conciselyverbose @ conciselyverbose @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,869

Joined

1 yr. ago

No options that resemble legitimate or evidence based in any way.

If a computer has the exact same input and output tools as a human, you cannot possibly do better than guessing. It is a literal certainty that you will ban legitimate players doing nothing wrong for being too good if you try, and it's unconditionally not acceptable to do so.

Only if you're OK banning real people.

Yes, people can still cheat with a camera and manipulating inputs. There will never be a way around that.

But that's entirely unchanged by adding malware, that, even if it could theoretically work, should be a literal crime with serious jail time attached. Client side validation is never security and cannot resemble security.

Your core premise is broken. Relying on trusting anything from a remote client cannot possibly result in a fair game.

The one with the regular PS5 is incredibly stable.

Why would you think other covers were going to work?🤷🏼‍♀️

Don't be pieces of shit and you won't owe refunds.

In a just world people would be going to prison for it.

It runs with higher priveleges than you have and can see anything that happens on your computer.

It also creates a giant additional attack vector.

Adding kernel malware after the fact should entitle every single owner who requests one to a full refund no matter how long has passed.

Maybe, but they're on the side of normal people here.

Court ordered mass surveillance is horseshit.

If you live in a country where a woman is allowed to have an opinion without immediately being rounded up, China is your enemy.

China is an enemy state of the entire free world, with an authoritarian government that directly controls the behavior of any business that operates in China.

Any software controlled by China is a very real security threat.

You don't have to do anything a human can find.

It would be a waste of time when no one would use the half ban. They're banning users because they don't want to serve whatever they're posting.

Run your own instance or join a permissive one if you don't want your instance to moderate trash away.

What you're describing is a massive downgrade, and also massively adds to the legal exposure of hosting an instance, because you're serving everything any user of your instance sees. Being able to block bad actors isn't really an optional feature. You're effectively asking for your instance to be forced to serve you abusive content.

It sure as hell looks like plenty of information on the offender to me.

That's the entire point of bans.

You don't want to have to manually block all the spammers and shit posters a decent instance is taking care of for you.

lol obviously they deserve it for the obvious check fraud.

But it would be fun to see them try to sue TikTok for the shits and giggles.

I could see the appeal as open source, self hosted software.

Not from data vacuums.

It's not remotely within the realm of plausibility that Sam Altman genuinely believes any of the horseshit he spews. (And that's ignoring that they gained their funding by lying about the core intent of their organization by pretending to be serving the public interest and not profiteering.)