So you think AGI fears are overblown, but want the employees to back the coup of a company because of these same AGI fears?
Why don’t we just trust the employees are intelligent human beings that have more context and decided Altman was a good boss? Or at the very least would be a better boss than whatever clusterfuck comes after him?
Let’s not gatekeep “real gamers”.
You should also read his comment again. He is not saying that a game is only worth playing once because the story or game is linear. Although no sources are cited, he is probably right that a fair percentage of people pick up a game and drop it soon after because it wasn’t what they thought it would be or any number of other reasons.
Even if you are an indie gamer, the sheer number of indie games that come out each year is overwhelming, and again a lot are not super polished so you can probably also see people picking it up, playing it, not being impressed and then dropping the game.
So why spend $10 a pop per game when you can pay for one month and enjoy many of them?
There is no need to be materialistic. Yes there are games you will want to go back to in a few years or take your time with, but there are many many games that you may never touch again. If you think this is a minority opinion, check out some Steam stats. I think they support OPs argument.
There are also reasons subscription based models can and do suck, there is a reason they are popular.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
The problem is pro-Palestinian side trying to claim that illegal detention and collateral damage from war is equal to terrorist operations that intentionally targeted massacres of civilians.
That doesn’t work for anyone with a sense of nuance and common sense.
The world will continue to side with the group that isn’t hunting down innocent people in their homes and at festivals.
Ignoring the false statements you are making. If you want the world to support you, don’t commit acts of terror on civilians.
This should never be a “benefit” nor is it a “benefit” to any other group of people.
Then don’t harbor terrorists. It obviously wasn’t a “benefit” to the Israelis who were murdered now was it?
If they actually cared about that? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds to me like you are making shitty generalizations about Palestinians.
If Hamas cared about civilian casualties, they would never have kidnapped and executed civilians. If they cared about civilian casualties, they would negotiate their surrender.
If you’re trying to spotlight Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and hoping to garner sympathy, you’re not going to have much success when the current world event topic is “Palestinians (Hamas) murdered and taken hostage innocent Israeli civilians.”
In your example above, Israel takes all while Palestinians just get “prisoners” back (prisoners that are not really being tried for anything, a literal war crime, so for all intents and purposes they are not detained under any reasonable law and they don’t have the most basic of rights)… and Palestine gets nothing.
Palestine also get the benefit of not having their cities ravaged while Israel troops hunt down enemy combatants. They get to keep some semblance of an autonomous nation. They also minimize civilian casualties in their end, if they actually cared about that.
Seems to me like maybe Israel should negotiate with terrorists if it means less dead civilians. But Israel doesn’t care about that. And this is why we are here today.
It’s very hard to make the argument that Israel should care about less dead civilians when the other side specifically targets civilians. I’m not sure why you keep expecting Israel to negotiate with restraint when they have no incentive to negotiate at all.
What will happen if Israel does not come to the table? Hamas will kill innocent people? And if Israel negotiates and comes to peace with Hamas, the killing will stop? History shows otherwise.
And since that killing innocent part already happens, there’s nothing left to bargain for is there?
I also take issue with the fact that bringing accountability to Hamas for what happened is considered one sided negotiations for Israel. How is justice for a terrorist act considered a total victory?
I didn’t suggest any plan leading to a joint county solution.
You know what would not even remotely lead to such a solution? Kidnapping and murdering civilians.
Just so we’re clear, everyone loses here. But Israel is not going to negotiate with terrorists, nor should they.
Well since Hamas has already executed civilians, and Israel has both the military advantage and support of world leaders, they are not exactly negotiating from a position of strength.
You know what. Sure. I think Israel will go for this.
Release of all illegally detained Palestinians.
In return, Israel gets
How do you negotiate with someone that just kidnapped and executed or planning to execute hundreds of civilians?
What do you ask for here? And what do you give up?
The article is confusing but it sounds like the union wants both C and G at the table, but C and G both agree that C should be the employer and G doesn’t need to join the talks. So C is saying, if you really want G to join, you’ll have to wait until the appeals are finished.
I’m guessing the union doesn’t want to negotiate with C, have C go to G with the terms and G refuse and just causing endless delays in a game of telephone bargaining.
To further this thought, it makes it really easy for any motivated party to profile accounts.
Create an account that posts intentionally politically motivated news or comments.
Rinse and repeat a few times and now you the data you want.
Found the person that doesn’t read the article!