Ultimately it took ProPublica to pull back the curtain on a computed market where an algorithm was telling landlords how much to charge tenants for a majority of the market. And even then, I don’t think it’s stopped.

This is exactly my point. The ability for companies to gouge consumers is exacerbated by algorithms, sure. But they have power because the regulatory rules are either in their favor or not.

Even exposing it as you note didn’t change it. Likewise individual consumers don’t have the ability to change it. It’s a red herring and false solution to say “AI can fix it.”

I’m always up for a good AI dystopia article, but this is pretty poorly written, taking a very long time to say very little new or interesting. For this reason I wouldn’t be surprised if the author used AI assistance in writing it, which would certainly tell you something about the author’s objectivity. (It has a lot of earmarks of recent-model AI essay writing, like repeated use of the rule of threes, though I admit a human could have produced it. )

The thesis appears to be that AI can be an equalizer to put individuals on equal footing to corporate data processing tasks. But conversely that it may not be because viability, quality and reliability depends on who controls the model and whether it hallucinates in critical or non-critical ways. Thanks for the clarity, article.

None of this is new thought, but just another part of an inherently AI-normalizing line of thinking that AI is just another democratizing technological tool (but that could be used for evil - or good! - or evil!). The author addresses some of the AI flaws but ends almost where it began, with that flawed premise, which elides how unlike other tools, AI actually degrades our abilities to think and communicate once we start relying on it. The article doesn’t address that communication, meaning, thought, and reliability are degraded when either individual or corporate systems integrate AI.

Instead, the author would like you to think individuals can level a playing field by using AI against corporate algorithms. And sure, a person denied a medical claim by a health insurer low effort AI can now write a generic low effort appeal, but that appeal can just a efficiently continue to be denied by better funded AI. It’s a spurious and illusory benefit to the individual.

What truly matters and is unaffected by consumer AI use is power - political and corporate power. AI just floods the zone with more output, but the result of us all adopting AI will change nothing to the power imbalance in our system. The solution to low effort slop won’t be more low effort slop - we’d just be burying ourselves deeper in it.

So much interesting stuff continues to leak, and it’s wonderful that the episode already is online.

Here’s one quote from the NYT:

Then, around midnight at the end of Friday, less than 48 hours before the segment was set to air, Ms. Weiss weighed in again, this time with more substantial requests. She asked producers to add a last-minute interview with Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff — a relatively straightforward task for a print journalist who needs to only make a phone call, but a logistically difficult one in TV news, where a camera and lighting crew is often required.

“If we run the piece as is, we’d be doing our viewers a disservice,” Ms. Weiss wrote in her internal note, which “60 Minutes” producers viewed as a more critical assessment than the one she had offered earlier in the week.

So specifically, Weiss felt that if Stephen Miller - one of the most obvious bad faith propaganda-pushers of the administration to anyone with basic human sensory organs - specifically did not get screen time, it was a “disservice” to viewers. If you’re injecting medicine without poison, I guess it’s not balanced?

And later:

On the 9 a.m. call, Ms. Weiss said she wanted a newsroom “where we are able to have contentious disagreements about the thorniest editorial matters and do so with respect.”

Hours later, Ms. Alfonsi — who accused the network on Sunday night of pulling her segment for “political” reasons — raised those comments during the meeting with her “60 Minutes” colleagues. She said Ms. Weiss had not contacted her directly with her concerns.

“Disagreement requires discussion,” Ms. Alfonsi said.

Weiss, an opinion writer whose sole qualification is a willingness to platform and sanewash fascists, who was placed in an unearned position by a nepotistic CEO who also didn’t earn their power, didn’t even have the integrity or courage to talk about it with the senior correspondent. And if you read Alfonsi’s bio on CBS’s own site - winning Emmys and other awards, sure, but reporting from Kabul, school shootings, Epstein, and so on - you can see why Weiss may be mortified trying to pull rank with not even a tenth of that actual journalism resume.

I mean, it really is about the thought counting more than an object. If you don’t have money, and if the aunt is already well-off, the best gift would be an experience and not a thing. But it’s really driven by her interests, which is about what you know about her. Do you know what her hobbies or interests are?

“There are a few Republicans who are on board with it. But we’re not going straight to impeachment. We’re starting with contempt,” Khanna said. “And the idea would be that you’d get a 30-day grace period, which is already in violation of the law, 30 day grace period to get the documents out.”

