This is all because online casinos have become more accessible. And I don’t just mean for players (who can simply use a VPN to play even if casinos are restricted in their area) and no longer need to leave home to spin the slots. I’m talking about the business side. I recently wrote an article on 2025–2030 trends, and online gambling is growing at lightning speed. Just look at LCB https://lcb.org - every month 15–30 new casinos are added. And that’s only the licensed ones; imagine how many more don’t get listed there. These days, anyone can launch an online casino. For example, this offer https://2wpower.com/en/gamessystems shows you can have a fully working project in just 3–5 weeks, as long as the budget allows. And there are plenty of similar solutions. If you do the math, 30 new sites a month means around 360 a year. If so many are being launched, that clearly means there’s demand. And that’s exactly why land-based casinos are losing audiences - only those who can afford it and really enjoy the vibe of a real casino are sticking around.
Unity’s always had special terms for gambling stuff. It’s not about squeezing more money out, it’s just that slot cabinets and VLTs have to be locked down and audited. Platforms like 2WinPower, SoftSwiss, and Slotegrator usually treat Unity as just the visual layer - all the math and payout logic sits outside in certified modules. That’s why you don’t see revenue-share deals with engine vendors, just flat licenses to keep regulators off your back
Your position appears to present gambling as a monolithic vice, overlooking the significant differences between its many forms and the varying degrees of social harm or benefit they may carry. Would you consider re-evaluating whether all types of gambling should be regarded as equally corrosive, or might some distinctions be warranted?
Foe example, low-stakes social gambling (like poker nights among friends) or government-run lotteries, which often channel proceeds into public goods like education or infrastructure, arguably differ both in intent and impact from high-frequency online slots or algorithmically designed mobile apps, which are far more closely associated with compulsive behavior and financial harm.
Furthermore, sports betting - while not without risk - has become deeply embedded in the modern sports economy. In many countries, including the U.S. and parts of Europe, major leagues and teams rely heavily on gambling sponsorships, which help fund operations, media production, and fan engagement tools. This raises a difficult but necessary question: is the commercialization of sports through betting inherently destructive, or is it simply a reflection of broader entertainment market dynamics?
Certainly, there are real and well-documented harms related to problem gambling, and these deserve serious regulatory attention. But equating all gambling activity with moral or social decay risks oversimplifying a complex ecosystem. A more differentiated framework - one that considers levels of risk, regulatory oversight, consumer protections, and even positive externalities like job creation and tax contributions - may lead to more productive dialogue and policy outcomes.
As AI tools shift how people search, the old tricks no longer work. Clickbait collapses. Content mills go silent. And in their place, there is a chance to build something better- something rooted in quality, not quantity.
What stops AI to lead users by the nose? To the benefit of owners and advertisers, with quality/quantity of manipulations individually rooted into user's psychological profile...
Sorry, but I just don't believe it when Google, Facebook and Microsoft are the major players in AI. It'd be the foxes protecting the hen house, to say the least.
VCs forget that pricing power follows perceived category. If customers bucket AI into SaaS, they’ll price it like Slack or Zoom, not like payroll. You might replace $50K in labor, but you’ll only ever capture 10% of that unless your AI walks into meetings and shakes hands.
The global inequality in AI spread persists for several interconnected reasons - technological, economic, infrastructural, and geopolitical, unfortunately.
Many commenters assume fallback behavior exists between DNS providers, but in practice, DNS clients - especially at the OS or router level -rarely implement robust failover for DoH. If you're using cloudflare-dns(.)com and it goes down, unless the stub resolver or router explicitly supports multi-provider failover (and uses a trust-on-first-use or pinned cert model), you’re stuck. The illusion of redundancy with DoH needs serious UX rethinking.
I use routedns[0] for this specific reason it handles almost all DNS protocols; UDP, TCP, DoT, DoH, DoQ (including 0-RTT). But more importantly is has a very configurable route steering even down to a record by record basis if you want to put up with all the configuration involved. It's very robust and is very handy, I use 1.1.1.1 on my desktops and servers and when the incident happened I didn't even notice as the failover "just worked". I had to actually go look at the logs because I didn't notice.
Ironically, AI tools can make you slower if you rely on them for complex tasks without understanding the internals. You end up spending more time prompting, debugging, or reverse-engineering the generated code than if you just wrote it yourself. This tradeoff is especially noticeable in open source work, where maintainability and correctness trump speed. AI tooling still requires substantial human judgment.
