Actually, this isn’t the worst idea. It can be hard to tell what kind of input device the player’s using, especially on PC. Are you using kb+m, xbox controller, psx controller, generic bargain bin controller, etc? Also you can’t just assume that because a controller’s connected the player is going to use it (and lots of games do… much to my dismay since they make me go disconnect the controller). Once the player presses at least one button you can tailor all the inputs to that thing.

The long story short is that you are being made to (by default) give up rights that you should have, particularly around class action lawsuits. It’s strictly bad for you and strictly good for the company. They probably shouldn’t be allowed to do this. Since they are, the only thing we can do to protest it is to opt-out.

Maybe you’ll never sue discord. But maybe someday there will be a lawsuit brought against discord by someone else. A few ideas for topics might include a security vulnerability that leaks personal information, the use of discord content for AI training data (e.g. copyright issues), or the safety of minors online. If you don’t opt-out, you can’t be a part of such lawsuits if they ever become relevant. This overall weakens these lawsuits and empowers companies like discord to do more shady things with less fear of repercussions.

And, since the vast majority of people will never opt-out (since you’re opted in by default) these kinds of lawsuits are weakened from the start. That’s why every company in the US is doing this forced arbitration thing. At this point, they would be crazy not to since it’s such a good thing for them and the average person doesn’t care enough about it.

Some of that is content categorization in the eyes of the all-seeing algorithm. Let’s say you upload a type of content “A” that gets big views but you’ve been uploading a type of content “B” that gets small views for a while. The youtube algorithm will aggressively try to grow content A and massively deprioritize content B, even among other channels that produce content B.

A guy I know who does youtube/twitch had to create a second channel for his content B because it would get sub-1k views when he would get tens of thousands of views on his content A. Just by uploading somewhere else he started to get higher view counts.

Exactly why that happens isn’t known, but a common theory is that youtube wants to push what it knows works. They have no real reason to give your content B a chance because they know content A will sell. And they do this even though this outcome was the result of a feedback loop.

I’m almost starting to wonder if that’s the plan. Just keep saying “IPO IPO IPO” to get funding from over-eager VCs who want a piece of the IPO before it becomes widely available.

But then you just never IPO. Keep making minor to moderate mistakes along the way so you can be all “weeeeell we would have IPO’d but insert thing here so we want to wait another 6 months to let it die down”. Repeat until you’re ready to quit, then actually IPO and ride the initial IPO high all the way down via golden parachute.

This is an old greentext from before the “AI boom” so it’s almost certainly not written by an AI. It switches from girlfriend to wife because the story is fake.