But I'm so excited to play Worms with my kids when they're old enough. My sister and I _endlessly_ played the same level in a worms 2 demo almost 30 years ago.
Yeah, took me a while, but it looks like an expansion pack for the 1997 Amiga-only game "Worms: The Director's Cut". It backports (demakes?) maps and audio from later games like Worms 2, Armageddon and World Party.
I would not get my hopes very high, it's my favorite game to play with kids on PS3 (Worms Armageddon), but they don't seem to like it as much as me, they would rather play Sonic All Stars Racing, Rayman Legends, NHL or other games, they don't share my love for Atomic Bomberman either and it's not about old graphics, they really liked TMNT Turtles in Time or Sunset Riders on emulator
This was before broadband and pocket computers were big so we had to split screen or hot seat multiplayer on the family computer. It was a lot more in person and social and that may have been a big factor.
Nothing to do with internet or smartphones, all mentioned games are split screen/coop on one TV, yet they still for some reason dont like Worms (Armageddon), I didn't even bother trying the old graphics Worms.
Even the “pre-case” legal stuff is out of control. In my Australian organisation we’ve noticed a deluge of what I can only call “privacy demands” that talk the talk… but have the jurisdiction or subject legislation wrong.
But AI told them they could demand these things (even if it would be illegal for us to comply! Think KYC stuff.) and they don’t have the skill to criticise the AI or know when to stop.
Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back.
The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether rightly or wrongly), previously it was the other way around.
> Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back.
Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that for our purposes.
I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services.
Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services.
If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else.
Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.
> Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services.
When the 'democratised access' means they're quoting laws from other countries, sometimes multiple other countries mashed together I don't think anyone is getting value out of it.
We're not getting informed engagement from the public and the person making demands isn't getting any kind of valued legal assistance.
We have always, and continue to have, thoughtful engagement from the public in the form of questions about our operations. This new thing is not that. It's wild.
I take your point about there being an opportunity to be more proactively transparent or clear with people and I push for that a lot... but the sad fact is this new class of AI fuelled fervour really is just something else. It takes away our limited resources to do good work just to respond to it.
Yep, and the cost is borne by the receiver of the letter. The person sending shitty LawyerGPT messages will just keep doing it until there’s consequences, but there aren’t any.
That's a very large question. I'll keep the answer as short as I can:
* politically, we have a unified economic policy that is working wonders. The Brussels Effect is a thing. But, we don't have a unified foreign and defence policies, which partially made Ukraine War possible, and is making a Russian invasion further in Europe a distinct possibility.
* however, economically, the market is not really completely unified yet, especially for digital services, but for many other branches of economy as well. I can drive through 5 countries in a day, and my Netflix and Play Store selection will be different in every one. That doesn't make any sense.
> It does, otherwise what are you arguing for, that financial crises are bad?
To create a false dichotomy like this tells exactly why we have this problem.
I am arguing against the unnecessary over-spending on data centers that has gone into AI, in favor of making efficient models that take less energy, such that less data centers are needed.
The blockchains in many cryptocurrencies have found a way to scale and take significantly far less energy, thanks to proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus over Proof-of-Work (PoW).
We have seen little to almost none of this with the current frontier AI models which is why they currently need orders of magnitude of energy to operate at scale, which is why the over-spending and debt accumulation on data centers exists.
What a strange article. It launders core parenting care tasks such as clipping toenails, toilet training, teaching your kid to ride a bike and just being there while they explore their space in with things I don’t think anyone would object to outsourcing if they had the resources like breaking down boxes and handyman services.
In any case the parents that outsource the parenting are paying to give away a part of their humanity.
YT can be/was empowering for the viewer. Product choices have made it far more of a pointless timesuck and consumer hostile but it still remains the place where I can find a video of a guy taking the front off the same model dishwasher that I have to fix the latch in the soap dispenser while he points out how to do it without permanently destroying the clips that hold it together.
But I'm so excited to play Worms with my kids when they're old enough. My sister and I _endlessly_ played the same level in a worms 2 demo almost 30 years ago.