https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Bloomberg has regular interviews with analysts for giant investment firms. They had one who specializes in government debt. She said she talks to the people who work the front office for politicians. The Iran war and affordability come up regularly but the number one question they get is about the Epstein files.

As does Ring, Flock, Samsung, Apple, Google and so on. Some random person with any other hidden camera can easily upload them to creepy servers and do automatic face recognition on them too.

Steve Mann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann_(inventor) has been doing that for a long time.

They can produce better video than some cameras but not as good as others. 12MP ultrawide is pretty standard on security cameras and they’re already all over the place.

Do you think that the current smart glasses are making surveillance more normalized or do you think that they’re getting more common because we’ve already normalized constant surveillance?

I’d point out that the PATRIOT act passed a quarter century ago with only one “No” and one abstention.

If I understand your response correctly, you’re arguing that the glasses themselves aren’t the issue, it’s the shifts that come with accepting the glasses.

They may ironically have the reverse effect. I guarantee that corporations are already cataloging your facial expressions. Between Ring, Flock, Apple, Google, Netflix, Samsung, etc. there are many pictures of all our faces with rich annotation. Currently most people don’t even think about how thoroughly they’re being watched. These douchy glasses may actually draw attention to the matter.

I dislike Facebook and deleted my account even before they changed to “Meta”. I also value privacy.

But what privacy violations do “smart glasses” provide that weren’t already trivially available? Tiny cameras are insanely cheap. A reasonably handy person could hide several on their person and there are plenty of “spy shops” that sell actual wearable hidden cameras.

The “I love ICE” kid was wearing Meta Ray Bans but the first video I saw of it was from someone else’ camera. I can’t leave the house without getting filmed from multiple angles. The only thing those glasses do is make it really obvious that the wearer is a dumbass.

Never heard of NY huh?

Talarivo and Crockett both seem like good candidates at first glance.

Neither should be censored.

That was already answered in my post. You just need to know a little bit about NYC for it to be obvious.

tell us

I’m not telling you anything. This message is for the Democratic leadership, on the off chance that they actually listen to anyone.

Stop sidelining good candidates in favor of the “lessor evil” and the voters will deliver. Just look at NYC.

Every time these “less than perfect” candidates get elected they end up screwing us over and giving the Republicans fertile ground to expand their power networks. We’ve given such fake saviors countless opportunities and look where it’s landed us.

It’s going to take more than a good show of being anti-Nazi.

In the context of this lawsuit, the TST are definitely the good guys.

They’re clearly the ones fighting for religious equality over theocratic bias.

I’m willing to give the news some benefit of the doubt here because there actually are rational and non-evil reasons to do this.

Socially, we have at least two related, but distinct forms of sexual atrocity.

One is sex with children. There’s extensive evidence that sex before puberty leads to all kinds of long term negative effects for the victim.

The other is non-consent. No matter what the age of the people involved, non-consent has serious negative consequences for the victim.

The Epstein victims all seem to be extremely young post-adolescents. We generally wouldn’t care at all if they were getting it on with their high-school sweethearts.

The problem with the Epstein victims was primarily one of consent. There was a vast human trafficking network and many of our leaders were active participants. The whole thing was so horrible that normal people are sickened by it happening to anyone, not just children.

The reason we may want to be sticklers on this point is that this form of abuse is extremely common and really needs a spotlight on it. We don’t want people to come out the other end of this thing and think, “Sure pedophilia is bad but this guy is just pressuring his 18 year old secretary into sex and then making money passing her around to his buddies.”

The other Kevin Robert’s :)

Are you referring to Kevin Robert’s public statement about the left?

I wasn’t going to watch the Grammys but this story made me go look up the clip.

Good joke, excellent delivery. No notes.

There’s simple and there’s oversimplified. The element your missing is “trust”. The reason gamers go to Steam is because we trust their reviews and return policies.

The other storefronts haven’t built that trust. Most gamers have the experience of trying other storefronts, hating them, and going back to Steam.

People don’t trust Gabe because he’s a billionaire, they trust him because he consistently makes decisions that gamers benefit from. No other game store CEO can claim that with a straight face.

That would be how monopolies work. You realize that Steam doesn’t require exclusivity, right? You can get BG3 all over the place. When customers have choice between vendors it’s not a monopoly, even if they tend to make the same choice.

Do you think Larian’s management is also stupid?

Any halfway decent GTM executive would have checked their distribution channel options and chosen the mix that makes them the most money, net of fees.

Why would they pay for a service that harms them?

Are you actually confused about the information asymmetry in video game purchases? Given your weird movie references I assumed you were just trying to change the topic.

I’ll try to use small words. Before you play a game, you don’t know if it’s goo;, just as used car buyers don’t know if the used car is a lemon. Without a buyer protections that drags the price of good games down just as lemons drag down the price of used cars. Akerlof goes into the proof for the car part of this in his paper.

“Lemon laws” mostly solve that problem for cars. Steam mostly solves that problem for video games. That requires trust. You may not trust Steam but millions of people do. They’ve repeatedly made decisions that benefit gamers so gamers flock to them. Thats why they buy so many games from Steam even when they’re available elsewhere. If they broke that trust they’d probably never get it back but, until then, their net effect is to increase revenue for studios by providing a market where people are comfortable enough to spend more money.