I’m not sure I really agree with the reasoning on why HL:Ep3 was never developed. Sure, Valve game usually revolves around some game-changing mechanics, but at the same time, Episode 3 was more than just a game, but a sendoff of a big franchise, at least for a time, and a promise to their fans: that 3 episodes are made.

I think that this was one of the signs of the cracks forming in the game developing sector of Valve. It’s been well known that the dev team within Valve has slowly developed to a more toxic environment where veterans vetoed a lof of stuff from newer employees, leading to stagnation and developers getting silently shunned for working on projects like TF2 because it wasn’t considered “profitable”, when there still was, and is, a sizeable community revolving it.

I would have said playing it safe and making a sort of “best of” of popular mechanics used in the previous games would’ve been the best choice, because that would be the best possible sendoff for the series of episodes. After all, at that point people mainly wanted a conclusion to the story arc, a moment of “this was the HL2 era, thank you for playing”, rather than something completely new.

Ah, seems to be right, my bad.

Also, to correct myself a bit more: it was Europe’s biggest datacenter.

If memory serves right, one of Germany’s datacenters went up in flames a few years ago because they had wooden flooring and no adequate fire suppression systems.

EDIT: it was in France, and Europe’s biggest datacenter.

That’s why customer goodwill is so important. It can save you from doing a major mistake simply by the fans still buying the next game out of support for the studio.

Also, the “if we don’t get funded” message rubs me the wrong. It feels like an appeal to emotion rather than an honest message. Something along the lines of “we’ll continue looking for funding, though the project will be put on hold” would feel more genuine without tugging on heartstrings.

Let’s see how their new game idea works out. Honestly a prophunt horror game seems interesting, but I feel it’s pretty much done to death by free mods/gamemodes already.

It has always been a common strategy. Aim for the extremes, and then move to your actual goal to seem reasonable and make the opposition think they won.

Disclaimer: the article only mentions AI, which I interpret as LLM in my statements due to context.

It feels like this article somehow downplays the effects of AI bias, especially considering how many health insurances already play against their customers. Those companies might push for that tech for those very reasons, simply to save money.

However, I am for AI helping with bureaucracy, as long as one can guarantee its accuracy.

It seems interesting, but at the same time the demos all seem to feature presses/simple gestures like stroking an object. The article’s title however, at least in my opinion, implies something along the lines as we see in capacitive displays, mainly a touchpad.

Interesting tech nonetheless! Especially the plant example seems interesting, as it implies that interactions can also occur on less conventional surfaces.

While genetic research has huge potential in early diagnoses, and possible prevention, of illnesses caused by genetic defects, the statement that one can determine (general) intelligence of a potential offspring by checking embryos seems nonsensical from the get go.

First of all would be the definition of (general) intelligence. What exactly is it? Even when assuming that an IQ test cannot be cheated, the concept of reflecting one’s general problem solving skills by a number makes little sense. Can we really say that a savant that heavily struggles with everything but in one field has the same intelligence as someone that is completely standard in any way when both have the same IQ score? I would say not, as the former would need much more support than the latter.

Furthermore, often points concerning something related to eugenics ignore the nature vs nurture debate. How much of our skills are dependent on our environment? To what extent can we say that our minds have a limit on how intelligent we are? It’s hard to say, as there isn’t much research about it, and experiments on that topic are often inhumane, historically speaking. So we need to keep this lack of knowledge in mind when talking about topics like eugenics.

While I have no idea about legality, it is quite obvious that X/Twitter is not really run as a company run as a public communications platform, but rather as a fever dream of Musk.

Especially the Eli Lily Co. disaster should’ve been a wake up call for X of how much harm the fake checkmarks can bring, yet nothing was done. Most likely because Elon Musk didn’t care. He basically runs it like it’s how little service that he fully owns and controls with full disregard to anything but his own vision.

Therefore including his other businesses makes sense, as the fine that is only based on X’s income would probably be negligible in his opinion, as he runs it on a loss anyways. Only bigger fines would actually have any effect in my opinion.