Fascism - yes I say that word - means corporatism. Not in the common modern usage (run by and for the benefit of corporate structures) but Mussolini's fascist corporatism.

It's a novel take on ownership of the means of production. In effect, the owners of the means of production serve the government and bargain for their own interests. The State is the gatekeeper of profits, and claims to speak for the workers while lining its own pockets with offers from vassal owners. But they do precious little for the worker; it's a racket. In return, the government rewards the compliant with its favor ("Pray I don't alter it any further"). The term "totalitarianism," though a more benign form in this case, also has its roots here, because the government is baked and embedded into every aspect and form of industry. DOGE is also "embedding" itself in the government sector to consolidate centralized control there as well. It's all a play to consolidate autocratic rule, so as to gain a fascist autocracy. We have fascism. We have authoritarianism. They're still working at establishing autocracy.

This version of corporatism is literally a defining characteristic of fascism. There is no doubt what kind of government is being run here. All you TDS people can go to hell or read a history book, which is probably hell for y'all anyways. I've been calling this guy "Il Duce" since his first administration. This is classic 1930's-flavored bullshit, and the administration fully understands what it is doing. Mussolini never spoke for "the workers" and neither does Trump.

Since my adblocker no longer entirely works on Slashdot, I wanted to SHARE THE AD that appeared on the page accompanying all the comments of "F Adobe."

Yeah, that AI scraping and custom advertising is a biiiiiig winner.

I just want to mention that the Denmark article had a bunch of "nuclear lies" posts, and this one seems to have brought out the proponents.

I wonder if anyone on Slashdot has any idea of what they're talking about.

Yeah, we need as many zero-carbon options as possible is all I have to say. All of them, without preconceptions.

Actual headline: "In Response To Greedy Stockholders, Apple Considering What It Can 'Get Away With' "

Enough with the greed folks. You're making enough money. We are taking a pay cut through inflation, y'all should too.

The term you're looking for is "exploitive capitalism," too. As opposed to enlightened (as in self-interest) capitalism which works.

They don't care. Ever seen that South Park where they're playing Guitar Hero and he pulls out a real guitar and plays Don't Fear the Reaper like it's gonna be cool.

They're pressing buttons to music, and they enjoy that. They don't want to play the guitar. It's a sad lack of ambition, I guess, but some people have always preferred a fantasy universe.

Everyone chooses how much time and effort they put into video games. If it takes too much of your time, a healthy person will take care of themselves and spend less. I don't understand what it has to do with how it is programmed and scripted, unless you are saying that the guy with the database is trying to control you, in which case it makes sense.

To your point, what bothers me is the idea that a game being "addictive" is seen as a positive attribute, at least in the marketing copy. Like people want an addictive game. It means, somehow, that it's a "really good game."

Addiction, as I remember it, causes one to neglect themselves and others until it reaches the point of significant self-harm and alienation. Gacha games like this have psych people on staff figuring out how to tweak your dopamine levels. This is not good. They are effectively drug dealers, which is why the first one is free (Free-to-play).

So if you got yourself out of that morass, good for you. I'm glad you've found meaning for your life.

I think all of these predatory companies should be referred to the DEA in my country, however that might work. That is probably extreme, but it's around the sort of scrutiny that should be applied to this.

Except Civ VII. They appear to have gone to the darkside. I'm sticking with IV, V, and VI.

JK Rowling has nothing to do with MAGA, despite what you may think of her. She is also not anti-trans. She is for women's identities. You know, like maybe a battered women's shelter shouldn't include penis.

I don't know her to be "anti" anything except authoritarianism, conformity, and people like you who seek to drive a "truth" narrative that suits your needs and not actual truth.

You seem to be anti a lot, including the future. Have fun with that. Games are not what you grew up with because the world changes. Join a bridge club with your partner; I think it will suit you.

You know, I might have agreed with you a few years ago, but then Manifest v3 happened. AKA: Let's kneecap ad-blockers in Chrome for no benefit to anyone but Google. Anti-consumer products are a red flag.

Clearly, it's a monopoly, because v3 is going to affect other browsers. This is because Google calls the shots for the entire web. Web standards go where Google goes. Chromium is no alternative to this unless someone forks. Even Mozilla will have to contend with it. You should see the list of things on Bugzilla that require adopting "chrome-like behavior" or even spoofing the user agent because a website won't admit that it will run fine on something that isn't Chrome.

There is no choice in browsers if web servers and code are built for a monopoly browser. We've barely gotten over Internet Explorer, and I don't want to go back.

A definition of monopolistic behavior is a company that makes clearly uncompetitive product decisions that are anti-consumer, because the consumer has no alternatives. In a free-market, that doesn't happen. Manifest v3 doesn't happen. Browser functionality isn't crippled for the benefit of inverted totalitarianism. A competitor provides an unhindered user experience, and the uncompetitve, anti-consumer product eventually tanks.

So no. No, you're wrong. Sell the thing and force them to compete.

I'm guessing we're using English here.

Is it possible that the fundamentals, the linguistic nuts and bolts, of the English language lead to left-leaning bias?

What opinion does an LLM output in Arabic or Korean? Spanish?

LLMs could conceivably be useful in determining the unconscious biases of language itself. Semantics actually matter.

I know it, because I speak more than one language, and each one subtly or not-so-subtly changes my outlook on life.

Unless you're talking about left-wing fascists. They exist.

Yeah, those tariffs/trade wars are inciting a slew of "this company is raising prices" "this company is accelerating their downstream supply line" articles.

There's actually a bigger mess than AI out there rn.

Oh god. Mod parent and OP funny, even if it is ACs. So true.

I was gonna say Facebook is more like garbage dumps, waste producing industrial plants, and commercial farmland (both mega livestock and corn/soy fields) where their runoff enters our water supply and poisons us all. We wouldn't accuse any of them for a lack of "ethics." That's the kind of pass Facebook gets.

So, mostly, I think you have the receiving body of water incorrect as well as the source of the slop.