DEADMINCE

It's a real shame you think so. Every comment I make is in good faith.

Thanks I appreciate that! I'll play around with it later today.

> Yes, the tech industry loves to copy Apple :)

Eh, it goes both ways. Even Apple devices got widgets eventually :)

Censorship is rarely protection.

European content removal laws don't apply outside of Europe which means they don't apply to the internet, only a 'version' of the internet.

If you live in a country that doesn't let you access the 'true' internet, you don't live in a free country.

If he was an OpenBSD fan he might have been overly anti-Linux.

I just started using this and it is indeed awesome. Only thing I need to figure out how to do is make a tab truly full screen. It's much nicer, more intuitive, has more built in support for things and is super lightweight. It's great.

> I swear it's insane that anyone's this obtuse. Read better.

Arrogance and ad homs, as expected. These particular ad homs giving your recent comments are particularly amusing and ironic though.

> I said companies do not have an incentive to respect users' privacy and autonomy.

Your actual claim, the only claim I care about and stepped in to correct you on, is that all cheating can be solved serverside. That's it. I know you like to write essays in place of giving an answer, but that's the only relevant point here.

> You have conflated anticheat with kernel access when the whole argument is about whether it's possible to prevent cheating without it

The entire argument is refuting the nonsense claim that all cheating can be solved serverside. You've yet to provide any proof of that, demonstrate even reasonably grounds to assume that, and dismissed the numerous real world examples and facts that show that case to be unlikely.

> Nearly every post you've made has fundamentally missed the point of the one it's replying to.

If you really believe that, then that's on you for not being clear at all. I've continually backed up my points and addressed yours, all while you constantly disingenuously claim you don't understand my point, lol.

I've outlined what the main point is above. Hopefully you won't still be confused by it.

So please, stop delaying and procrastinating, and just support your fucking claim so we can be done with this, or grow some balls and admit you were wrong, so I can be done with you.

> I think game companies could totally solve this problem a different way, but their incentives are not aligned to do so.

This is your root assumption underlying everything else. This also doesn't make any kind of sense. These companies put a lot of money into trying to stop cheaters. People don't want to play a game that is rampant with cheaters, it's bad for business.

The incentive is there. The incentive is more than there. As are their well reported attempts which end up making some gaming experiences incredibly negative for consumers, reporting in incredibly negative receptions which put a big dent in sales.

To say the incentive is not there is just...silly. Or disingenuous. Either way it's simply not true.

So, again, why hasn't Rockstar or Activision made these trivial modifications to completely and entirely stop cheating serverside? The cheating gives them negative press, hurts sales and turns people away from their software. So why haven't they fixed this since it's so easy?

> Here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position

You keep repeating this but honestly I think it's bs. My point is clear and been repeated several times. You continue to try and refute the points I make; if you didn't understand my point, you wouldn't be able to do that. Honestly, I think most of your reply here is nothing but noise. Just focus on answering the top part of my reply, because eventually, inevitably your claims will be shown to be false, and the assumptions you rely on will be shown to be incredibly unlikely. I don't expect you to be able to admit that or concede, but I expect it will be entertaining for future readers and useful to those who are unfortunate enough to engage with you in the future.

This really isn't the hard problem.

People of good repute with the necessary qualifications to understand scientific findings.

Really, that's it. We're mostly just trying to stop the cuckoo fox news/alex jones crowd from voting and for good reason.

> What happens btw if an American company just ignores GDPR but still welcomes European visitors? Why would they care about EU law?

EU claims EU law applies to US sites if a EU citizen visits it. This has yet to be tested in court though. I'm incredibly skeptical that it can be enforced.

Exactly this. I've seen many EU folk assume if a site doesn't bother with GDPR it must be malicious. When really it's just easier to avoid the EU since they decided they think their laws can apply worldwide.

