Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
4
Comments
106
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I'm also in Vulkan on Linux with an AMD card. I don't get those black boxes.

    The main menu has terrible framerate, but everywhere else is acceptable through Proton (45-50). DX11 has great framerate on the main menu, but like 8-10 FPS ingame (my Windows partition can hold a steady 60).

  • I'd love to see more races and classes. Artificers, Tortles, Warforged, Tabaxi, etc. There's a bunch of missing subclasses too, like Storm Barbarian or Swashbuckler Rogue.

    Maybe mod tools would allow that, but at the same time I'm not convinced. It just seems like easy territory for an expansion, sort of like Tasha's or Eberron... but for the video game.

  • That's because they check your user agent.

    This API aims to break those kinds of extensions, making it impossible to spoof a user agent or certain kind of machine.

  • The idea is that it would be similar to hardware attestation in Android. In fact, that's where Google got the idea from.

    Basically, this is the way it works:

    • You download a web browser or another program (possibly even one baked into the OS, e.g. working alongside/relying on the TPM stuff from the BIOS). This is the "attester". Attesters have a private key that they sign things with. This private key is baked into the binary of the attester (so you can't patch the binary).
    • A web page sends some data to the attester. Every request the web page sends will vary slightly, so an attestation can only be used for one request - you cannot intercept a "good" attestation and reuse it elsewhere. The ways attesters can respond may vary so you can't just extract the encryption key and sign your own stuff - it wouldn't work when you get a different request.
    • The attester takes that data and verifies that the device is running stuff that corresponds to the specs published by the attester - "this browser, this OS, not a VM, not Wine, is not running this program, no ad blocker, subject to these rate limits," etc.
    • If it meets the requirements, the attester uses their private key to sign. (Remember that you can't patch out the requirements check without changing the private key and thus invalidating everything.)
    • The signed data is sent back to the web page, alongside as much information as the attester wants to provide. This information will match the signature, and can be verified using a public key.
    • The web page looks at the data and decides whether to trust the verdict or not. If something looks sketchy, the web page has the right to refuse to send any further data.

    They also say they want to err towards having fewer checks, rather than many ("low entropy"). There are concerns about this being used for fingerprinting/tracking, and high entropy would allow for that. (Note that this does explicitly contradict the point the authors made earlier, that "Including more information in the verdict will cover a wider range of use cases without locking out older devices.")

    That said - we all know where this will go. If Edge is made an attester, it will not be low entropy. Low entropy makes it harder to track, which benefits Google as they have their own ways of tracking users due to a near-monopoly over the web. Google doesn't want to give rivals a good way to compete with user tracking, which is why they're pushing "low-entropy" under the guise of privacy. Microsoft is incentivized to go high-entropy as it gives a better fingerprint. If the attestation server is built into Windows, we have the same thing.

  • People don't want to sell their personal data for currency.

    People need currency. There is only a finite amount of currency in the world. Power structures are formed because some people have currency and other people need currency.

    People are forced to do things like sell their bodies, sell their organs, and - yes - sell their biometric data. Because they need currency to survive. You don't see billionaires lining up for this.

    It's exploitation of those who are most desperate. You can argue that there's the systemic problem - that there shouldn't be billionaires alongside people who are starving and need to sell their bodies - but that isn't being solved anytime soon.

    But exploiting this systemic problem, using it as leverage to convince millions of poor folks to sell their biometric data... that's immoral. It's immoral to take advantage of desperation just to line your own pockets.

    Why do you think you're hearing about this from some of the poorest countries in the world?

  • You're not incorrect, and even "he was a product of his time" isn't an excuse: when he was alive, even other racists thought that Lovecraft was a bit too racist.

    However, at the same time - you have to look at what impact reading his work has.

    He's dead. He doesn't get money from it. The works are public domain. His estate doesn't get money from it. Further, the language used is striking, influencing a century of other work.

    Does that language come from a place of racism? Yes. But it the work itself isn't overly racist - or at least, it doesn't make it more racist than Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle's The Sign of the Four is used in college classes today to teach Orientalism, yet largely people accept such a thing as okay because it doesn't radicalize new people into the subject.

    If you reject every artistic work because the creators had questionable views, then you begin forcing yourself into strange choices. If the artist doesn't gain benefit from you reading it - then logically, it doesn't matter if you read something they made or not (contrast this to Harry Potter, where consuming said media gives money to a TERF). When the artist is out of the picture, the only thing that matters is what the work means to you.

    You have the right to say "the work is abhorrent because of XYZ", but said things should be things you can point to within the work itself. If the artist isn't gaining benefit and their views aren't the focus of the work - why does it matter?

