It’s anec­do­tal, I know, but my main en­ter­tain­ment busi­ness rev­enue is down 50% over the past 3 months. Our main paid source of leads was Google Ads, which have served us well over the past 10 years or so — I think I know what I am do­ing in ad­words by now.

Once per month I check the an­a­lyt­ics, up­dat­ing key­words and tweak­ing ad cam­paigns. Over the past year we in­creased our bud­get, and then I started look­ing at it once per week, run­ning si­mul­ta­ne­ous cam­paigns with dif­fer­ent set­tings, just try­ing to get SOMETHING.

Last month Google gave us a bonus — free money! This was 5x our monthly ad spend, to spend just when we needed it most — over the December hol­i­days. I added an­other new cam­paign, up­dated the bud­gets for the ex­ist­ing ones. Still no change. The last week there was money to burn, left over from un­used ad spend. I in­creased our bud­get to 10x. ZERO RETURN.

The money ran out. I am not putting more in. Where do we go from here?

Research shows that many young peo­ple are get­ting their in­for­ma­tion from short video plat­forms like TikTok and Instagram. We are try­ing ads on there.

Our cus­tomer base is com­prised of 50% re­turn­ing cus­tomers (I am proud of that sta­tis­tic!). We have an email newslet­ter, we started send­ing them reg­u­larly over the past 2 months. Remember us?

We also plan to do some ac­tual phys­i­cal ad­ver­tis­ing — I am go­ing to a mar­ket next week­end, do­ing a free show or two, hand­ing out cards.

Also, we are branch­ing out — I have some pro­jects I want to make, re­lated to the Magic Poi pro­ject, and hope­fully sell. We or­dered sup­plies last week.

Right now, though — I’m broke. Anyone need a web­site or IOT pro­ject built? I am AI as­sisted, very fast!

At Netflix, we are al­ways ex­plor­ing ways to make our con­tent look and sound even bet­ter. To pro­vide a com­mon ref­er­ence for pro­to­typ­ing bleed­ing-edge tech­nolo­gies within en­ter­tain­ment, tech­nol­ogy and aca­d­e­mic cir­cles with­out com­pro­mis­ing the se­cu­rity of our orig­i­nal and li­censed pro­gram­ming, we’ve de­vel­oped test ti­tles ori­ented around doc­u­men­tary, live ac­tion, and an­i­ma­tion.

Many open source as­sets are avail­able from each pro­ject listed be­low. Our hope is this will en­cour­age more ex­per­i­men­ta­tion, learn­ing, and dis­cov­ery that will ben­e­fit the whole in­dus­try. Many of these ti­tles are also stream­ing on Netflix and are best en­joyed with any HDR con­fig­ured de­vice with your Premium sub­scrip­tion.

You can down­load sin­gle files di­rectly through your web browser, but for large files and long frame se­quences, you may wish to use com­mand line tools. Guidance is in­cluded be­low. Ad Blockers may cause er­rors in your down­load­ing process, so try turn­ing it off if you have is­sues.

Our open source con­tent is avail­able un­der the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.

I’ve been a com­puter pro­gram­mer all-told for 43 years. That’s more than half the en­tire his­tory of elec­tronic pro­gram­ma­ble com­put­ers.

In that time, I’ve seen a lot of things change. But I’ve also seen some things stay pretty much ex­actly the same.

I’ve lived through sev­eral cy­cles of tech­nol­ogy that, at the time, was hailed as the “end of com­puter pro­gram­mers”.

WYSIWYG, drag-and-drop ed­i­tors like Visual Basic and Delphi were go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers.

Wizards and macros in Microsoft Office were go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers.

Executable UML was go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers.

No-Code and Low-Code plat­forms were go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers.

And now, Large Language Models are, I read on a daily ba­sis, go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers.

These cy­cles are noth­ing new. In the 1970s and 1980s, 4GLs and 5GLs were touted as the end of pro­gram­mers.

And be­fore them, 3GLs like Fortran and COBOL.

And be­fore them, com­pil­ers like A-0 were go­ing to end the need for pro­gram­mers who in­structed com­put­ers in bi­nary by lit­er­ally punch­ing holes in cards.

But it goes back even fur­ther, if we con­sider the ear­li­est (classified) be­gin­ning of elec­tronic pro­gram­ma­ble com­put­ers. The first of them, COLOSSUS, was pro­grammed by phys­i­cally rewiring it.

Perhaps the en­gi­neers who worked on that ma­chine sneered at the peo­ple work­ing on the first stored-pro­gram com­put­ers for not be­ing “real pro­gram­mers”.

