Filter bubbles are easy: We are good, They are bad.
Real life is hard: We are imperfect people, They are imperfect people.
How are you supposed to feed the anger center of your brain if you occasionally have to see the objects of your hatred acting all kind and neighborly around your community? It's much easier to avoid Them and only interact with those who have the internet points to prove that they are ideologically pure.
They didn't need the metaverse, but they did need some sort of new direction; buying out nascent social networks was a stall tactic to prolong the time before they became uncool with the hip youths.
I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that Zuckerberg read Snow Crash as a teenager, loved it, and either missed the punk ethos or edited it out of his memory when he found himself in a position of respectable authority.
"They" are whoever holds the monopoly on violence in the region. Sometimes colloquially called a "government" or "state".
You probably don't pay them to uphold their power to close roads whenever they want, it's just a consequence of the aforesaid monopoly on violence.
If you think it's wrong, you can try to bring competition into the market, but if history is any indication you'd better make sure you have a lot of upper/middle-class people who agree with you first.
The engine was fine, it was a square peg / round hole situation.
They picked an off-the-shelf engine that was designed to simulate tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons in 3D. Maybe they got a good deal on it.
The bird's-eye click-to-move camera mode is what the engine was designed for, but the developers kludged in some keyboard controls because they were making an action game.
The odd timing-based fighting styles sort of make sense, because the engine wanted to handle combat with dice rolls on a mostly-fixed interval.
It could have turned out a lot worse, when you consider what they were working with. I hope they keep some of the weird quirks, like the rhythm swordplay.
It's telling that some people find damaging a painting more heinous than damaging all of humanity.
(Also no works of art were actually damaged. But I still think it's important to note how much this upsets you, but general ruining of the earth doesn't seem to)
The way I think of it is that if you are already concerned about the future due to climate change etc., then you are not the target audience for this sort of action.
The whole point I take from it is that it is an attempt to raise awareness through "if you're upset about this, there's no excuse for you not to be upset about that"
If you're already in the loop on climate change and what's ahead of us - yeah, all that's left for you in this act is to be upset about the act itself.
I wish it wasn't necessary do stuff like this, but I am not at all certain anymore that it isn't.
If warning government officials does nothing,
and warning the public does nothing,
and scientists urging for action does nothing,
and presenting reports and articles does nothing,
and hanging up banners and buying ads does nothing,
and protesting in front of government buildings does nothing,
and protesting in front of "big oil" HQs does nothing,
and protesting in the streets does nothing,
and children skipping schools to protest does nothing,
and throughout all this, voting does nothing because there are still not enough people that care enough about these issues, and politicians still take steps to make things worse, what's left to do?
What's the next step?
I don't know anymore. I'm sure others feel the same way, which is why I'm not surprised desperate and hard to reason about acts like this end up happening.
Here's a midler analogy (sincerely) "I am mad the perp assaulted a woman, but the woman cried about it very loudly and that was annoying to me. I can be mad about two things at once." Being upset about a painting and putting it on the same scale of societal collapse is a great example of equivocation that cheapens the greater harm.
I think that a world with 2d of warming AND damaged paintings is clearly worse than one with 2d of warming AND NOT damaged paintings.
I see this fundamental flaw in reasoning frequently in "Activist" culture. Desiring that The Action lead to The Greater Good doesn't change the fact that, today 27 October 2022, we have a damaged painting but no policy change.
Earth is going to be destroyed by climate change anyway, nothing we can effectively do other than drastically limit the number of people born in the world, but the only way to do that would be unconsiable.
But we don't have to destroy the art, in addition to the effects of climate change.
The painting is ours; it's concrete, and something beautiful threatened by chaotic, lawless vandalism. That some vague 'humanity', or a potential threat to some distant country in some distant future is more important than that will appear obvious only to the group with the reduced set of moral foundations.
The thing is that while most people agree climate change is real, it's not clear at all what the actual damage to humanity will be. IME said hypothetical damage is hugely overblown by activists, who talk as if the end of humanity was certain.
If you're outraged by the damage of a small part of our artistic heritage, while turning a proportionately blind eye to the wholesale destruction of our natural heritage...
There's something that may be worth a moment of introspection, and a reconsideration of where you want to devote your energies.
These events are a nothingburger, if you care enough to be outraged by them, you should probably be many, many orders of magnitude more outraged by what they are protesting.
I am genuinely curious: why did the FTC take this enforcement action?
There is no fine, no prosecution, no consequences of any sort. Essentially, they're just asking the executive to "implement an information security program" at any companies they head.
This seems to send the message that there are absolutely no consequences for getting caught hiding an extremely negligent data breach. Was that the FTC's intent?
> Recognizing that reality, the Commission’s proposed order will follow Rellas even if he leaves Drizly. Specifically, Rellas will be required to implement an information security program at future companies if he moves to a business collecting consumer information
I'm not aware of any other decree following the CEO to other companies.
Interesting - as cybersecurity insurance becomes more popular, I'm curious how orders like this will affect that. Maybe there will be a new checkbox on insurance forms saying "I'm not personally sanctioned by the FTC for information security lapses"
That's an interesting thing to hang around his neck. You'd hope all companies like that (25k+ customers) already have an information security program though. Maybe Relias can take it as a selling point and has a future as an infosec CEO?
They can file for injunctive relief and issue cease and desist orders. If those orders aren't followed, they can proceed with monetary relief as well.
The FTC can do whatever congress authorizes them to do. The supreme court decided that what congress laid out in law required the FTC to file the cease and desist first, and then if that order is violated, then they can peruse further action.
Real life is hard: We are imperfect people, They are imperfect people.
How are you supposed to feed the anger center of your brain if you occasionally have to see the objects of your hatred acting all kind and neighborly around your community? It's much easier to avoid Them and only interact with those who have the internet points to prove that they are ideologically pure.