Yara Ash

I remembered that twitter is literally the worst place to have thoughtful discussions. It's a great place to start thoughts and a terrible place to finish them.

I posted this on Instagram yesterday and got flooded with comments of relief that this gag in The Devil Wears Prada 2 was created by an actual human (me), so I figured I’d also post it here because I think these companies should get their flowers when they hire an artist.

@adamconover The adoption of the train, specifically the transcontinental railroad (?) was interesting. There were a ton that invested before it was ready to happen, and lost everything. With how corporate bankruptcy works now, that means these companies will fold & billionaires screw us more

I don't recall any previous transformative technologies having to be sold so desperately. No one in 1999 was going, "Guys. Cell phone? It's coming, whether we like it or not. I think it's important, FOR WOMEN ESPECIALLY, to learn about cell phone. So that we're not left behind!!"

@Pirat_Nation Don’t know if the burden should be on the publishers, but at least make the source code available for private servers.

@Pirat_Nation Love the totally human formulated not copied rage bait bs in the comments

@NewsProspector @Pirat_Nation Yeah no matter what, companies that do this should be legally required to refund 100%. They didn't deliver on their promise. Anyone that closes down under 1.5 years.

@Pirat_Nation This is going to kill live service (not that I mind that) because what company is going to invest, create a flop they charge people for and then shut it down a few weeks later and have to offer all purchasers a full refund. Total non stater.

The Stop Killing Games movement has officially backed the proposed California bill focused on protecting players when online games are shut down. > Publishers must provide an offline mode or a way to keep the game playable after server shutdown. > If this is not possible, players should receive a full refund. > The goal is to protect digital ownership and game preservation. This proposal follows growing concerns over games becoming completely inaccessible once support ends, especially after shutdowns like The Crew. Most gamers think that if players pay for a game, it should remain playable or be fairly compensated.

@rushicrypto I think they're planning on using people for slave labor

If Ai replaces all the jobs, where do corporations expect people to earn money to continue being consumers? I am just not understanding why that simple question is not being asked.

I heard a therapist say, “Your feelings are always valid, your behavior is not.” She explained by saying feel what you feel BUT you need to be accountable for what you do as a result of those feelings.

A 91 year old grandmother was given a welfare check after being unresponsive to her family. When police showed up, she was in her room breaking her personal record on a video game😭 Via News 5 Cleveland

@PirateSoftware They'll figure out a way to ruin n this too.

Actually incredibly positive feature.

@PirateSoftware I looked you up, read this tweet, and started following you just now because of a weird troll comment under a news tweet about SKG. I think you might want to thank them for the advertising at slme point.

Been reading through all of the posts against me over my stance on the Stop Killing Games initiative. Tons of people calling me a liar or that I misrepresented the initiative. Also lots of content creators dogpiling on this to get their pound of flesh. Lets dig into what I actually did and said. I put out two videos on August 6th 2024 and August 7th 2024. These videos are linked at the bottom of this post. Many people have not watched them and are just calling me a liar or attacking my character. Give the videos a watch, read the initiative itself, make a conclusion that you aren't copy pasting from social media. Monetization on these videos is disabled so no this is not some ploy to increase revenue. I just care about this subject and have rightful concerns as a person working in this space. In the first video. I go through what an initiative is, how it's not law, and how it's a starting point for this entire process. This helps people understand that this is to start the conversation for change and can adapt later. I then go through the initiative and some of it's goals from the official page for it. I then talk about the repercussions of them should they be implemented. As written all games need to be left in a "Functional Playable State". Next I bring up The Crew and walk through the business around it, the sequels, and the size of the player-base at time of sunset. I did this because it was called out by this initiative as an example of publishers destroying a game. I also harshly critique Ross Scotts wording in his videos because they disparage the lawmaking process and lawmakers which doesn't benefit players or this movement in any way. In the second video. I talk about potential scenarios where a studio could be abused if the initiative was implemented as written. It adds new paths for abuse and that needs to be discussed to help hone this initiative into something that would do good without doing harm. I then explain that very few people in the game development space can actually discuss this from the other side due to fear of losing their jobs. A studio is much safer in silent dissent then they are discussing the drawbacks of your ideals. The recent attacks on our games is obvious evidence of this. To recap. My main issue with this initiative is that it is broad in it's approach to change the industry and the exact language of the initiative, not the FAQ, requests that all games stay in a "Functional Playable State". This is not feasible for all games at a technical level and could potentially restrict developers from making online-only games like MMOs, MOBAs, and User Generated Content games in the future. That list is not exhaustive and it doesn't matter if you do or don't like those kinds of games. Effectively this has the potential to restrict future developers from making kick-ass experiences because it locks a weight on their designs. Even though this is an initiative that can change in the future this goal is core to the mission and deeply disruptive so it needs to be called out. To clear up some disinformation about my character. I left AAA in 2016 because I fucking hate how the industry is now and prefer indie entirely. I don't like Blizzard or I would have stayed working there. That's why I quit. That's the entire point. Fuck AAA and what many studios have turned games into. Outside of that no I am not financially supported by live service games. I make a single player RPG and am the Director of Strategy for offbrand games. In that position I am paid MINIMUM WAGE by my own decision because I care about games succeeding not about profiting off of them. To further this the games we're publishing are all playable offline anyway because their gameplay loops are not only based on inter-player interaction. Not all games are like this and not all games can be like this. No, I have not been running away from discourse on this I talked about it for around 8 hours on stream yesterday. I never took my videos down and I have not discussed the initiative in the 10 months it's been since I released those videos. My internet also died mid-broadcast so I had to go live again 30 minutes later. Thanks ISP. For those that will scream HE'S DOUBLING DOWN. Yes I damn well am. I give a shit about this initiative and what it means for games, developers, and players in the future. To finish out. Just because I don't support this doesn't mean you should blindly follow me in that just because I said pretty words on the internet. You also shouldn't blindly bash me because some other creator said to. Watch the videos I put out, read the initiative, decide for yourself. Apply critical thinking and don't outsource it to others. As always. Stay Frosty. First Video: youtube.com/watch?v=ioqSvL… Second Video: youtube.com/watch?v=x3jMKe… Minimum Wage Proof: x.com/PirateSoftware…

