conciselyverbose @ conciselyverbose @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,869

Joined

1 yr. ago

No, it doesn't. Cheating is still incredibly common on games that install malware. If people care enough to cheat, they will cheat whether you have kernel access or not. It doesn't make a dent. They use it for the exact same reason they use DRM. Because they can.

It also can't possibly theoretically "reduce harm" when every single installation on every individual computer is many orders of magnitude more harm than all cheating in every game ever made.

The point is to not be compelled to a central service. Choosing a provider that does a better job is perfectly fine.

That applies to most of the internet, and Cloudflare has a long track record of not abusing that position, though.

Good. Scanning everything for CSAM is one thing, but requiring platforms to scan everything uploaded for alleged copyright infringement is insane

Also because rich people who think burning money on horseshit market manipulation is a good "investment".

Your actual browsing of lemmy is moderately private, provided you trust your server.

But nothing else is. By design, it's pretty easy for anyone who wants to track activity on any federated platform to do so. They're extremely open.

In my limited use, the Snapdragon 7s Gen 2 seems prone to lagginess, and the 1080p screen resolution really isn’t enough for that big panel.

What's the point of repairing something that isn't tolerable to use?

Tying it to big name providers like they have a security hole in the title is clickbait at absolute best.

No, there isn't. People who are buying new phones every year are trading them in, and they're going to other people who are more price conscious.

Manufacturing several year old tech results in brand new hardware with a shorter life cycle. You're not going to get 5 or 10 years of updates on a phone that was 5 years behind tech advancement when you bought it.

The people chasing novelty would do so by jumping manufacturers instead, so you don't change their behavior at all.

They could have always supported software for that long. They simply refused to.

There is no benefit to slowing the release cycle. All of the research gets done either way, all of the supply chain modifications get made either way, and as an individual you have no need to replace your phone every year. A multi-year release cycle does very little but screw over people who need a new phone during the wrong point in the release cycle, while also substantially complicating the supply chains by making demand much spikier.

"40 million potential phones" sounds like a lot, but it's a lot less of a lot if you have to tank your entire supply chain to sell them.

I don't have any specific Wikipedia article, but if you want more in depth reading material, Thinking Fast and Slow is probably the authoritative work on bias, by one of the central figures to the emergence of behavioral economics.

Misbehaving is another.

The vast majority of books I read that touch on decision making or bias cite at least one or Daniel Kahneman or Richard Thaler, and they're both reasonably accessible. If you want something more accessible than that, Thinking in Bets covers similar ground. Annie Duke targets general audiences well, but all of her books also make her strong foundation in the field of psychology and what the research supports pretty clear.

Edit: You know what? I will pick one special one. Hindsight bias, or as Annie Duke calls it, resulting. A good decision doesn't become a bad one when the result doesn't work out the way you want. It is an opportunity to re-evaluate, and see if there were things you could have predicted given the information you reasonably had available at the time, but, you should do the same with decisions that work out. A good decision can result in a bad outcome and a bad decision can result in a good outcome. Make a continuous effort to improve your process, but separate the process from the results. Mortgaging your house to make a bet on the Super Bowl wasn't genius if your team won.

Except it's a strong demonstration that even epic paying for your game won't make your money back on a well made game if you lock it to a disgusting excuse for a storefront.

It would have been better for the studio not to make the game. It's identical for the majority of gamers as them not making the game. They still haven't broken even because they made a bad, anti-consumer decision. They failed because they deserved to fail.

If you're only for sale on an actively user hostile storefront, you get what you get.

Sony does hardware features well pretty much across the board. It completely changes the experience without dominating it.

Third parties seem to either halfass it or ignore it.

Especially on Polymarket, such a scenario could get weird fast. Polymarket runs on the blockchain—bets are made with cryptocurrency, and official decisions about who wins are made by the holders of a crypto token called UMA. If there is a disagreement over what occurred, UMA token-holders can vote to determine the official outcome.

But ignoring that, the basic premise is that they're not prepared for Trump's openly telegraphed promise to try to fraudulently claim he won no matter what and that they likely intend to use the idiocy of these shitty toys as evidence in support of their attempted coup.

Almost every game that uses the speaker is even more annoying.

They disabled it by default after shipping it as a security nightmare in preview builds.

You can't add security after the fact. If it isn't planned out with security as a primary design goal months before you write a line of code, it will never be secure.

It is exactly that simple. You already have to account for latency because everyone but one player (who you also can't trust no matter how many rootkits you install) is not the server. Having a proper server doesn't change that in any way.

Client side validation cannot possibly provide any actual security, but even if that wasn't the case and it was actually flawless, it would still be unconditionally unacceptable for a game to ever have kernel level access.

I'm not sure why you think I'm saying client side is better when I called it malware.

There is no approach that is theoretically capable of doing anything at all to impact a camera and automated inputs, and there is no way of trying to do so that is acceptable. It's simply a reality of online gaming.