You're looking at this through the wrong lens. People aren't spending money trying to impress someone, they're spending money because that's what the world has become. Every single one of those that you mentioned still costs money and everything has gotten more expensive.

Edit: Plus, I believe when articles and stuff talk about this, they're specifically talking about going out to a restaurant or something similar like the movies, etc.

Third spaces have been increasingly monetized and monopolized in the past 2 or 3 decades, and CoL has added pressure on top of that. Boston is lucky because it's an old city with some great parks and avoids some of the issues that modern cities have (and that's not to mention the problems outside of cities). If you want to see what a modern US city is like, go down to the seaport - you know, the part of Boston that everybody hates that basically has nothing going on unless you're spending money. According to this article, 100 million people in the US - including 28 million children - do not have access to close-to-home parks. That's almost a third of the US who have to spend money just to touch some grass. And gas is closing in on $5 a gallon, so forget those road trips. Even the MFA is $60 for tickets for two. Burgers are about $20 each now, and drinks are even more. Just a cheap meal can run you up to $100 very quickly.

Regardless of what you're doing, if you're meeting somebody in a third space it's getting hard not to spend a fair chunk of change, and even "cheaper" options are still just that - cheaper by comparison. For every date night someone is having at home, someone else is buying $300 concert tickets.

Plus a shared interest is a great start to a potential relationship. If you have nothing in common, how can you expect to get along well with each other.

I'm not from Scotland and I haven't looked into the history of the sport, though I believe you're right that it came from Scotland, but one thing I do know is that there is not a lot of wilderness left there and the Scottish absolutely hate Trump as one of the people destroying what natural landscape they have left with his golf course.

The reason that they stop so frequently is for the ads on television/streaming.

Are you kidding me? Scotland would be cheering if they could torch the golf courses. Especially Trump's. During his last regime, somebody in the crowd of protesters threw a bag of Cheetos at him when he went to his golf course. Smacked him right in the face IIRC.

I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of people are indifferent to AI and that businesses are caught up in the hype of cheap genAI being good enough to replace specialized workers for specific fields like graphic design.

People use it for certain things that they lack skills in or don't want to spend effort on but seem to generally see a lot of it as a solution looking for a problem and resent how it's being forced into everything. Similar to the resentment towards cars moving to put everything on giant touchscreens. The last time I bought a car I was talking to the salesman about how I had no interest in the newer cars with the giant screens and he said that practically everybody that came in said the same thing and that car manufacturers are pivoting back to physical controls because nobody wants the touchscreens. Enough people would rather buy 10+ year old cars than newer models because of the lack of physical controls that it's forcing car companies to reconsider their push for touchscreens for everything.

Cell phone companies were quaking in their boots (okay, not really, but you know what I mean) over the fact that even in their own polling they were finding that 50% of users either didn't use AI features or didn't find them useful in their day to day phone usage and 30% found it actively made their user experience worse. 20% positive feedback is not a good sign for a healthy market with potential for growth.

Add in that kids are conflating AI with low-quality and false information. Literally using the term AI when they don't believe something like the way we used to use Photoshopped or "fake news," and using "slop" liberally and frequently.

Even experts in various industries seem to have a weird paradoxical opinion on AI despite being pro AI. There's been consistent polling that has shown that experts say that AI is good enough to replace people in any given field except for their field of expertise, where it's too unreliable to ever be able to do the job. It doesn't matter what the field is, the opinion is the same.

It's probably safe to say that people don't really care one way or another about AI, but dislike the companies involved in the AI bubble.

Many studies have been released recently about the rapid loss of cognitive abilities and skills due to the use of AI. It's like how driving everywhere causes your muscles to atrophy, except it's your critical thinking and reasoning skills, and it starts to happen within days or weeks of relying upon AI to do the work for you. Programmers who use AI and then stop have been found to write worse code after they stopped using AI than before they started, even for basic tasks. Reliance becomes dependence as you can no longer do the work yourself.

This meme is quite literally true.

You'd be better off calling in a drone strike. Capable of hitting the target from beyond visual range (over the horizon) with a low risk of missing due to the explosive payload, and zero chance of being heard or seen by any camera in the area.

Sarcasm aside, a gun is loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage to those around you, and the bullet will over penetrate the camera, continue to fly, and possibly hit someone downrange of the camera. Especially since cameras like that are obviously located in high traffic areas with a large number of people passing through. So under ideal conditions where you hit your target, odds are good that you will also hit a person. And in the event that you miss? Well, you most likely just shot someone. Isaac Newton is the meanest son of a bitch in space for a reason and 9mm is the preferred pistol round for the police and military because its generally larger size and smaller powder charge compared to other rounds means that it has a lower velocity and is therefore less likely to pass through a target and the wall behind them and hit somebody in an adjacent room.

By 2003, I believe EA and Microsoft had also implemented CD Keys with a limited number of uses, usually 5 or so. If they hadn't by then, it would be by 2010 at the absolute latest.

The war on secondhand sales of games and software had been going on since CD Keys themselves were introduced in the 90s, and probably in some other format in the 80s that I'm not aware of. Digital marketplaces were just the next logical step in the fight and the carrot of convenience for people to sacrifice their sense of ownership.

I think this is why Steam is well-loved today and why people say that they keep winning by doing nothing. When Steam came out, everybody hated it. You gave up ownership of your games and the online aspect was obnoxious with early 2000s internet. But they continued to add features of convenience - friends lists, achievements, stable servers for all kinds of games (like indie games), modding support and tools, the ability to download patches in the background, a user score/review system, frequent sales, etc. And now, Steam has so many features that it's become a positive feature for a game in people's minds while so much of the competition only has the lack of ownership and forcing people to download their launcher to offer.

Related:

The argument that these models learn in a way that's similar to how humans do is absolutely false, and the idea that they discard their training data and produce new content is demonstrably incorrect. These models can and do regurgitate their training data, including copyrighted characters.

And these things don't learn styles, techniques, or concepts. They effectively learn statistical averages and patterns and collage them together. I've gotten to the point where I can guess what model of image generator was used based on the same repeated mistakes that they make every time. Take a look at any generated image, and you won't be able to identify where a light source is because the shadows come from all different directions. These things don't understand the concept of a shadow or lighting, they just know that statistically lighter pixels are followed by darker pixels of the same hue and that some places have collections of lighter pixels. I recently heard about an ai that scientists had trained to identify pictures of wolves that was working with incredible accuracy. When they went in to figure out how it was identifying wolves from dogs like huskies so well, they found that it wasn't even looking at the wolves at all. 100% of the images of wolves in its training data had snowy backgrounds, so it was simply searching for concentrations of white pixels (and therefore snow) in the image to determine whether or not a picture was of wolves or not.

I saw some context for this, and the short of it is that headline writers want you to hate click on articles.

What the article is actually about is that there's tons of solar panels now but not enough infrastructure to effectively limit/store/use the power at peak production, and the extra energy in the grid can cause damage. Damage to the extent of people being without power for months.

California had a tax incentive program for solar panels, but not batteries, and because batteries are expensive, they're in a situation now where so many people put panels on their houses but no batteries to store excess power that they can't store the power when it surpasses demand, so the state is literally paying companies to run their industrial stoves and stuff just to burn off the excess power to keep the grid from being destroyed.