F U C K

Sorry, I’m sure this is thoughtful and well-written, but the word-to-Grover ratio is way off. I can’t read it.

Not possible until you find all seven of the Sesame Emeralds.

That’s a relief. The original only had one Grover, which I thought wasn’t acceptable for audiences in 2026.

Your town, sanitation? Or was this, again, your being too lazy to change the title when you use a bot to repost from Reddit?

I was referring to how stupid he was for changing the name of an insanely popular household term.

Okay. I un-downvoted, but I think you should consider rewriting, because right now, it reads like you’re calling the new Twitter a Musk grift. That’s not just me; the second-top comment seems to be referring to your comment but politely not mentioning it by name.

As for the grift part, it’s complicated, because on the one hand, it was a bald-faced grift going in where he meant to manipulate the stock market (his repeated attempts to back out prove that). But on the other, having to complete that deal meant he gained control of one of the largest social media networks in the world. And he’s clearly been using that to political ends that are hard to qualify but probably – given the extreme worldwide rise in right-wing authoritarianism – fairly successful.

(Assuming it made a difference getting Trump into office, that $44 billion is probably well paid off through political corruption alone.)

For context for future readers, current comment is just:

“Genius businessman” mmhm. Total grift. Idiot. In any other world he’d be living in a trailer park with trump flags all over his truck, working at Walmart yelling at brown people.

Edit: See comments below

You know, I 100% agree with your assessment of Musk. It’s just that you’re saying this about something that Musk has nothing to do with except actively opposing it. The subheader:

Judge hasn’t ruled on X Corp’s preliminary injunction, but Operation Bluebird plows ahead

It’s such trivial, basic etiquette to read beyond the headline before commenting on the article you’re supposed to be discussing. I’m really sick of wading through comments by lazy assholes who’ve spent more time vomiting out their gut reaction to the headline than just sitting down and reading for 30 seconds.

Reddit was bad about this, but Lemmy is somehow fucking next-level.

• The headline itself is already clear this isn’t Musk’s. Why would the new Twitter be saying Musk gave up the name if it were run by Musk?
• Even if it wasn’t (it is), the subheader is abundantly clear.
• Ars is a solid, well-written source with a good reputation for not wasting waste your time with churnalism or clickbait.

Just running through some common excuses people who refuse to read use to shift their profound, utter laziness onto anyone but themselves.

Okay, I admit I was wrong and only said those things because I was jealous of your strategic genius. Can you elaborate on your idea to tank the value of TTWO and give leakers unilateral control of the release schedule of Rockstar’s biggest product in 13 years bring these leakers to heel?

I dunno, I see some gold leaf in the one on the left.

“If Rockstar did the dumbest thing imaginable, massively pissed off all of their fans, devs, and investors, abandoned their fudiciary duty over an Internet slapfight, and openly put themselves at the complete mercy of leakers who could probably just leak the game to an army of those pissed-off fans anyway, maybe then the leakers would back off.”

I want to put you in charge of a large company and watch you speedrun burning it to the ground within, like, a day. You’re like the Bizarro John Nash.

Is the camera icon in the bottom left part of that 95%?

How big is their team?

If a few paragraphs of reading into the article we’re supposed to be discussing is too much, I’m not sure why you’re here trying to discuss it.

I’m 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team’s mistake, but it’s still a mistake.

Please open this article, Ctrl+F down to “% who say the increased use of artificial intelligence in daily life makes them feel …”, and tell me which country is at the very bottom, with 16% “more concerned than excited”, 66% “equally concerned and excited”, and 22% “more excited than concerned”.

It’s like you’re refusing to understand the concept of a cultural barrier.

it’s the AIs fault for not being good enough to hide it.

“if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

The director literally outright says it’s their fault for using the tool.

And what do you mean “got caught”? It’s very obvious. They mistakenly thought most audiences would enjoy it, not that audiences wouldn’t notice. Which makes sense given the overwhelming difference in the perception of AI between SK and the West. He even outright says he expected people to notice: “I expected some of you would be disappointed by our use of AI. I did not expect it to become this big.”

In Indonesian, it’s “lastborn tooth”.

Incidentally, we keep track of translations on Wiktionary, and we recently added a picture dictionary so you can see the names of the other teeth too. ^_^

Edit: Also, incisors in Japanese are “gate teeth”, which I think is lovely.

“The truth is, we spent a long time trying to tell this game’s story with cutscenes made entirely by our own hands,” the statement goes on. “The results were devastating every time. We came to believe we could not properly deliver this game’s complex, difficult narrative that way, and that is why we turned to AI. But if that choice hurt your experience, the fault is not in the tool. It is in our own shortcomings.”

Man, if this is true – that they agonized over the cutscenes but decided they couldn’t and that AI would be better* – then I feel legitimately bad for them.

I went in assuming it was strictly a lazy “ah, fuck it” kind of thing, but even though this still wouldn’t be acceptable, it seems like this team really is hard-working, cared about the final product, and actually did think AI could deliver a good experience. Deluded, but that seems like part of a larger culture of delusion in SK.*

* Notably, the article remarks on how sentiment around AI in South Korea is vastly more positive than e.g. the US.

I know it’s not complicated to put the word “Protocol” there, but do y’all have a template for future use? 👀

You’re making up ad hoc nonsense out of thin air. Literally nothing you’re saying is true, and you can’t will it into existence just because it’s what you want to be true or because it sounds plausible to you. You’ve cited absolutely nothing to substantiate your point, and the onus is on you because you’re the one saying it’s against the law.

Incidentally, you haven’t even mentioned a state; you’re just saying this is true in all two-party consent states, which is fucking wild and shows you have not the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

That’s not true whatsoever. The act of sending a text message is already creating a record on the other device – that’s literally the entire point. You can’t sue somebody in a two-party consent state because they showed their friend Kevin all of the text messages you sent them, and the same applies to feeding it straight into ChatGPT.