I’m a little shakey on the details but I think it has more to do with the extra bone mass in relation to the way the jaw functions. It acts more like a shock absorbing bumper than a lever.
Other animals that get punched there tend to take that blow more to the throat, which is a bit more problatic
I read somewhere sometime ago that the theory that makes the most sense is that we evolved chins to take a punch, which animals besides our immediate evolutionary relatives do not do.
So we evolved chins as an evolutionary advantage over our immediate evolutionary relatives who would logically be competing for the same resources.
I think it is more than safe to say that not using an AI agent in the future, while possible, will be like trying to function in our world without a smartphone. Possible of course, but you are at a disadvantage
My friend, I think you have it backwards.
AI use vs genuine human interaction is going to be like getting a machine made t-shirt at Walmart for $5 vs hiring a tailor. AI is going to give you a markedly lower quality job for much cheaper, and that’s going to be its utility.
Unpopular opinion incoming:
I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.
For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.
If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.
Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.
That’s true, but games exist already where people can host their own servers. Pc gaming is kind of like the sandbox of platforms. Other major consoles solved that problem by sunsetting their free services so that you can’t just go play an existing online game for free on their platform.
It would be a gargantuan task to sunset free online connectivity as it exists in pc gaming today.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Console online services get away with making you pay because the system is locked and you don’t have a choice. Pc gamers can host their own servers, and if steam ever becomes so anti consumer as to charge for access to your library, competitors will rise and the market will balance.
I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
The US congress is freaking out about TikTok because of national security concerns about china potentially harvesting data on americans and influencing politics, not because TikTok is a monopoly.
This is not at all the same thing.
Here’s the difference. When we talk about companies dominating an industry, we’re usually talking about practices that keep competition from even forming. Monopolies are formed as a result of big companies buying out or making it impossible for their competition.
Steam doesn’t do that, which is a big reason they won their monopoly suit. They just provide a better model than anyone else is willing to, and they rake in the cash because of it.
Compare this situation to books-a-million in the states. Books-a-million doesn’t have a monopoly on books, they just have created a better environment for selling them. They aren’t stopping other book stores from opening or buying chains to shut them down, they just sell you a cup of coffee and give you a place to sit while you browse their massive selection.
That’s not a monopoly, that’s just better business.
I’ll never understand why some people look at the fact that steam is popular because of their policies, and can’t help but make a comment like this equating that popularity to cock worship.
Like, we get it bro. You’re thinking about cocks and you’re mad about a half decent game store. What compelled you to combine those thoughts on a public forum?
The weird thing is that this isn’t even the first comment I’ve seen like this. Dudes that are mad about steam want everyone else to know about steam’s massive, throbbing cock for some reason. This guy alone has posted 3 of these.
The Dollop podcast did a thorough job covering this one. Definitely worth a listen
Guarantee that the line of reasoning here is
We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren’t going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer
I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that’s already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.
To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.
It’s honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it’s scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.
Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.
A black market would arise. Finished with your show? Get your money back. NFTs aren’t connected to identity like that.
They could never pull a stunt like what they’re doing now and make people rebuy things.
Advertising opportunity would essentially fall to zero. Ever notice how ads play before and after streaming services nowadays?
A subscription model wouldn’t work under this system. Subscriptions pull in a higher net than single selling products.
The current system would be overturned in its entirety by something like this, and that’s why the people making money and holding the rights aren’t going to let it happen.
The reason that’s never going to happen is because it would be the cause of massive profit losses for digital companies.
Capitalism makes the rules.
Normally I’d agree with you, but… 6 day old account? Isn’t that a little like pulling up the ladder?
All games are time wasting. Rogue-like games don’t have no progress, it’s just not the same kind of progress other genres tend to have.
I think it’s really funny to hate a certain genre of entertainment because it wastes time though. The ultimate point of all entertainment is to waste time and produce dopamine.
I mean like, it’s cool to not like rogue-likes because you don’t like starting over. That’s a valid opinion. But saying it’s because you don’t want to waste time is kind of hilarious