There's not really too much need for caution; they are just saying the GDPR doesn't apply to them and they would rather not deal with any issues. I do the same thing with many sites I manage, it's significantly less potential hassle.

As far as internet access and devices and things like this go, all western governments are going to become authoritarian in this regard. Only thing we can do is try to change the government, and otherwise fight back with plausibility deniability and using tools like encryption and steganography.

> Native Australian fauna represents such an extremely small risk to tourists that it is not worth considering.

Not only that, but most of the species are common in the USA and EU and just have different names.

Also, the US has far more dangerous animals, but somehow Australia is famous for that lol.

If you wipe the phone completely and re-image it, they can't recover a thing.

Ahh, you baited me again. Excellent job!

> Maybe your only experience developing these things is with a specific set of tools, and those tools require that?

lol. More personal attacks. Your entire thought process is wrong, laughably so. Maybe your only experience is speculating on things you don't have a great knowledge of on HN?

Please, just tell me, if you are so sure you are correct, why these game companies can not solve the problem as you suggest? It's because they are all inept and simply not as smart as you? That's it, right?

> I'm sitting here trying to parse out anything that looks like a rationale and I just can't find it,

Nah. You're just willfully ignoring it. I don't think you're engaging in good faith at all. I'm not confused in the least, despite your constant accusations, and I've been pretty clear and unambiguous.

Your post history shows you as someone who can't ever admit when they are wrong and frequently resorts to ad hominems, and can't bear not having the last word. That's all this is. Now, since you want to play, I guess we'll see how long this goes on for.

My example was to show the lack of ability to think critically or consider evidence in most of the voting population.

Not wanting to get the vaccine is not the disqualifier, but the reasons justifying that decision could be.

It was.

Due to some bad decisions, it handed that crown to Devuan.

> On the other hand: how does one determine who is rational? Once again, you're back to opinion/consensus.

I don't think that has to be the case. There are a lot of objective standards you could apply and tests you can do.

For example, as a somewhat bad example, ask people if they trust vaccines or not, and if not why not.

I definitely explained my position and provided an argument. If you can't see it, it's only because you are letting your own voice and thoughts drown it out. Which, from your post history, seems to be quite a typical behavior for you.

And with that, I truly am done. Again, good luck.

Elephants are one of the smartest animals, possessing self-awareness and metacognition, an extreme rarity in the animal kingdom. They are one of the few species to make art and mourn and bury their dead. That they have unique identifiers is not a surprise at all.

> Let's break this down since you seem confused. I am arguing here that your specific claim that you need this level of control to make a fair video game fails on its merits.

No, I'm not confused. You're just very simply wrong. No question about it, it's not a matter of subjectivity, you are 100% absolutely unequivocally incorrect on this issue.

I can only assume at this point you are incredibly stubborn. You clearly have a lack of experience and knowledge in this area, yet you are doubling down on your position, despite it being trivially shown to be false by numerous real world examples and very basic, irrefutable facts and logic.

But you're the type of person who thinks that you're right no matter what, and that all these game developers must just be inept, right? I feel that I've already wasted time pointing out you are wrong and I'm not interested in an is-not/is-too argument with someone that would rather write essays and argue semantics than have the basic decency to admit they have no clue about what they are talking about. No one's even reading this discussion anymore, is your ego really so great?

I won't be continuing this convo, but feel free to have the last word. Good luck.

> Sadly, nothing else comes even close to Apple in terms of security and privacy, especially for someone who is not an infosec specialist and doesn't have time to read CVEs all day.

Even for someone that is not an infosec specialist, they should be using something like Graphene for phones and something like Qubes for their OS.

Apple isn't great at all honestly, at least in terms of MacOS security - they mostly benefit from not being worth the time to target.

> So you're saying that the sole concern in anticheat software is macroing?

Can you quote where I said that? I'm certain I said no such thing.

Are you really reducing any client side cheat to just macros? That's either disingenuous or willfully ignorant.

