The article doesn't say much. So I checked the source for more information. It doesn't say much more, but IMO in a much better way, in two concise paragraphs. In the sourced financial report, it is in the intro, two paragraphs:
An example R&D initiative, sponsored by the Innovation team was Project Ava, where a team, initially from Electric
Square Malta, attempted to create a 2D game solely using Gen AI. Over the six-month process, the team shared
their findings across the Group, highlighting where Gen AI has the potential to augment the game development
process, and where it lags behind. Whilst the project team started small, it identified over 400 tools, evaluating and
utilising those with the best potential. Despite this, we ultimately utilised bench resource from seven different game
development studios as part of the project, as the tooling was unable to replace talent.
One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and
quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative
process. As a research project, the game will not be released to the public, but has been an excellent initiative to
rapidly spread tangible learnings across the Group, provide insights to clients and it demonstrates the power and
level of cross-studio collaboration that currently exists. Alongside Project Ava, the team is undertaking a range of
Gen AI R&D projects, including around 3D assets, to ensure that we are able to provide current insights in an ever-
evolving part of the market
The central quote and conclusion being:
One of the key learnings was that whilst Gen AI may simplify or accelerate certain processes, the best results and
quality needed can only be achieved by experts in their field utilising Gen AI as a new, powerful tool in their creative
process.
Which is obvious and expected for anyone familiar with the technology. Of course, experiments and confirming expectations has value too. And I'm certain actually using tools and finding out which ones they can use where is very useful to them specifically.
Firefox, uBlock Origin, adguard DNS, sponsorblock (crowdsourced video sections with auto skip), DeArrow (crowdsourced clickbait replacement), nyancat seek/progress bar, playback speed control, Dark Reader.
Same setup on Windows desktop and my Android devices.
I've noticed videos stopping and buffering after the first few seconds, but not always, and seemingly less so again. It was acceptable to me.
Yes. I singled out Spotify because they were the driving force on the EU investigation, and are big enough to invest into it. But like you say, it's open to anyone.
I find their repeated "I'm not outing anyone", "I'm not here to out anyone" irritating, especially for evading sourcing examples. I guess it's a very evasive, non-confrontational approach. But to me, that's not necessarily a good thing. Either way sourcing isn't likely to resolve the overall systematic (Reddit- and Google-sided) issue anyway.
Of the resulting 122 URLs, 63 have a top comment with a self-promotional affiliate link. Often written months after the original thread was created.
Injecting (posting and manipulating) affiliate links is lucrative for affiliates - Reddit could resolve it by disallowing or automatically clearing affiliate links of links (URL shorteners would be a secondary concern that could be automatically handled too)
Without affiliate spam, it would or could still be lucrative for sellers and product sellers. Which is harder to resolve.
"where required by local law" - on a global platform? How is that supposed to work? When the addresses or being addressed is in such a locality? After complaints only? After prosecution or court orders?
I guess it's more a disclosure of what can happen than it is a terms of use or moderation guideline.
Multiple hundreds is considerable to me and beyond "hobby". It doesn't have to be a full time job or fairly compensated to be more than a hobby.
1.5 k has to be considered in my eyes. It's not negligible or marginal as donations. (Note I labeled donations considerable, not their income - which I don't know. My point was that it's worth mentioning.)
Even though the Commission has fined the company concerned, damages may be awarded by national courts without being reduced on account of the Commission fine.
So if/after Apple's appeal is declined, Spotify - the driving force of this EU investigation - can sue Apple for damages with additional cost to Apple.
Under the App Store’s reader rule, Spotify can also include a link in their app to a webpage where users can create or manage an account.
Instead, Spotify wants to bend the rules in their favor by embedding subscription prices in their app without using the App Store’s In-App Purchase system.
I'm confused now. What is a "reader app"?
Spotify wants to make subscriptions an app functionality and Apple restricts that to it's own payment system - and the alternative they provide is external websites?
Why the heck is it called a "reader rule" and "reader app"?
Before the Reddit migration, our income was almost exclusively made up of generous donations from the NLnet foundation. This funding was based on getting paid for implementing new features, specified in advance.
I didn’t know reddit gave out the personal details of their users, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
You make it sound like they have a choice, or do so freely and willingly.
The article is clear on that they don't freely share without assessment though:
Reddit wasn’t willing to go along with the request, at least not in full. The company objected, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate its users’ right to anonymous speech.
Recent legal activity shows that Reddit doesn’t intend to automatically comply with all user information requests.
You quoted the wrong/other comment