WotC Hasbro CEO optimistic about AI in D&D and MTG’s future

[Cadence]

With regard to rising sea levels, the latest sober science (2023) establishes that the global sea level is rising about 1 inch every 8 years.

This is from NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). NOAA is responsible for the lives of millions of people, in the context of hurricanes and so on. It must neither underestimate the risk to life, nor indulge exaggerations that disrupt the livelihood of millions.

This amount of rising sea level is concerning because of regional complications, such as lack of drainage whence storm floods.

However, 1 inch per 8 years is a far cry from the very many alarmist predictions about rising sea levels made in previous years that have now been demonstrated to be false.

If you are good with NOAA, this is from the first NOAA (2022) report that came up for me on sea level rise:

"Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height."

11/30 is almost there times greater than 1/8. My guess is that somewhere else the NOAA folks predict the rate to increase as we pass 2050. (Something, something glaciers or whatnot).

2022 Technical Report | Resources – U.S. Sea Level Change

The Sea Level Rise Technical Report is a multi-agency effort providing the most up-to-date sea level rise projections available for all U.S. states and territories out to the year 2150.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

 

[Oofta]

If you are good with NOAA, this is from the first NOAA (2022) report that came up for me on sea level rise:

"Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height."

11/30 is almost there times greater than 1/8. My guess is that somewhere else the NOAA folks predict the rate to increase as we pass 2050. (Something, something glaciers or whatnot).

2022 Technical Report | Resources – U.S. Sea Level Change

The Sea Level Rise Technical Report is a multi-agency effort providing the most up-to-date sea level rise projections available for all U.S. states and territories out to the year 2150.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

There are several trigger events that could raise sea levels much more rapidly than that. If* the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica collapses it could raise sea levels several feet. Not to mention the fresh water from glaciers melting in Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic current which would cause major changes as we would no longer have the warm waters from the equators circulating north. It's bad enough that here in Minnesota we only had 1 week of real winter weather because of El Nino, if the Atlantic current collapses the impact will be huge.

*Actually it's when at this point unless we can dramatically reverse global warming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Feels to me like - No, not every one does. No, it is not ok if few or none do.

I can certainly see folks reading things into the motivations of someone who always uses the former to disclaim concern about the later.

Does that mean you can appreciate diversity in creative works, but not need it in every creative work? Because that's literally all I'm asking for.

 

[Mistwell]

We already have that tool. It's called "the internet."

When I google "Who is the god of Shadows in the Greyhawk setting?"--yes, in plain English--I get numerous links to sites made and maintained by humans, and then when I'm in those sites, a control-F will take me directly to her entry, or to other entries that have words like "shadows" or "darkness" in them. The only benefit of AI here is that you don't have to control-F.

No, that's not the Internet. The Internet gives me 5000 links and I need to figure out which one has the right answer. And then there is the issue of a page of paid ads on Google these days before I get to the right link. Then I need to find on the page where the answer is. Instead, this tool just answers the question directly having summarized a search it already did in half a second.

 

[ECMO3]

no, it is the opposite, it is an argument to not accumulate even more wealth in the hands of a few people.

AI benefits the masses, it is the few that want to get money that are against it.

Take AI art for example, it is cheap and will make art much more available to a larger number of people for less money.

If cars can drive themselves, Mr Uber gets all the money and the drivers are out of a job, and so forth.

Exactly, the human drivers don't want to give up their money so the rest of the 99% of the population can pay less for a ride.

Mr. Uber will get drivers money, but a far smaller sum for that ride than people pay now. Most of the population will have more in their purse after taking that uber ride.

 

[Mistwell]

I've heard it directly from folks at CalFire, who tend to be politically conservative but also the first line when dealing with wildfires.

Our wet winter is likely going to lead to a summer full of very dry scrub, ripe for wildfires.

I don't care if you heard from the Pope I just linked you to the official California department that tracks ALL fires here with proof you're incorrect for the past two years. And drought conditions contribute to the fires, which is why global warming is a cause, and we're NO LONGER IN A DOUGHT for the first time in forever. Which will be meaningful for the fires.

It's not OK to spread the false rumor that California is experiencing a 9 month long fire season right now. It's so easily disproved that people then doubt the reason you made the comment, which was to support the concern with global warming. I too believe in global warming and nothing causes people on the fence to flip to being an outright doubter like providing them with false support that they quickly disprove. And so they then doubt everything else you're saying about the topic.

California is not experiencing an unusual number or severity of fires so far this year or last year. The year before THAT was the last terrible year. We've had an unusual amount of rain, and that has dropped the number of fires and severity, and that's the truth.

This is the current drought map. I don't think I've EVER seen it this free of drought. A couple years ago this map was mostly red:

 

[Cadence]

There are several trigger events that could raise sea levels much more rapidly than that. If* the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica collapses it could raise sea levels several feet. Not to mention the fresh water from glaciers melting in Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic current which would cause major changes as we would no longer have the warm waters from the equators circulating north. It's bad enough that here in Minnesota we only had 1 week of real winter weather because of El Nino, if the Atlantic current collapses the impact will be huge.

*Actually it's when at this point unless we can dramatically reverse global warming.

Looking things up for a post apocalyptic game, I think this is my backyard if all the glaciers and Antarctica go (and yet my house is somehow standing). 10' above the beach with relatively steep slope to wash away wouldn't be very encouraging about it lasting long. And that's about 110 miles in from the coast.

 

[mamba]

However, 1 inch per 8 years is a far cry from the very many alarmist predictions about rising sea levels made in previous years that have now been demonstrated to be false.

rising sea levels might be one of the least important consequences of climate change, yet you only ever focus on that one

 

[Cadence]

Does that mean you can appreciate diversity in creative works, but not need it in every creative work? Because that's literally all I'm asking for.

I thought I answered? Does this do it?

Not every work needs it. If one uses that to look at every single work individually and so ends up being de facto fine that few or none have any then that seems atrocious on their and the communities part.

 

[mamba]

Exactly, the human drivers don't want to give up their money so the rest of the 99% of the population can pay less for a ride.

you are so close to understanding this, your problem is you see the Uber drivers as an isolated singular case when they will be close to the norm