> Alright, do you need to control every peripheral connected to the computer as well?

Ideally, yeah. Look at Playstations for example. People can't play with cheats running on the same OS interfering with the game because they don't have control of the hardware. They can still cheat with peripherals though, as the situation with the Cronus Zen showed, and so yes, to stop cheating control of the peripherals is needed. With a recent real world example to corroborate.

> Maybe we gotta put a little spy chip in every copper wire sold in every country, just to be sure it's not connecting anything to anything else. You know, in case someone is trying to cheat

You're trying to dismiss what I'm saying with hyperbolic sarcasm, but it isn't working and isn't funny. iPhones, Apple Devices in general, Nintendo devices, plenty of Android devices, game consoles, none of these give the consumer control of the hardware. They don't need a keylogger and transmitter to stop cheating, they just need for the cheaters not to have control of the hardware. Like I've been saying.

There is a reason GTA5 on console has no cheats and on PC they are rampant, and it isn't because Rockstar are completely inept at preventing cheats serverside, it's because that isn't possible.

> "well lots of people who I consider to have enough authority that you should take their word for it also believe this, take my word for it" isn't particularly compelling.

My stance isn't based on faith but detailed understanding. You have yet to support your position with any evidence, and so far your point is refuted multiple times over by real world evidence. Occam certainly isn't on your side.

If you want to support your argument you're going to have to do better than trying to dismiss mine as just being the result of an appeal to authority fallacy. Do better, or admit you had no idea what you were talking about and were just speculating/guessing.

> SDL and Vulkan are equivalents to DirectX, to state otherwise is itself preposterous.

SDL and Vulkan are no where close to being equivalent to DirectX. What they are is useful in some scenarios, and good alternatives to some parts of DirectX.

It's not preposterous at all, and I'm sorry to say you clearly have a lack of knowledge in this area to claim otherwise.

Since that's beyond clear to me with your last reply, I'm just going to bow out of this discussion at this point. Good luck.

If you can't keep up with or follow the discussion, that's fine, but please don't insult those of us engaging in good faith discussion.

> This only works if your grandfather was born in the UK, amd went to a colony

Anyone with any grandparent born in the UK is eligible, whether that grandparent went to a colony or not.

> I call bullshit on you paying attention, you're saying too many things that are provably incorrect.

I'm not incorrect. I don't think you have experience with what you say. Have you actually tried to use Proton without steam? Yes, the changes eventually make their way back into WINE but Proton is basically unusable without Steam unless you want to do a lot of work.

Saying Linux has a DirectX equivalent via WINE is preposterous. WINE is offering compatibility with the WINDOWS solution because Linux DOESN'T have an equivalent. WINE might forward some to SDL and Vulkan, but neither of those are anywhere near to being a complete replacement for DirectX.

And I'm not 'getting my panties in a bunch', I was just pointing out a fact. If you want to turn it into semantics and throw insults, that's your choice.

> every kind of cheating that matters except input automations

So basically, except the most common types of cheating.

> which you can't prevent reliably with a rootkit anyway

Yes, this is basically what I was saying when I said you can't stop cheating so long as the consumer has control of the hardware.

> instead of just blindly believing it must exist

Well, with respect, I think it is you who is blindly believing all cheating can be stopped server-side. I find that claim to be patently ridiculous.

> no examples, because you haven't provided any.

> all I'm hearing is "nuh uh, sometimes you need it!"

You're right, I haven't provided examples because this is common knowledge in the industry or to anyone that knows anything about trying to prevent cheating. I wasn't prepared to have to give a lecture to defend my point. But really, if what you are saying was correct, then all these companies must just be incredibly incompetent for not preventing cheating server-side, right? Because it's just so easy?

More than that, it's a very basic principle in security that if someone controls that hardware, most security can be defeated. The exception is stuff with DRM and things like a TPM where the consumer doesn't have full control, and that is the only way to truly prevent cheating. That's just a fact.