Readit NewsIn an academic paper, you condense a lot of thinking and work, into a writeup.
Why would you blow off the writeup part, and impose AI slop upon the reviewers and the research community?
They should still review the final result though. There is no excuse for not doing that.
If you look at financial markets and finance theory, there is no validity to the idea that people are long term blind and short term mistaken. markets discount the future, they are the best estimates of the future rather than somebody with no skin in the game magically "knowing better"
if the two sides you describe agree on those definitions as mutually exclusive but in union describing the universal set of people, then they are both wrong.
as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin. you give somebody your money in exchange for something you want and would rather have: this creates happiness out of thin air.
if you think a better society is a happier society, then going into business to make money is the same as going into business to make society better.
Tried running Worms: instant crash, no error message.
Tried running Among Us: instant crash, had to add cryptic arguments to the command line to get it to run.
Tried running Parkitect: crashes after 5 minutes.
These three games are extremely simple, graphically speaking. They don't use any complicated anti-cheat measure. This shouldn't be complicated, yet it is.
Oh and I'm using Arch (BTW), the exact distro SteamOS is based on.
And of course, as always, those for which it works will tell you you're doing-it-wrong™ .
I'm in agreement with everything he says, but I've struggled to see eye to eye with anyone not in my age group. How can we have a constructive conversation about this, come to a consensus that things are not okay now, and move forward?
How can it be a constructive conversation if you have presupposed the outcome?