In every cy­cle, the pre­dic­tions have turned out to be very, very wrong. The end re­sult has­n’t been fewer pro­gram­mers, but more pro­grams and more pro­gram­mers. It’s a $1.5 tril­lion-a-year ex­am­ple of Jevons Paradox.

And here we are again, in an­other cy­cle.

Yes, it cer­tainly is. Different in scale to pre­vi­ous cy­cles. I don’t re­call see­ing the claims about Visual Basic or Executable UML on the cov­ers of na­tional news­pa­pers. I don’t re­call see­ing en­tire economies bet­ting on 4GLs.

And there’s an­other im­por­tant dis­tinc­tion: in pre­vi­ous cy­cles, the tech­nol­ogy worked re­li­ably. We re­ally could pro­duce work­ing soft­ware faster with VB or with Microsoft Access. This is prov­ing not to be the case with LLMs, which — for the ma­jor­ity of teams — ac­tu­ally slow them down while mak­ing the soft­ware less re­li­able and less main­tain­able. It’s a kind of LOSE-LOSE in most cases. (Unless those teams have ad­dressed the real bot­tle­necks in their de­vel­op­ment process.)

But all of this is aca­d­e­mic. Even if the tech­nol­ogy gen­uinely made a pos­i­tive dif­fer­ence for more teams, it still would­n’t mean that we don’t need pro­gram­mers any­more.

The hard part of com­puter pro­gram­ming is­n’t ex­press­ing what we want the ma­chine to do in code. The hard part is turn­ing hu­man think­ing — with all its wooli­ness and am­bi­gu­ity and con­tra­dic­tions — into com­pu­ta­tional think­ing that is log­i­cally pre­cise and un­am­bigu­ous, and that can then be ex­pressed for­mally in the syn­tax of a pro­gram­ming lan­guage.

That was the hard part when pro­gram­mers were punch­ing holes in cards. It was the hard part when they were typ­ing COBOL code. It was the hard part when they were bring­ing Visual Basic GUIs to life (presumably to track the killer’s IP ad­dress). And it’s the hard part when they’re prompt­ing lan­guage mod­els to pre­dict plau­si­ble-look­ing Python.

The hard part has al­ways been — and likely will con­tinue to be for many years to come — know­ing ex­actly what to ask for.

Edgar Dijkstra called it nearly 50 years ago: we will never be pro­gram­ming in English, or French, or Spanish. Natural lan­guages have not evolved to be pre­cise enough and un­am­bigu­ous enough. Semantic am­bi­gu­ity and lan­guage en­tropy will al­ways de­feat this am­bi­tion.

And while pretty much any­body can learn to think that way, not every­body’s go­ing to en­joy it, and not every­body’s go­ing to be good at it. The de­mand for peo­ple who do and peo­ple who are will al­ways out­strip sup­ply.

Especially if busi­nesses stop hir­ing and train­ing them for a few years, like they re­cently have. But these boom-and-bust cy­cles have also been a reg­u­lar fea­ture dur­ing my ca­reer. This one just hap­pens to co­in­cide with a tech­nol­ogy hype cy­cle that pre­sents a con­ve­nient ex­cuse.

There’s no cred­i­ble ev­i­dence that “AI” is re­plac­ing soft­ware de­vel­op­ers in sig­nif­i­cant num­bers. A com­bi­na­tion of over-hir­ing dur­ing the pan­demic, rises in bor­row­ing costs, and a data cen­tre gold rush that’s di­vert­ing mas­sive funds away from head­count, are do­ing the heavy lift­ing here.

And there’s no rea­son to be­lieve that “AI” is go­ing to evolve to the point where it can do what hu­man pro­gram­mers have to do — un­der­stand, rea­son and learn — any­time soon. AGI seem as far away as it’s al­ways been, and the hard part of com­puter pro­gram­ming re­ally does re­quire gen­eral in­tel­li­gence.

On top of all that, “AI” cod­ing as­sis­tants are re­ally noth­ing like the com­pil­ers and code gen­er­a­tors of pre­vi­ous cy­cles. The ex­act same prompt is very un­likely to pro­duce the ex­act same com­puter pro­gram. And the code that gets gen­er­ated is pretty much guar­an­teed to have is­sues that a real pro­gram­mer will need to be able to recog­nise and ad­dress.

