Brendinooo

Some of the tweets coming from Tomlin's kids about this have been very funny.

I remember a clip of him from a few years ago where he talked about watching some 7v7 football league on YouTube in his free time.

Dude is 100% a football junkie regardless of his time in Minecraft; I bet he's one of those people who only needs like 5 hours of sleep a night and just is obsessive about anything he touches

Just timed myself starting from where I turned off the road into the gas station: at ~3m 20s I was pulling over to get air in my tires with a full tank of gas. If I drove back to the road it would have landed right around four minutes. 13.7 gallons went in.

You never did cite btw, I see a [0] but no link. 15m might make sense in a context of a bathroom or snack break, or paying cash, or going out of your way, or filling a pickup truck. But filling up with gas is obviously way faster than recharging a battery.

I like this idea. Is it easy to pass work around between the models?

I'd love for there to be a cool, affordable electric minivan! The minivan market in the US is...well, definitely not what it was when I was younger, let's put it that way. There are really only four options right now (Pacifica, Sienna, Odyssey, Carnival) and the MSRPs on them have skyrocketed in the past five years.

15 minutes?!?

I'd be surprised if I even hit five minutes.

Do you have a source on that AAA thing?

I'd take a hard look at an electric Corolla if it's not much more expensive than the gas version

>it is comparing like for like.

Is it? Can I get an electric car recharged at a gas station in the same time it takes me to fill up a gas tank?

If yes, cool. If not, then the idea is that I wouldn't want to sit in a parking lot; I'd want to charge at home instead. And if I can't reliably charge at home instead...

Was just looking at the Buzz today - unfortunately, seems like it's already dead (and there are some insane incentives out there to move what's left).

It was too expensive!

For me it's cost. I'd have to sink a couple of grand into getting my home electric up to speed most likely, and then I'll be paying a bunch of extra money to get the car. Turns into a math problem about paying for electric now or gas over the next n years and electric usually breaks even or loses.

I'd really like something that's more oriented around subscription fees.

If I want to spend $100 on LLMs next month, what should I do? Get Claude because Opus 5.5/Fable 5.1 are scoring well? Get Grok because 4.7 is supposedly a good mix of competence and cost? Try out a Chinese model? Don't do a subscription at all like this site is saying?

Guessing that most people don't have machines powerful enough to run good-enough models locally.

It doesn't seem like there's this finished product ready to go that's just cost-prohibitive because of malicious regulation.

So at this point it's not even clear that anyone is actually losing their grip on the status quo...

Are physical goods priced solely to cover nominal real costs?

If they are, then you have an argument. If they aren't, then whatever that price is covering other than nominal real costs is being stolen in this case as well.

>because of him or in spite of him

It can be both. Good art tends to allow a measure of interpretation outside of what the artists originally intended.

Dunno how in tune you are with random factoids but Lucas is on the record saying that his favorite episode in "The Clone Wars" is "A Sunny Day in the Void", where a bunch of droids are stuck in the desert. So...yeah, there's definitely _something_ he gets out of this series that might not line up with the fanbase at large.

He also wanted to double down on the midichlorians and the Whills for the sequels, so it definitely wasn't a one-off for him.

As for me, I don't hate the idea that a spiritual quality can have a physical component to it. (Makes you think about if a parting of the Red Sea or an ax head floating are "truly supernatural" events or more "natural, with mechanisms we can't understand".) I suppose it's a bit coarse that it's used to boil mysticism down to a number for comparison, and it certainly wasn't _necessary_ to move the plot along, though.

Jar Jar is for kids; if you watch with an eight-year-old and hear her laugh at his antics it makes watching Phantom Menace all the better.

Yeah, I think that's one of the keys: the lore in the prequels is so rich (and was so thoroughly fleshed out in stuff like the Clone Wars series) that if you're just directionally on board with the plot, the worldbuilding, the characters, you can read between the lines and just see the whole thing in a better light than the actual film on screen provides for itself.

Sure, that's the point of the free market. But anywhere else in the free market, we don't say "I don't want to pay for this/deal with the inconvenience, so I'll just take it for free".

The only way people try to make this work logically is to talk about how a digital good has a nominal real cost - but that's a very different argument.

Phantom Menace is a super fun movie. Pure Star Wars. I've used it as an entry to the series for all of my kids (then I skip ahead to the OT to not ruin the twist).

I've generally found that most people who didn't like are people who were already adults when it came out, and had a different vision of what they wanted it to be.

They were better than good. I wouldn't call them masterpieces (my biggest critique is that they tried to do too much in II which messed up the pacing of Anakin's arc) but they're great films.

Yes, it's very hard for me to see your motives as being something other than pure self-interest.

Am I wrong?

Plenty of times I’ve seen a model say “it’s a classic X” despite not being a classic anything. Might just recognize it’s a test in general, or it might just be a tic.

You haven’t explicitly claimed one. If you have a motive besides wanting to see the thing without feeling like you stole something, I'd like to hear it.

Right! If the price is too high, I can decide I don't want to pay it.

It's quite a leap from that to "I personally think that an animator's salary is too high, and I have the right to benefit from the fruit of their labor, therefore it is morally acceptable for me to enjoy this film without paying anyone" or whatever.

>I do feel like I addressed your question

The point of my question was to note that, if everyone acts like pirates do, then the people who make the thing make zero dollars, which would hurt them greatly - they will be deprived of something meaningful. So the idea that piracy does not do this at all is false.

Pirates violate the terms that the creators ask in exchange for their work, and get to enjoy content at no cost to them by free-riding off of people who pay, and then try to argue that this is Actually Fine because they weren't going to pay for it anyways.

"I wouldn't pay for it anyways" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it's a bad moral code anyways: the only difference between me doing an Actually Fine thing and an Actually Bad thing is my own personal judgment about whether or not I was going to pay for it.

>if it’s more convenient to pirate it then your service is going to suffer. You have be more convenient.

So you are conceding that the service will suffer if people pirate?

Regardless, that's completely separate from the question of whether or not mild inconveniences give you the right to enjoy non-essential-for-life fruits of the labors of others without compensating them for it.

Setting aside the fact that you didn't actually answer my question: the objective answer is not "no". That's just a frame and some assumptions you'd like everyone to hold in order to justify yourself.

I bought a month of use for $100. Early impressions of Grok 4.6 was that it's good at talking about ideas (got me unstuck from a piece of writing that I was working on; that bought it a TON of goodwill) and just okay as a coding tool compared to my more extensive use of Fable and Opus. Not as smart as Fable but cheaper; not as capable as Opus 5 but way less annoying along the way. And it generates images, which Anthropic doesn't do.

Not sure if I'll hold the subscription but I could see myself working with it more.

I understand the idea of refusing service you don't like, but there's just no way that disliking a service gives you the right to rewrite terms.

I dunno man. If you're gonna benefit from the hard work of others without compensating them, so be it. It's the pretension that you're doing something other than that, for motives other than pure self-interest, which really bothers me.

They are deprived of the payment they asked for in exchange for someone viewing their work.

Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access).

Regardless, it strikes me as a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.

The motive of the pirate doesn't matter: they are deprived from the revenue that was circumvented.