tfrancisl

> Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.

This is obviously a fallacy under our current economic system; workers are not "free to choose whatever job/occupation" they'd like. Their circumstances (material conditions) dictate what they can and cannot do for work, and in some places, driving for Uber is about it, at least for a part time gig that can fit around a primary job (since many Americans at least must work in excess of 50 hours a week to afford food and rent).

So, instead of punching down and saying "man, just get a better job" we could recognize the realities of the world and hope we can make the conditions of drivers better. Uber, or a system like it, at least if we are forced to have car-centric infrastructure, should be a net good. At the moment it is not.

I don't understand how we can all look at a clear cut case of violation of the principles of our existing laws and act like, yeah guys, judicial review will just fix this over time, rather than compounding the problems.

The rigidity concept you talk about effectively exists in our current system, too, it's just a matter of perspective. If the law is written in such a poor way so as to need review, and the legislators and executives in on the bill know where the jurists who will review it stand, theyve effectively got the different, rigid law they wanted until someone decides to review again. Review, with no particular cadence, or urgency, etc. I actually do think review is good, but it shouldn't stand in for actual legislation (which since about the 80s it has, largely due to Reagan era deregulation)

Maybe the breakage is somewhere else -- I talked about Citizens United elsewhere, which effectively lets corporations buy votes from legislators, and we know at least 2 of the current justices are flat-out corrupt, getting gifts and financial help from millionaire and billionaire friends.

I dont have time for the mind games of it all. If someone wittingly did something, or unwittingly but negligently did something, and it caused harm to society, it doesnt matter if theyre an individual acting alone or part of a "corporate identity." That person did the crime and they should be held accountable. Kalshi isnt doing illegal gambling, the directors of the company are.

I am very much not blind to my viewpoints. I believe the authoritarian pseudo-Christians that run Utah are dangerous people with dangerous "political bias" (adults call this ideology).

Slippery slope argument. You can have authoritarian, anti-people legislation, and you can have pro-people, anti-corporation legislation. These are very different, and any legislator or ideologue that tells you any different has listened to too many Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan speeches.

What is a democracy if not a reflection of the populace? Obviously there'd be trials, the constitution says as much.

I would rather we have plain language legislation than playing this dumb waiting game of "well, I felt like interpreting these 20 laws and 16 cases this way today, and my successors will overturn this with the flick of a pen". It doesnt help that our legislature, and even many of our jurists, are bought out ever since the Citizens United decision.

People who believe in justice and democracy, or what? We need to hold people accountable for their crimes. Fines and other slaps on the wrist let big tobacco, big ultraprocessed food, and now big gambling to take advantage. What would you do? Wait for the courts? Wait for the corrupt legislature?

The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...

"Facing felony charges" doesn't tell me much, and the current state of the world tells me those charges will be dismissed as soon as some money moves around.

> Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison".

We should! Finally incentivize rich people to not screw over the rest of society for a quick buck.

I think I understand the basics of business and business law in the US. It is disgusting how easy it is to hide behind a corporation or LLC to avoid criminal charges and civil liability.

When will we start holding the people who found and operate companies whose sole purpose is to break the law accountable, rather than letting them hide behind "limited liability"?

These founders should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling. Same federal charges mafiosos get caught on for a "friendly card game".

How are the actions of the feds at Waco and Ruby Ridge "left"? Authoritarian, yes, but supporting collectivism, shared ownership, etc? Nothing at all left wing about their actions.

Why is this being voted down? This is fundamentally how states and governance work. The state has a monopoly on legitimate violence, and can, at any moment, make that a problem for its citizenry.

Again, no true scotsman. If all the people who call a spade a diamond get together and call themselves spade-truthers, their perspective is spade-trutherism, however much that upsets true spade-trutherists.

Classic no true Scotsman. All the people who proclaim to be absolutists or advocates but dont meet my definition clearly are not.

Down voted for suggesting the most salient analysis of US history. Sad!

Agreed, looks very sloppy and unpolished. I was immediately turned away when i saw the recommended install method was `sudo sh` this random script.

I would argue TPM 2.0 is the security theater. A leaked key is all it takes to throw it all away. EAC v1 combined with behavior-based detection seems to be sufficient for some of these studios, so I don't know what Epic is struggling with.

I play CS2 plenty. The cheating problem is overstated as all hell. It seems to be concentrated around accounts that are being sold for lots of cash, so Valve is apparently taking that route for banning accounts more often lately.

Now, if we want an interesting case study in intrusive anticheat not necessarily being more effective than behavior-based, we should compare FACEIT to Valve servers. FACEIT is riddled with cheaters, and yet requires ring-0 anticheat on Windows. So fascinating!

And it's all a shame, in my opinion. They're too lazy to develop effective behavior-based anticheat (should be easier than ever with better NN architectures and more compute), and so they resolve to screwing over consumers or spying on them. Did not know about Embark's stance, that's too bad.

If this were about solely myself and no one else, I might agree. However, even I do play one or two games that use EAC v1 and they work perfectly fine on Linux. They also have very few cheaters, and employ behavior-based detection as their first line. I would hate to lose those games.

No, LPEs escalate you to root. Root access is specifically protected against by their requirements.

You could have just not replied if you werent going to try to be productive. Yes, lots and lots of people play video games on NixOS and Gentoo. Who is playing video games on Fedora, Debian? I dont care that I can switch kernels, I shouldnt have to.

I suppose I read into the Steam Deck not supporting all of the requirements right now a bit much. Thats the section I was referencing. I am still hopeful they'll at least object to IOMMU and get some movement from Epic there...

> Because your kernel could have the ability to allow a program to modify the game memory and hide the fact it's doing so?

I understand this, and my contention with this is that a signed kernel could have that too, so requiring the kernel to be signed locks us into very few ways of getting the kernel with little benefit to the AC if a key is leaked.

> Most Linux users are probably using a signed kernel. I don't think this is as big of a deal as you're making out.

I don't think this is true of most people interested in gaming on Linux in particular. Aside from that, the chain of things you need to do to prove you have a signed kernel are onerous and incompatible with many bootloaders and other tools many Linux users use regularly.

Now you're thinking like ... NVIDIA circa 2015 or something like that

Aside from the fact that this is obviously not true (secure boot is possible on Linux, limine/lanzaboote come to mind), I would argue these security modules / attestations do very little for security and are more about lock in and control.

Look, if Canonical had one of their keys leaked, I can go and sign my kernel and kernel modules and secure boot just fine as if my kernel is one distributed by Canonical. There are no checks on whether the contents of the kernel are correct. So, let's exclude people entirely from tuning their kernel for performance etc, and tell them they have to go to a narrow set of approved vendors, who must listen to Epic rather than their users. This is about control over the ecosystem, an ecosystem Epic has spent their years spitting in the face of.

I can't disagree with that, of course. I can only point to Valve at least shipping their games (notably CS2 and Deadlock) native, and the overall improvement in the performance and ergonomics of Proton in the past decade.