When I write code, I’m ex­e­cut­ing it in my head. My in­ter­nal model of a pro­gram is­n’t just syn­tac­tic, like an LLM’s is. I’m not just match­ing pat­terns and pre­dict­ing to­kens to pro­duce sta­tis­ti­cally plau­si­ble code. I ac­tu­ally un­der­stand the code.

Even the C-suite has no­ticed the cor­re­la­tion of ma­jor out­ages and in­ci­dents pro­ceed­ing grand claims about how much of that com­pa­ny’s code is “AI”-generated.

The folly of many peo­ple now claim­ing that “prompts are the new source code”, and even that en­tire work­ing sys­tems can be re­gen­er­ated from the orig­i­nal model in­puts, will be re­vealed to be the non­sense that it is. The prob­lem with get­ting into a de­bate with re­al­ity is that re­al­ity al­ways wins. (And does­n’t even re­alise it’s in a de­bate.)

So, no, “AI” is­n’t the end of pro­gram­mers. I’m not even sure, 1-3 years from now, that this cur­rent ma­nia won’t have just burned it­self out, as the bean coun­ters tot up the fi­nal scores. And they al­ways win.

To folks who say this tech­nol­ogy is­n’t go­ing any­where, I would re­mind them of just how ex­pen­sive these mod­els are to build and what mas­sive losses they’re in­cur­ring. Yes, you could carry on us­ing your lo­cal in­stance of some small model dis­tilled from a hy­per-scale model trained to­day. But as the years roll by, you may find not be­ing able to move on from the pro­gram­ming lan­guage and li­brary ver­sions it was trained on a tad con­strain­ing.

For this rea­son, I’m skep­ti­cal that hy­per-scale LLMs have a vi­able long-term fu­ture. They are the Apollo Moon mis­sions of “AI”. In the end, quite prob­a­bly just not worth it. Maybe we’ll get to visit them in the mu­se­ums their data cen­tres might be­come?

The fore­see­able fu­ture of soft­ware de­vel­op­ment is one where per­haps “AI” — in a much more mod­est form (e.g., a Java cod­ing as­sis­tant built atop a ba­sic lan­guage model) — is used to gen­er­ate pro­to­types, and maybe for in­line com­ple­tion on pro­duc­tion code and those sorts of mi­nor things.

But, when it mat­ters, there will be a soft­ware de­vel­oper at the wheel. And, if Jevons is to be be­lieved, prob­a­bly even more of us.

Employers, if I were you, I might start hir­ing now to beat the stam­pede when every­one wakes up from this fever dream.

And then maybe drop me a line if you’re in­ter­ested in skilling them up in the tech­ni­cal prac­tices that can dra­mat­i­cally shrink de­liv­ery lead times while im­prov­ing re­li­a­bil­ity and re­duc­ing the cost of change, with or with­out “AI”. That’s a WIN-WIN-WIN.

Stranger Things cre­ator Ross Duffer of­fered a piece of ad­vice to view­ers who plan on watch­ing the sea­son 5 pre­miere.

On Instagram, Duffer guided fans through their TV set­tings so they could watch the new sea­son of Stranger Things the way it was meant to be seen. He stated, “A lit­tle PSA be­fore you watch tonight. I want to make sure that your TVs are set up prop­erly.” He pro­ceeded to tell his fol­low­ers to turn off all their set­tings, es­pe­cially dy­namic con­trast, su­per res­o­lu­tion, edge en­hancer, and color fil­ter. He even de­scribed those fea­tures as “garbage.”

The Stranger Things cre­ator then re­turns to the pic­ture set­tings menu, point­ing out that view­ers should dis­able noise re­duc­tion, too. He also said that true­mo­tion and smooth­mo­tion are the biggest “offenders” and should be turned off most of all be­cause they cause “the dreaded soap opera ef­fect.”

He ex­plains that most tele­vi­sions will fix many of these prob­lems if you switch to their ad­vanced view­ing pre­sets, such as Dolby Vision Movie Dark. However, even those modes aren’t per­fect. He urges fans to man­u­ally con­firm each set­ting is off and adds, “Whatever you do, do not switch any­thing on ‘vivid’ be­cause it’s gonna turn on all the worst of­fend­ers. It’s gonna de­stroy the color, and it’s not the film­mak­er’s in­tent.”

Duffer’s ad­vice high­lights a con­flict be­tween tech­no­log­i­cal ad­vances and cre­ators’ goals. Features like the ones he men­tioned are de­signed to ap­peal to ca­sual view­ers by mak­ing im­ages ap­pear sharper or more col­or­ful, but they al­ter the orig­i­nal look of the con­tent. By ask­ing fans to turn these fea­tures off, he is stress­ing the im­por­tance of pre­serv­ing the di­rec­tor’s vi­sion.

