blind3rdeye

My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in.

As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable.

I find the dynamics of lichess.org vs chess.com very interesting.

They are similar in terms of features. Both have decent interfaces, puzzles, matchmaking, live viewing boards and broadcasts for tournaments, training programs, etc. But chess.com has ads, and features locked behind subscription paywalls where lichess.org does not. (Everything is free on lichess, except for the little logo next to a user's name to say they have supported the site with donations.)

But on the other hand, chess.com seems to have a higher number pro players; and probably a larger number of players overall.

I think its very interesting to think about why that is the case. Why would more people choose the version that is more expensive, but does not have more features?

I've thought of a few reasons, but I think probably the biggest effect is that chess.com has more money to splash around (because it sells ads, and asks for user subscriptions), and it uses big chunk of this money to advertise itself. eg. by sponsoring players and streamers, offering larger prizes for its own tournaments; etc.

And although I definitely think lichess is better, since it is generously supplying a high-quality product without trying to self-enrich, I do sometimes think maybe what chess.com is doing is ok too: in the sense that it is not only self-enriching, but also supporting the sport itself a bit by paying money to players, events, and commentators. Lichess does this too - but less of it, because they have less money.

(Note that chess.com also does some really crappy stuff, such as censoring any mention of lichess in the chat of their twitch broadcasts. That definitely does not help support the sport.)

I reckon this is a really good game, and it's great to see it on GOG.

Missing features always feels bad though, even if those features are not important. (The multiplayer modes are ok, but the playerbase isn't there anymore anyway. I never used snapmap at all.) But it's kind of a philosophical thing. Missing features just make it feel like a worse. But on the other hand GOG does have one cool feature compared to the previous release: DRM free. Not as visible, but perhaps more important.

(I still probably won't buy it on GOG though, because I don't love the game so much that I need a second copy.)

People don't usually interact with a hammer by talking to it. They interact by holding it, placing it, hammering with it. Respect for a hammer (or similar tool) would be based around those kinds of actions.

Whereas people do interact with a chatbot by talking to it. So then respect for a chatbot would be built around what is said.

People can show respect for a hammer, a house, a dinner prepared by their spouse, their spouse, a chatbot, etc.. but respect for each of those things will look a bit different.

Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries.

I watched one random episode of BBT after it was recommended to me by a few people. That one episode was enough for me to decide that I never want to see that show again, and also that I should disregard all recommendations from the people who said I should watch it.

I'd try this, but I don't know what address to email them at. All of the support / contact instructions are a labyrinth of automated systems, with the fallback option of using the 'community forum'. Google doesn't seem to want anyone to contact them for any reason.

I thought that too at first, which is why I tried every other available option first. But that theory is disproven by the fact that the first attempt with the number told me that the given number was not registered to the account (and so I still couldn't log in). Clearly they were comparing the entered number to something they already had.

It is possible to have multiple discussions about topics, each focusing on different topics with different levels of depth. For example, I can say "climate change is bad because it make home insurance prices go up". That's a shallow take on a narrow aspect of climate change, but it still makes a sound point. It doesn't mention larger more important problems, but it also doesn't 'hurt the cause'.

Calling Trump supporters racist harms the movement? What movement are you talking about? The MAGA movement?

I didn't get technical on you - that's kind of the point. But whatever; I was just trying to help with some context. Ignore if you like.

Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people 'females'. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people 'females' is now seen as a sign that you don't understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you've been asked not to use. Just say 'women' instead.