They succesfully did away with 2nd hand markets and the concept of "owning" anything. So yes, I would imagine DRM would continue to exist without piracy.
Looking at someone cheating in a replay, it's pretty obvious the majority of the time. To me, this signals that this could be a problem that can be solved by a combination of analytics to filter out statisticaly outliers + AI. This is something Valve dabbled with before (and since) the boom in AI [0], dubbed as VACNET and VAC-LIVE. Kernel access becoming the norm is not something we should be cheering for imo.
I'm more sceptical about inference based detection methods because as they improve (using AI), so too will the cheater's ability to fake human movement. It will be trained on real humans and mimic how real humans play - just at the very high end of the range of skill and ability. Developers will be loathe to ban "good" players just because they're good.
If cheaters were capped to mimicking good players, that's already an incredible win over the status quo. The players that are walling (as an example), are playing with more information than they should and this should always be detectable with enough observation, especially in terms of them displaying super-human reaction times and being pre-positioned to their advantage... so I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about this not having good returns.
I'm sure there's a reason why they don't, but I wonder why games don't try implementing honey pots, like rendering a fake player behind a wall and automatically banning if a player's crosshair snaps onto them, etc.
It's true that it would be an improvement. I should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Your honey pot ideal is one of many solid ways to detect cheaters. Developers appear more interested in selling copies than they are ensuring players have a good time. Perhaps the motivation is more aligned in subscription games, where they care about the recurring revenue.
That's one method, but consider what happens when someone deposits a million dollars at a bank. This million dollars can be lent out to another person as a mortgage, and guess where that person accepts that money? That's right, a bank. That same 1 million dollars could be lent out to 10 different people, expanding the supply of money many times over. The only limit to this are the capitalisation ratios legislated and enforced by government (the bank must retain some % of total outstanding liabilities as capital it can move immediately). There are a few other ways I understand (and probably many more I dont) that the monetary supply can be expanded via, but that is the simplest one to conceptualise.
"This million dollars can be lent out to another person as a mortgage"
It can't. It isn't. And it never has been.
What banks do is provide liquidity against your collateral. You sell them a charge over your house (for example), and they give you a credit for it. That credit can then be passed on to other people.
Banks are in the business of discounting. They don't take anything in and give it out to other people. [0]
On the other hand, health care is not scaling to meet the growing demand of societies (look at the growing wait queues for access to basic medical attention in most Western nations). The cause of this is a separate topic and something that deserves more attention than it currently gets, but I digress. If AI can fill the gap by making 24/7/265 instant diagnosis and early intervention a reality, with it then bringing a human into the loop when actually necessary... I think that is something worth pursuing as a force multiplier.
We're clearly not there yet, but it is inevitible that these models will eventually exceed human capability in identifying what an issue is, understanding all of the health conditions the patient has, and recommending a treatment plan that results in the best outcome.
You may not want to receive a cancer diagnosis from an AI doctor... but if an AI doctor could automatically detect cancer (before you even displayed symptoms) and get you treated at a far earlier date than a human doctor, you would probably change your mind.
We're lucky the EU regulators moved so slowly that the industry had already consolidated around USB-C (a standard that Apple was a key participant of and would have eventually moved to eventually). When they were first deciding what to do back in 2209, they decided that Micro-USB was the best standard. Imagine a world where everyone was forced to use Micro-USB...
The obvious takeaway here is that a country / blok can't regulate their way to innovation... so I'm not exact sure why you included it in your list of paradigm shifts. If anything, when the next paradigm shift around charging drops, the EU will be once again on the back-foot due to these short-sighted USB-C regulations they enacted.
I do share your sentiment that EU will miss the train once again on AI.
>Discord lost thousands of them, despite promising to delete them after age verification occurred (and then not doing so)
This is misleading, yet everyone seems to repeat it. Discord's implementation of ID verification did not retain IDs. Reporting on this was so poor, but what appears to have happened was that people that failed age estimation / ID checks had to raise a support ticket and get manually reviewed. That support platform was pwned and the active support tickets were leaked. Who knows how long these support tickets were set to live for, but up to 70,000 active tickets getting leaked feels like a drop in the bucket. It's also not immediately clear to me what the alternative is (other than not getting hacked), when you require human intervention to review problematic IDs. Even if the ID only lived on their server for 24 hours during manual review, across a userbase of >200 million users, that's a lot of IDs at risk at any given moment, especially during these initial roll outs of age verification.
This is a distinction without a difference. Users were assured their selfies would not be retained and they were. Discord then proceeded to lose those selfies to bad actors, after promising not to retain them. The incident has caused enormous distrust of all age verification systems, which were already starting in the mind of the community from a base level of skepticism. It's already highly invasive to take a photo of yourself, but then the user must trust that the organization on the other end will handle it appropriately. To have that trust so conspicuously broken poisons the well for all other age verification systems and websites that are legally compelled to use it, or face penalties from aggressive organizations like OFCOM.
I disagree! There very much is a distinction and every age verification process will have the same failure mode. If there is something wrong with your account or ID, the user will have to go via the manual support proccess, which necessitates sharing particulars with falliable humans and the fragile support process. The alternative is to offer no support and prevent them from using the service... which is by far the worst outcome.
Were users assured that the selfies they emailed to support would not be retained? I'm loath to defend the multimillion dollar corporation, but let's at least be fair.
Yet the Maccas app in Australia is atrocious for me. Takes >30secs to load the huge ad that pops-up before you can get to the menu. Close the ad and the menu takes another eternity, then inside each sub menu, you wait another eternity for the pictures to all load. Meanwhile, all of this content could just be downloaded in the background and cached for future loads...
And the app continues to get worse each update. The checkout process used to be quick and responsive. They've since made it require additional clicks and take much longer.
Is there anyone who uses the app and orders premium options and uses coupons that don't represent much of a discount... yet, the app STILL takes a long time to load?
Causing delays for unprofitable customers. Any business is going to do it if they can. /tinfoil
I don't want to touch their greasy in-store touch screens that thousands of other people touch. And those "deals" are way cheaper per user than large marketing campaigns, and probably more effective too.
I wonder how slow you can make an app before a significant number of people will just order elsewhere? Give it a few more years of downgrades to the app, and I'll have reached it.
They more effective because they can sell our Big Mac consumption to our health insurance company? That is purely an assumption, by the way. Maybe someone tried to write a law once to prevent that.
That's funny about it being bad enough, it just makes you want to leave.
And to anyone reading- be careful with the McDonald's spyware, by the way. You might have it for lunch. Then by dinner time, see a little icon on your phone and realize they've been tracking your precise location all day.
reply