Dive into the world of movies and TV shows with Screen Rant, your source for news, re­views, and ex­clu­sive con­tent.

Dive into the world of movies and TV shows with Screen Rant, your source for news, re­views, and ex­clu­sive con­tent.

By sub­scrib­ing, you agree to re­ceive newslet­ter and mar­ket­ing emails, and ac­cept Valnet’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . You can un­sub­scribe any­time.

Stranger Things sea­son 5, vol­ume 1, is avail­able to stream now on Netflix. Volume 2 will be re­leased on December 25, 2025, and the fi­nale on December 31, 2025.

Eleven look­ing into an open­ing of the Upside Down with pink light in Stranger Things sea­son 1Eleven with ca­bles all over her head in Stranger Things sea­son 4Vecna look­ing to­wards Will in the trailer for Stranger Things sea­son 5 (2025)The Upside Down in Stranger Things sea­son 5

Bye Bye Big Tech: How I Migrated to an al­most All-EU Stack (and saved 500€ per year)“Bye bye bye.” It took some time, and a se­ri­ous amount of re­search, but I have fi­nally crossed the fin­ish line. I have of­fi­cially mi­grated my dig­i­tal life to pure, EU-hosted so­lu­tions. For a long time, the nar­ra­tive has been that if you want pri­vacy and data sov­er­eignty, you have to sac­ri­fice us­abil­ity. But af­ter set­tling into this new stack, I’ve re­al­ized that is­n’t true any­more. In fact, most of these tools aren’t just more pri­vate; they are sig­nif­i­cantly bet­ter than the US-based gi­ants I left be­hind.Here is a break­down of the tools I’m us­ing, the money I’m sav­ing, and the few hur­dles I’m still try­ing to jump over.by the way, this post is for per­sonal se­tups not for com­pa­nies. Yet, I think most tools can be used for teams and com­pa­nies too.The biggest im­pact on this mi­gra­tion has come from Proton. They have ma­tured from a sim­ple en­crypted email provider into a (almost) full-suite pro­duc­tiv­ity pow­er­house.be­fore we con­tinue, yes Proton is not in the EU, but the Swiss data pro­tec­tion is aligned with EU re­quire­ments, are on some cases even stronger and im­plicit, while on oth­ers be­ing more open and flex­i­ble to the end user provider… Drive: Secure cloud stor­age, hav­ing docs for a while, and now also ta­bles.Stan­dard Notes: My go-to for note-tak­ing, now un­der the Proton um­brella.Lumo AI: A pri­vacy-first GenAI, I’m not yet fre­quently us­ing it, but we will talk about it later.Every­thing is in­te­grated and the user ex­pe­ri­ence is su­perb. I’m also ea­gerly await­ing the re­lease of Proton Meet to com­plete the suite.This en­tire setup re­places for me my Google Drive and Gmail ecosys­tem. Plus NordVPN, Notion, 1Password and Authenticator. Curious? I will drop you my re­fer­ral link here.AI is the hard­est thing to de­cou­ple from Big Tech, but im­prove­ments are hap­pen­ing fast here, too.For pri­vacy-first GenAI tasks within my work­flow, I’m us­ing Lumo AI. It’s great for quick, pri­vate queries.How­ever, some­times you need raw power. For that, I started us­ing Mammouth. I use this less for pri­vacy rea­sons and more for the sheer value and flex­i­bil­ity. Getting ac­cess to every ma­jor AI model (including im­age gen­er­a­tion) for just €10 is in­cred­i­ble value.My de­fault for Mammouth looks like this. You can sort them in your favourite or­der; what­ever is left­most is your de­fault one. The two mod­els I use most are Mistral Medium 3.1 and Flux 2 Pro or Fast. For sim­ple cod­ing tasks, I also use Mistral, but when play­ing around with a larger code­base, I have to ad­mit I’m us­ing Claude Code.For re­search, Mistral does its job. But if it be­comes com­plex, I of­ten find Gemini’s re­sults to be the best.At last, Flux for im­ages is fan­tas­tic. Yet, in my opin­ion, it comes with a ma­jor down­side: You have to give a lot of good in­struc­tions. Where a Nano Banana seems more cre­ative, even from short, sim­ple in­puts, Flux needs pre­cise or­ders.Search: My de­fault is Ecosia. It works well, and plant­ing trees while search­ing adds a nice layer of pur­pose to mind­less scrolling. Yet, every now and then I have to use Google :/Translation: I’ve been us­ing DeepL for­ever. In my opin­ion, it is still miles ahead of Google Translate in terms of nu­ance and qual­ity.Spell Check: … Haven’t found a good al­ter­na­tive, so I stay with Grammarly. Hoping for them to re­turn to Europe with their Superhuman Platform.For my web­site and do­mains, I moved every­thing to Scaleway.If you are tech­ni­cal, you will ap­pre­ci­ate this switch. It is lean, sim­ple, and pro­vides every­thing you need as a cloud provider with­out the bloat of AWS or Azure. Plus, it’s cheaper.Canva… what shall I say. Thanks to the ini­tial dis­cus­sion I had on LinkedIn (original post), I found Superlist, to which I tran­si­tioned from Todoist. I also had a mini stop at MeisterTask, but that was a com­plete waste of time. MeisterTaks feels like a kinder­garten play­ground, too much col­or­ful de­sign and too lit­tle ac­tual func­tion­al­ity. It is 100% not user-in­tu­itive for any work­flow.So, I’m now on Superlist, and very happy with it.The Economics: Privacy is Actually CheaperWe of­ten as­sume that “boutique” pri­vacy tools cost a pre­mium. Surprisingly, my mi­gra­tion proved the op­po­site. Initially, I wrote only about a small sav­ing, but I missed the costs of Notion, Todoist, 1 Password, Claude and Canva as I fo­cused on the “Office” suite.My Old Stack cost ca. 83€ per mon­thMy New EU Stack cost ca. 39€ per mon­thI’m sav­ing over 528 € a year while own­ing most of my data.Where There is Light, There is ShadowI want to be trans­par­ent: you can­not es­cape every­thing, and some things are just harder to use.The “Guilty Pleasure”: As a techie, I have too much fun play­ing with Claude Code. It’s a lux­ury I treat my­self to, so I fre­quently turn the sub­scrip­tion on. Yet, if you don’t have that use case → Mistral, LumoThe Social Web: You sim­ply can’t get around LinkedIn, GitHub, YouTube, Medium, Substack and so on if you want to stay con­nected.Con­ve­nience: I miss a good Google SSO. It is every­where, and los­ing that “one-click lo­gin” fric­tion does make life slightly more an­noy­ing. I mi­grated every Login to Proton Pass us­ing MFA and Passkey wher­ever pos­si­ble.Of­fice Suite: I am strug­gling to get used to LibreOffice and Collabora Online. They feel sim­i­lar to MS Office, but “not quite.” Since I don’t cre­ate doc­u­ments or spread­sheets every day for per­sonal use, the learn­ing curve feels steeper than it should. Screw that → Proton Docs and Sheets are do­ing it. Worst case for slides, I’m go­ing for Canva, I’m pay­ing for it any­how.Blog­ging, Newsletter & Co.: Well, as you can see, I’m writ­ing on Substack. There are no al­ter­na­tives ex­cept to host it en­tirely your­self, but that does­n’t make sense to me right now.I also found a cou­ple of pos­i­tive side ef­fects. The Proton plat­form it­self has every­thing you need for your day-to-day life.In ad­di­tion, I mi­grated to a Duo plan with my wife. Together we have 2TB on stor­age for Mails, Files etc. Before we had 30GB on Gmail, which cost a lit­tle more.Pro­ton Pass cre­ates anony­mous email ad­dresses in case you don’t want to use your real email ad­dress. This plays en­tirely on Proton’s pri­vacy as­pect. Superlist is free for the same fea­tures Todoist pro­vided me for a lit­tle sub­scrip­tion. Lastly, I’m al­ways fight­ing with note-tak­ing. I tested every­thing and started build­ing some­thing com­plex on Notion. I’m glad that I could delete it and just use Standard Notes from Proton. In sim­ple terms, it is like notes from Apple, yet E2E en­crypted and you can back them up of­fline. However, most help­ful for me is that I fi­nally found a way to work ef­fec­tively with notes, keep it clean, lean and func­tional. With Proton, Scaleway, Mammouth, Vivaldi, Superlist and DeepL, I have built a use­ful toolset that, in my opin­ion, sur­passes what I used be­fore.The apps are cleaner, the UI is of­ten more user-friendly, and the mi­gra­tion was sur­pris­ingly sim­ple. Best of all, I can do more with my tech stack for less money.If you’ve been on the fence about mi­grat­ing to EU-hosted so­lu­tions, take the leap. It’s worth it.

