Fictional constructs don’t end up having bitterly opposed factions splintering off within decades of their supposed death, but that’s an extremely common feature of nearly every cult organized around a historical central figure.
The specific depiction of Jesus canonized likely has many fictional elements, but the idea that there was no historical figure in the first place is pretty ludicrous.
The CEO of Take Two said a comment about how he wished games were priced based on the hours of gameplay provided and not flat pricing.
Which then got clickbait headlines being written as outrage bait hypothesizing that in such a world GTA 6 proving 150 hours of content would be priced at $150.
Which evolved to headlines baiting even more outrage suggesting the CEO was actually thinking of pricing the game at $150.
Then people falling for the outrage bait have been writing pieces or creating memes in opposition of $150 game pricing - which literally has zero indications of being a thing.
It’s total BS, and a good reflection of just how shoddy games ‘journalism’ is these days.
This is BS. It’s a 3rd rate marketing group trying to game SEO for lead gen.
Go ahead and contact them, claiming to be a prospective client with a few hundred (insert niche retail or service here) stores and that you’re interested in their product.
At best they’ll end up revealing they have a SDK or some crap to do the active listening in your own app if you have one.
If this were real, more than this company would be doing it, and you’d see actual case studies around it.
Also, it’s 1000% not legal in half the US states given two party consent wiretapping laws unless the users are agreeing to it in some way, which again brings us back to that at best this is some shoddy SDK (and unlikely even that).
Edit: Looking at it closer and given the way it isn’t linked at all from elsewhere and is a one off mention of the services, I’m actually wondering if this was an April Fool’s page that they just never took down. It’s pretty funny if that, especially given the ridiculousness of a lot of the buzz word heavy language in the bullet points. Like the idea that they are actively listening to the voice data and then having AI analyze the purchase history of the users to then cross attribute ROI using your “tracking pixel” is hilarious.
Even just one of those steps is such a pie in the sky claim even for most billion dollar agencies.
It’s about the evolving picture of the universe over the past 300 years and how so much about that picture changed so quickly and is still left with very big open questions.
The most neutral coverage I’ve seen was from The Intercept.
It has a fairly anti-establishment bias, but that includes both Hamas, the PA, and the IDF.
They basically give a crap about civilians, but not about any of the institutional interests causing them to suffer, and spread that evenly across the various players.
Which is kind of the point. If it’s a last resort of self-preservation or to prevent an unacceptable alternative outcome, inherent to the choice to engage or endorse large scale violence is the underlying reality of choosing between two evils.
It’s not noble or good. It’s never justified.
Yet in certain situations it may be regarded as necessary.
But a necessary evil is not made good by virtue of its necessity.
And attempts to undermine the absolutism by which large scale violence is inherently unjustifiable, to turn atrocity into Micky Mouse heroism or patriotism, ultimately creates a moral tapestry wherein all atrocities can thus be justified by the relative perspectives of what is good.
So no, there is no measure by which large scale violence transforms into justifiable behavior, under any circumstances.
And a wise society would always regard its adoption as a stain upon its history, irrespective of what other horrors it was brought in to clear out.
I agree, and my stance is the more interpretations the better, as each brings a different perspective to the table which in turn imagines up different experiments to try and prove or falsify different assumptions.
The human need to try and find confirmation of one’s own views is toxic to academia, and all too often fields can be held back due to undue influence of specific thought leaders who subscribed to one perspective or another.
They keep needing to adjust their interpretations based on new results, and I haven’t yet seen a compelling adjustment that explains the results of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0990-x (2020). That conflicting measurements of a superposition can be made seems to go against the inherent realism of pilot wave theories.
There have been a few attempts to address the classical Wigner setup from a Bohemian point of view, but the experiment above was more “a two layered Bell” than Wigner’s friend despite being inspired by the latter.
It actually looks like there’s already just a paper from two weeks ago (Li, Wigner’s friend scenario and a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (2023)) attempting to rework the pilot wave theory into a new interpretation predicted on a different interpretation of Born’s rule to square it with the no go experiments.
So while I agree that it’s too early to call realist interpretations misunderstandings, I suspect the writing is on the wall and over time we’re going to see them drop off more and more, especially if the recent trend in experimental results throwing objective measurements into question continues.
Right, Roger Penrose and Eugene Wigner and a host of other physicists who subscribe/d to consciousness collapse interpretations aren’t people who care about evidence…
It’s wild how many people are so quick to be confidently incorrect about something that sounds correct and science-ish but doesn’t at all reflect the actual subspecialty nuances.
Literally none of the QM interpretations have evidence supporting their particular interpretation.
At best there’s a handful that have been abandoned due to falsification, like interpretations predicated on local hidden variables.
There’s no more evidence for Copenhagen or many worlds than there is for consciousness collapse.
There’s simply different inherent assumptions that different physicists are willing to entertain, but it’s entirely a personal choice and ultimately not evidence driven.
And the picture of assumptions changes over time. For example, post-2018 all popular interpretations other than many worlds have a new “pick at least one of three” assumptions that must be embraced following a new paradox. But currently that’s pretty much the only guiding factor, is what assumptions one is willing to entertain.