If it’s already in violation of the law, then why is inaction acceptable? This is exactly what Trump acolytes know - every deadline can be ignored until there are consequences.

This is part of Bari Weiss’s typical double standard and code-switching while advancing a right-wing agenda.

Your story helps the left or harms the right? It doesn’t “advance the ball.”

Your story helps the right or harms the left? It is “giving voices to a wider range of opinions.”

What reveals Weiss’s bias is that both angles assume that media gives more support to, or has a bias towards left causes, which is a perennial right wing victim-culture taking point.

But we’ll see this again and again - as I mentioned before, Weiss’s role is to pull the Overton window to the right from the “center.”

There’s some similar work done with the Pretendo network for Nintendo systems, but my understanding is it’s just for server-hosted and multiplayer game features and not copyright authentication.

I think it’s inevitable that someone creates an online server that authenticates online games, the lawsuits will be swift and vicious. The best solutions will probably be to create a local network authentication method, but who knows if it’s even possible.

They must have missed the meeting where instructions on manipulating Trump were passed out. You never say “you can’t do that” because he’s a contrarian narcissist, and so now whether he does it or not, he definitely is more motivated to do it.

No, you invite him to visit or send an envoy to the White House (or even better, Mar-a-Lago), and make sure they give him a gold plated statue that says “best boy,” with enough filigree to cause eye cancer, put it on a oversized Corinthian base, and tell him it’s a monument to the special relationship your countries share. Now he’ll go back to destroying the US from within (lucky us Americans!) and leave you alone.

Honestly, this is the best time to snapshot it, because even with the slop already there, the exponential increase that’s about to happen will absolutely dwarf what’s there now.

Not a surprise but I’m glad we have confirmation Bari Weiss is directly making political decisions to not air stories, and that these reporters are fighting back.

Seeing how shameless Weiss is, I don’t expect change, but people at least need to know 60 Minutes and CBS News are no longer reliable.

Continuing to fulfill his purpose. Was pretty disappointing seeing CBS News pushing that sane-washing town hall with Erika Kirk with a temporary hard link on its navbar, but the Larry->David->Bari chain is complete and paying off there too.

It would be nice if these headlines just said “Stephen Miller set to…,” etc. Miller is setting DHS/ICE policy, and Trump is along for the ride. And we all know this. But Trump thinks we’re all clueless about it, like all of his other grifts.

But gosh, if Trump saw Miller taking his spotlight in the media and portrayed as having the power Miller actually has, Miller would be gone within a week.

Short answer: The Trump administration protects sex traffickers. Didn’t hurt to have a little assist from Don Jr. and Barron to grease the wheels, and a natural mutual interest in capturing the fascist youth influencer set.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/andrew-tate-barron-trump-romania.html

That’s a great sign.

Welp, time to make a straw doll of Sam Altman and start sticking it with pins. This bubble is taking way too long to burst.

I think on Lemmy you’re pretty much only talking to the Americans who are more upset and frustrated than you are about it.

It’s even exactly the opposite of what the term says.

Keeping the those politicians secret means they remain politically exposed to extortion by any person or government that knows that secret, to the detriment of US national security. Revealing those secrets eliminates any leverage for bad actors.

It’s interesting you are disappointed in the art style - it makes more sense, though, if you haven’t played HOMM3. Because the map art style and layout feels very HOMM3, moreso than the other 3D modernization attempt in HOMM5 (which I hated). My guess is you would have really enjoyed HOMM3, if this one plays how it looks.

Thanks for putting this on my radar, it really looks like a return to the HOMM gameplay I enjoyed.

Left person appears to be Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision Blizzard before it was acquired by Microsoft. He was accused of allowing widespread harassment at the various studios, though he sued for publishing those allegations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kotick

Edit: He was “outed” as being in Epstein’s black book six years ago, but I can’t find a reliable source. Just a reddit post and links back to it.

I hope we get there. But even that would be a return to status quo.

The typical cycle is democrats come in, do crisis control, enact stable (if lacking ambition) policies and leadership, and at year four or eight, the voters have forgotten the crisis and… Promptly vote back in republicans, who spend the next years systematically dismantling all progress until we’re back in crisis. Repeat. Happening since at least 1992.