Looks like a blue loaf of bread.
Zuckerbread, for all your nutritional needs*
*does not contain any nutritional value.
zucker means sugar in german, so there’s technically some nutrients there, even if we already eat way too much of it
And berg means mountain, so there’s definitely way too much!
The Big Rock Candy Mountain!
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains All the cops have wooden legs And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs The farmers’ trees are full of fruit And the barns are full of hay…
I came across this song via the opening theme for a deranged and fun little cartoon called “The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack” (or similar, can’t be arsed to go look).
I shit myself when I somehow stumbled onto the much older source one day, having heard it in cartoon form a good hundred times or so prior.
*does not contain any nutritional value.
Reminds me of this.
H.R. Giger would be horrified.
Fun fact: the xenomorph’s head actually has a human-looking skull. The original design wasn’t shy about it, but was apparently too tricky to create, so they made it sleeker. But you still can juuuuuust about make out the skull features in some shots.
I mean the lifecycle of the organism is to use the host’s DNA to reproduce, taking on some of its characteristics.
Damn, Geiger is a master of the uncomfortable
*was, unfortunately.
New zuckalien just dropped
deleted by creator
What in the AI generated hell is that monstrosity?
It’s what you get when you image search blue parasaurolophus in DuckDuckGo. I have no doubt it’s AI generated, but I also have zero digital art capability myself
Not trying to hate on you, it’s just a fucking travesty that this is what infests every corner of the internet now.
Like, why the hell is its crest a dick?
queen deltarune but we are in hell
If I was walking in a dark alley and Zuckerberg stepped out of the shadows in front of me I would shit my pants.
As we all know, we can always trust on businesses to do the right thing.
I hate meta and Google, but looking at this from a broader scale: “How the fuck are you supposed to punish anything that’s designed for entertainment, being too good at entertaining you?” Am I supposed to sue Nintendo because Super Smash Bros Melee was so good me and my friends probably spent like 2000 hours playing it? Or maybe sue the ITTF because table tennis is fun as hell and I want to play it every chance I get.
But for real. How are you supposed to impose a tangible limit on how fun or addictive something is allowed to be? Does every TV show have to end with a total resolution so you aren’t overly compelled to view the next episode? Did the first run of king of the hill need to be cancelled for being too great to not watch?
Nintendo games didn’t have live A/B testing feedback loops that continuously take metrics and adjust to maximize screen time.
No. The feedback loops were much slower. Super Smash bros: get feedback and try to improve so people want new game even more. Super Smash bros Melee: get feed back and try to improve it so people want to play it even more. Super Smash Bros Brawl: get feedback and try to improve… You get the point.
Anyhow, are you saying that you’ve decided that there’s a limit on how well entertainment manages to entertain you? Gonna make sure porn is only allowed to use missionary position, next?
Gonna make sure porn is only allowed to use missionary position, next
forgive me, for i have sinned
I think there’s a tangible difference between entertaining and addicting, with a detriment to the consumer.
If you think about something like slot machines, and gambling addiction, many people are addicted, losing money, and can’t stop:
Arguably, addiction is bad and should be regulated (see: cigarettes).
The detriment instead of money (in this particular case) was teens’ mental health, and from what I can recall, the algorithm was explicitly predatory and would serve them up advertisements for things when it detected low or turbulent emotional states, encouraging them to keep using the application and feeling shitty about themselves.
Meta was given a slap on the wrist, it’s a fine of $300M ($0.3B) on a company sitting on $217.24 billion.
I doubt they’ll change their behavior but legal outcomes are about setting precedents.
It still just can’t work as a baseline. How are you supposed to quantify “too entertaining”? It’s a ghost concept that the court is just deciding on the fly with no basis or precedent that can be set. Like, why YouTube and not Fortnite? Being too entertaining shouldn’t be a crime.
Did you read any of the articles? Its not about too entertaining, young girls were being solicited for sex, and the ads targeting them are vicious. The platform allows others to prey on young people, and facebook allowed it for profit.
This is more similar to the roblox case, it has nothing to do with how entertaining something is.
I imagine it as if lunchables started putting small amounts of nicotine in their food so chilldren get addicted and buy more.
Gambling is regulated, this isn’t new or a big deal
