implementing laws against unregulated gambling. Unlike Valve, they can address the whole industry at once, and aren't punished for trying to enforce said laws.

You can't do anything about the money the casinos have already made, but you can stop them by making further money.

Valve makes literally billions and can invest to their heart's content. They are not a small indie dev.

So if I understand this right, and I don't think I am, you're arguing that valve should just disable the entire CS skin trading and marketing system, current victims and other users be damned, and should stop expecting to make money on their products because they have enough money as it is? That sounds like a ridiculous argument, so please clairify what I'm misunderstanding here.

Edit: fixed typos, and changed phrasing to sound less combative