Nicolas Guillou, a French judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC), was sanc­tioned by the United States un­der a de­ci­sion made by Donald Trump on August 20. The US Treasury Department jus­ti­fied the ac­tion, stat­ing that “Guillou is be­ing des­ig­nated for rul­ing to au­tho­rize the ICC’s is­suance of ar­rest war­rants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for­mer Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.” Both men are in­dicted for war crimes and crimes against hu­man­ity for their roles in the de­struc­tion of the Gaza Strip.

In to­tal, six judges and three pros­e­cu­tors from the ICC, in­clud­ing Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, have been sanc­tioned by the US. In an in­ter­view with Le Monde, the judge ex­plained the im­pact of these mea­sures on his work and daily life. Without com­ment­ing on on­go­ing cases, he called on European au­thor­i­ties to ac­ti­vate a mech­a­nism that could limit the im­pact of US re­stric­tions.

Initially, it was cre­ated to ad­dress hu­man rights vi­o­la­tions, counter ter­ror­ism and com­bat drug traf­fick­ing. Today, nearly 15,000 in­di­vid­u­als are on the US sanc­tions list, mostly mem­bers of Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State group (IS), mafia or­ga­ni­za­tions and the lead­ers of au­thor­i­tar­ian regimes. Among this long list are nine ICC judges.

You have 81.05% of this ar­ti­cle left to read. The rest is for sub­scribers only.

The news is out, and it’s big: Manus is join­ing Meta. This an­nounce­ment is more than just a head­line—it’s val­i­da­tion of our pi­o­neer­ing work with General AI Agents.Since the launch, Manus has fo­cused on build­ing a gen­eral-pur­pose AI agent de­signed to help users tackle re­search, au­toma­tion, and com­plex tasks. Through con­tin­u­ous prod­uct it­er­a­tion, we’ve been work­ing hard to make these ca­pa­bil­i­ties more re­li­able and use­ful across a grow­ing range of real-world use cases. In just a few months, our agent has processed more than 147 Trillion to­kens and pow­ered the cre­ation of over 80 Million vir­tual com­put­ers.We be­lieve in the po­ten­tial of au­tonomous agents, and this de­vel­op­ment re­in­forces Manus’s role as an ex­e­cu­tion layer — turn­ing ad­vanced AI ca­pa­bil­i­ties into scal­able, re­li­able sys­tems that can carry out end-to-end work in real-world set­tings.Our top pri­or­ity is en­sur­ing that this change won’t be dis­rup­tive for our cus­tomers. We will con­tinue to sell and op­er­ate our prod­uct sub­scrip­tion ser­vice through our app and web­site. The com­pany will con­tinue to op­er­ate from Singapore.Our so­lu­tion is dri­ving value for mil­lions of users world­wide to­day. With time, we hope to ex­pand this sub­scrip­tion to the mil­lions of busi­nesses and bil­lions of peo­ple on Meta’s plat­forms.“Join­ing Meta al­lows us to build on a stronger, more sus­tain­able foun­da­tion with­out chang­ing how Manus works or how de­ci­sions are made,” said Xiao Hong, CEO of Manus. “We’re ex­cited about what the fu­ture holds with Meta and Manus work­ing to­gether and we will con­tinue to it­er­ate the prod­uct and serve users that have de­fined Manus from the be­gin­ning.”To read more, please visit

Hi, I’m Non-Zero-Sum James, your com­pan­ion on this ex­plo­ration of win-win games and how they are es­sen­tial for a bet­ter fu­ture. Each week we’ll ex­plore a new as­pect of game the­ory, moral phi­los­o­phy, eth­i­cal eco­nom­ics and ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence—look­ing to solve the com­plex prob­lems we face in our world to­gether.

… or my lead­er­ship style as op­posed to Stuart’s

All the posts are con­nected through the lens of non-zero-sum games, but they fall into a few broad cat­e­gories. You can start your jour­ney with what­ever ap­peals to you:

a new sec­tion es­pe­cially for new­com­ers

the only thing I’m ac­tu­ally qual­i­fied to write about

Thanks for vis­it­ing—If you en­joyed your­self and know some­one who would en­joy this site, please share. Sharing good ideas is a win-win.

Your thoughts and con­tri­bu­tions are wel­come. Share, de­bate, and co-cre­ate in the com­ments.

This page gives you di­rect ac­cess to all 1,038 delisted Steam ti­tles on the site. Below each ti­tle are the com­pa­nies it re­lates to. An * in the ti­tle de­notes a place­holder page that con­tains ba­sic de­tails.