  • Lmao, from

    A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.

    to

    Generating such a biased, exaggerated list for the US would be a waste of time

    Aka "I'm having trouble sourcing my own claim so just trust me bro"

  • There's a great video about this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs

    Essentially, it looks at why conservatives vs. liberals approach the world differently. Democracy vs. capitalism is inherently a logical contradiction; in a true democracy, everyone is treated equally and all voices have equal weights. In capitalism, some people are more equal than others - it's a pyramid. Fascism is when these "some people are better" is because of something like genetics, or culture. (The video doesn't touch on this, but modern Communism falls into the same trap as well, where "some people are better" because they know the party leaders or they're technocrats. It's a mindset that humans have and not something exclusive to capitalism.)

    Where you wind up on the American political spectrum is based on where you fall when the ideals of equality vs. hierarchy clash. There is no middle ground because the two are fundamentally incompatible - if everyone was truly treated equally, you couldn't have people with more power/status than others. If you accept that not everyone should wield power and that at the end of the day there must be some rich and some poor - some that have power and others that do not - then you are therefore arguing that people shouldn't be treated equally. From there, the pyramid structure is the natural order of things ("always a bigger fish").

    Because the structure is fundamentally at odds with itself you can't have both at once. You have to compromise on one side more than the other. Hence there is no such thing as "apolitical", even with technology - it will hold a bias one way or the other.

  • Yes, and if you wind up moving to a console (once console versions come out) it will support those saves on console as well - if the launcher is to be believed.

  • Neon FTW. Been my daily driver for a while now with zero problems.

  • Tankies have really been doubling down the last few days. I hate that this place is infested with them - and it seems to be growing as they start to scare sane people away.

  • Shouting out Bookwyrm. It's a fediverse version of Goodreads. You can even import your Goodreads shelves into it.

    It interops with Mastodon and Kbin.

  • Louder for the people in the back!

    Tankies 👏 are 👏 not 👏 true 👏 communists 👏.

    God, I hate that this place is infested with tankies. I didn't realize Lemmy.world still federated with Lemmygrad.

  • Let's not forget Android as well!

    Google's been slowly killing the open-source part of Android for a while now...

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChineseCommunistParty

    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC)

    CCP is a valid name for it in English, and in fact is the way that it's referred to most of the time in English (which we are speaking currently). You can also see that Wikipedia uses CCP throughout.

    Not surprised I've pissed off half of Lemmygrad considering you guys are so misinformed you don't even recognize a common English acronym for the ruling party of the country you adore so much. Stay mad, tankies.

  • I love how I literally trotted out a source, and you still clamed it was "unsourced". I also love "You have not made an argument that they are factually similar" after I just explained how they are in practice, factually similar. Here is a Wikipedia page about the genocide China is committing, btw - how is this different than Auschwitz?

    But those claims are "western" and therefore automatically incorrect. Because we know China has a free press and open reporting! Their 1982 constitution protects freedom of speech, which is why they arrest people who talk about Tibet!

    So here's a non-western source: Al-Jazeera stating that China has internment camps where they are committing genocide.

    You're not going to listen to any of this, because you've completely missed the point. My point is modern communism has not gotten anywhere near the ideals espoused by Marx, and has outright rejected them (paying them lip service at best). It has been replaced by something pretty much identical to fascism, and tankies love it. Since evidently you need a reminder as to what fascism is:

    Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

    Everything other than "far-right" can apply to the CCP in its modern form. (And even saying China isn't far-right is debatable... gay marriage is illegal in China still. Hardly "socially left".)

    But go on. Tell me that's not fascism.

  • Conveniently ignores the genocide and organ-harvesting happening today in the largest communist country on the planet

    I'm a leftist myself, but tankies are a bridge too far. The moment a movement starts oppressing the proletariat is when they lose all legitimacy. Stalin, Mao, and everyone else the tankies idolize were oppressive to the common people they tried to protect. Modern-day China is oppressive to the point where they set up secret police in other countries to monitor citizens abroad.

    How on earth is that protecting the workers? Now there's just a new class of bourgeoise, the party leadership who enshrine themselves in perpetual power while they exploit the workers in the sweatshops making cheap goods. The party takes their labor, exports it to the West, and lines their own pockets.

    That's what tankies want? How on earth is that any different than fascism, in practice?

  • Tankies, fascists. Close enough to the same thing tbh.

    Any platform which supports tankies is in itself tankie. If they want "unity," they wouldn't associate themselves with people who don't believe in the core fundamentals of freedom. Otherwise they're just like PCM where the worst elements will take over.