I loved how in Carnival if you could time it just right you could keep shooting the lowest bear in the bonus level and just keep him going back and forth like 20 times. Also the elusive diamond that would appear in a dropped apple in Mr. Do. I think I only had it happen twice ever in what seemed like thousands of games.

Pepsi Frito Lay is big enough not to care about the profits from one market globally. In Canada a couple years back they had a pricing dispute with the country’s largest grocer which resulted in all of their snack products being unavailable nationwide for that grocery chain. Pepsico increased prices during the heart of the pandemic and the grocer refused to pay the higher price so Pepsico just stopped shipping product to them. It lasted for 2 months, and in the end the dispute resolved with no benefit to the customer whatsoever. Lays, Doritos, etc. remain the highest priced chips in the store by a long shot.

You’re right, and also, fuck this timeline.

Even Media Matters admitted that the circumstances under which the antisemitic content appeared next to the named advertisers would be very hard to replicate - they basically followed only the advertisers and the antisemitic accounts to see how long it would take to link the two, but still, it’s not like they hid what they were doing. It’s not quite the gotcha that Media Matters held it out to be, but is still only a factual account - they were able to get hateful content to show up beside an advertisers name, and that’s why I’m sure X gets their ass handed to them in this lawsuit they’ve filed. It wasn’t fraudulent, or in bad faith, it was simply an exposition of what the platform can do.

That only happens when he’s learning about 'Nam.

Sadly, this may mean the days of homebrew programming for the 2600 are at an end. AtariAge is where all those programmers sold their wares, along with homebrews for other platforms like Intellivision and ColecoVision. I’ll have to head back over there for the first time in a while to see what they say about it.

But the treatment of photographs in the decision fits your description. The photographer sets up the environment that allowed the image to exist but it’s the camera that makes the image. The judge held that was protectable because the image represents the human’s mental conception of the scene. It’s not a ridiculous stretch to consider AI to be merely a camera for the prompt-writer’s mental conception. I am certain this argument has been or will be tried in court. The IP owner industry is far from done litigating this topic.

In this case that being no foster kids