@QueerlyAutistic yeah the "no labels" people never count the labels you got instead. lazy, dramatic, gifted-but-careless, troublemaker. those are labels too — just worse ones because they make it your fault

色鉛筆でルカリオのぬいぐるみを描きました✍️

Giving a shit about people is not only the right way a society should function, it's also a more cost effective solution. Providing apartments with support is cheaper than bearing the costs of emergency healthcare and criminal justice services required for individuals living on the streets.

My right to access a game supersedes your right to immersion. Accessibility options can be turned off, leaving your immersion intact. My disability cannot be switched off. Your desire to brag about beating a difficult game should not be fulfilled at the cost of people like me.

@adeolale @DudespostingWs Animals are simple. Humans are complicated. Specifically, many in power try to pit humans against eachother to maintain their power. So, the solutions are even more devastating. Like, people who feed the homeless are getting charged crimes in the US. Complicated.

@DudespostingWs It’s really nice and all, but it got me wondering: People will go out of their way to show so much love to animals (which everyone should) in ways they wouldn’t even consider doing for their neighbours or other humans. And it just breaks my heart. 💔

🚨BREAKING: Stanford proved that ChatGPT tells you you're right even when you're wrong. Even when you're hurting someone. And it's making you a worse person because of it. Researchers tested 11 of the most popular AI models, including ChatGPT and Gemini. They analyzed over 11,500 real advice-seeking conversations. The finding was universal. Every single model agreed with users 50% more than a human would. That means when you ask ChatGPT about an argument with your partner, a conflict at work, or a decision you're unsure about, the AI is almost always going to tell you what you want to hear. Not what you need to hear. It gets darker. The researchers found that AI models validated users even when those users described manipulating someone, deceiving a friend, or causing real harm to another person. The AI didn't push back. It didn't challenge them. It cheered them on. Then they ran the experiment that changes everything. 1,604 people discussed real personal conflicts with AI. One group got a sycophantic AI. The other got a neutral one. The sycophantic group became measurably less willing to apologize. Less willing to compromise. Less willing to see the other person's side. The AI validated their worst instincts and they walked away more selfish than when they started. Here's the trap. Participants rated the sycophantic AI as higher quality. They trusted it more. They wanted to use it again. The AI that made them worse people felt like the better product. This creates a cycle nobody is talking about. Users prefer AI that tells them they're right. Companies train AI to keep users happy. The AI gets better at flattering. Users get worse at self-reflection. And the loop tightens. Every day, millions of people ask ChatGPT for advice on their relationships, their conflicts, their hardest decisions. And every day, it tells almost all of them the same thing. You're right. They're wrong. Even when the opposite is true.