Not the first time I’ve heard this. There was a leak that was very quickly deleted where it mentioned Valve were using some type of custom GPT for calculating physics (instead of for LLMs). So instead of doing actual complex physics calculations for environmental destruction, a GPT type AI would be doing it.

Obviously its to go in tandem with their current physics, just offloading specific stuff to the AI. It’s apparently very good.

Source is trust me bro, but we’ll find out soon enough I guess.

I’d argue imposing your view onto others is not good.

K buddy.

Okay, we’ll impose Canadian morals, ethics and laws across the world. /s

Where do you draw that line?

If they don’t like it, they can leave Russia.

I mean, if you want to operate in a country, you follow their laws when in the country?

I haven’t played it yet, but I kinda get Death Stranding vibes from it. More action though.

Would like to remind people about: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

The post is about the *payment processor* being the bad actor. In that case, crypto is an alternative because it bypasses processors entirely.

If the bad actor is the *merchant*, then you already have consumer protection laws, and beyond that the legal system, same as with cash, crypto or credit cards.

You haven’t shown how cash or credit cards are inherently less risky than the Lightning Network. With cards, you can be debanked or have your account frozen by the processor (which is what happened in this post). With cash, a merchant can just take it and not deliver. Crypto doesn’t make this worse. In fact, it removes the risk of being debanked while functioning like digital cash (crypto payments can be made directly, not just through custodial processors).

Chargebacks exist with cards, but they’re double-edged (e.g. fraud, arbitrary reversals, censorship).

If you don’t understand crypto or don’t see the problems it solves, that’s fine, no one’s forcing you to use it. But dismissing it as “less accountability” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

What “bad actors”?

How does this differ than using cash? Or credit card. You are not being clear. What recourse do you have when using cash, for example?

You asked what recourse you have, I assumed you realised we have consumer protections in Canada. Then you tried to twist it into whether I’ve personally taken someone to court. That’s irrelevant since the point is that consumer protections already exist, so your whole argument falls apart. You’re just baiting at this point. And yes, I have returned stuff after paying with cash, crypto and credit card. This is not uncommon.

I’ve never had to take any company to court, because we have consumer protections. That covers purchases with crypto.

Yes, in fact I use the Lightning Network almost daily.

More than using Paypal, obviously. Depending on the amount, you can take them to small claims court, or get lawyers involved for larger sums. The great thing is that they cannot claim you didn’t pay, and you have proof of services rendered, or products purchased. And if you don’t trust the merchant, don’t buy from them.

All transactions are public and verifiable. How is that less accountability?

Yes, simply put, that’s how it works. You should read the whitepaper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The first sentence:

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution

They have a reason? And by devs, do you mean Square Enix, or have the actual programmers gone on the record saying it?

On the petition you linked:

There are no plans to amend UK consumer law on disabling video games. Those selling games must comply with existing requirements in consumer law and we will continue to monitor this issue.

First line of the bitcoin whitepaper deals with this lol.