991–1000 of 1001 posts
How come Apple didn’t remotely wipe that laptop or at least black it from accessing their network? Whether they couldn’t or didn’t, that doesn’t show well for their IT department.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason the 30% rate is sustained though IS the abuse of market power with the PMFN clause, which ensures that competitors cannot price lower. Everything else is an attempt to stay the primary shopfront. Sure you can sell your game and give away steam keys - but you can't sell it for a lower price than on Steam, and we still want you to encourage your users to come to steam and buy things. We will give you free ma…
> should get c25% of all transactions for offering very little value "Very little value"? It's clear that you've never developed a game before. Don't speak so confidently out of complete and total ignorance - it leads to making utterly insane and totally factually wrong statements like this one.
You can't blindly just call me an idiot and say there's loads of value without stating what it is (I mean you technically can, but it's not a brilliant way of getting your point across).
Some pretty damning stuff: > OpenAI also instructs new hires on how to avoid scrutiny when they leave Apple. For example, Mr. Tan warns them not to tell Apple that they have taken jobs at OpenAI, so they can stay at Apple as long as they can. > Apple says it discovered a pattern of OpenAI recruits emailing themselves confidential information when leaving Apple, including Tan. > OpenAI apparently used confidential App…
But, it does mean that obviously they have zero regard for pesky things like "trade secrets" or IP. They shit on IP, like, as a rule.
This is why I was frustrated nobody was prosecuting the AI companies in the beginning when the IP theft first started. Sure, we might not care if they stole books off of libgen, whatever. But big picture here, is this a precedent we want to allow and what are the consequences?
Turns out the consequences were obvious: intra-American espionage and corporate sabotage. Oops, that doesn't bode well for home-grown AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can continue to enjoy the books and articles etc No you can't, because those people have stopped creating because the creation economy was destroyed by AI. We just keep getting recycled slop based on what existed in 2025.
I think this is confused All of the people who I was reading and listening to and watching before AI are all still creating. Many of them are even creating new things or new types of things I imagine breaking into the creative industry is "harder" today than it was five years ago and much harder than it was ten years ago etc, but in some ways everything is still so new. This dismissal of creativity or people's drive…
Yes, musicians for instance will always create music, even if they're dirt poor. That doesn't mean though we should strive to make them as dirt poor as possible to maximally optimize the agreement in our favor. That's a separate issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well we don’t know but just look at figma, claude for it happened and then Claude design come out. They knew exactly how developers worked from using figma as training data.
Professionals still use figmas. Claude design jsut expanded the space. Non-design specialized use Claude design now.
The success of their tomfoolery is really a separate issue from if they are engaging in said tomfoolery, which I think they are. I also think anyone expecting honestly from this is naive.
Bad people doing bad things are not stupid, in fact they're usually pretty smart. Nobody is gonna come out and say what's going on, because that's purely self-destructive. We will get leaks and lawsuits slowly, much like OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's exactly what you've said. I'm speaking about Anthropic though, I have no idea whether OpenAI does it. > Anthropic agrees that Customer (a) retains all rights to its Inputs, and (b) owns its Outputs. Anthropic disclaims any rights it receives to the Customer Content under these Terms. Subject to Customer’s compliance with these Terms, Anthropic hereby assigns to Customer its right, title and interest (if any) in…
Just to be clear, you’re speculating, right? They could also not be doing this.
If anyone, anywhere, would be doing this, it would be Anthropic and OpenAI. That doesn't mean they are, but that, to me, certainly pushes it past simple speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> should get c25% of all transactions for offering very little value "Very little value"? It's clear that you've never developed a game before. Don't speak so confidently out of complete and total ignorance - it leads to making utterly insane and totally factually wrong statements like this one.
State where the value is then, without just stating features that cause lock-in. You can't blindly just call me an idiot and say there's loads of value without stating what it is (I mean you technically can, but it's not a brilliant way of getting your point across).
That's a false dichotomy. Features that cause vendor lock-in can still be incredibly valuable.
> You can't blindly just call me an idiot
Sorry, that was a little harsh. I wasn't meaning to call you an idiot - I'm sure you have domains of expertise that you're highly proficient in. But you clearly have little (if any) experience with gamedev, and my point is that you should be far less confident when speaking about it.
For instance, you said something just factually wrong:
> The reason the 30% rate is sustained though IS the abuse of market power with the PMFN clause, which ensures that competitors cannot price lower.
...which was debunked by another comment:
> Steam's official price parity policy applies only to Steam Keys, which are free to generate and cost Valve nothing.
As for features that are actually useful to devs and users:
Local currencies, regional pricing/payment methods, gift cards, Steam Wallet, game gifting, product keys, wallet/credit system (Steam wallet), bundles, DLC, complex storefront (topics/labels, discovery queue, wishlist, sale notifications), user reviews, game refunds, CDN, a really good download/update system, player metrics, shader pre-caching, shared runtime management, cloud saves, game management across multiple drives, LAN downloads/updates, beta/release/build management, DRM and anticheat, game collections, developer updates, forums, Big Picture/Steam Deck UI, Proton, Steam Input, a complex social system (friends, text chat, voice chat, add codes, profiles), social integration with games, account 2FA, and many, many, many more things. (go and ask a LLM and I'm sure it'll be more than happy to give you a far longer list :)
These are all things that developers and players benefit from. The value added is immense and blindingly obvious even to people who only play games, let alone to developers who have some idea of how difficult it is to actually implement all of the above.
The irony to me is Apple did the exact same thing to Motorola back in the day, which I saw firsthand as a Mot eng. Poached employees and IP. I doubt the iPhone would have happened otherwise. Jobs was absolutely ruthless and would do anything for his goals.
what do you mean by "exact same thing" This isn't about "poaching" employees (in our society people can work where they choose, they are not property of a feudal lord) and using their knowledge. This is about ex-employees accessing Apple's internal fileshares. It's about instructing employees who were about to leave to take everything they could with them, and giving them training on how to evade Apple's offboarding…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not get to be stupid here. I can support each statement: A significant number of cybercrime today is committed by people from the former Soviet Bloc. A significant number of intellectual property theft is committed by people from East Asia. A significant number of rape in Europe is committed by people from Southeast Asia. A significant number of managers here, with roots in India, only hire people with roots i…
The problem is your last two paragraphs. The rest is, as you say, unfortunate reality. But in your last two paragraphs, you go from "a significant number of problems are caused by people from these places" to "you should treat all people from these places with suspicion". That's where it turns into racism.