It doesn't directly, but some banking apps detect magisk in the app list, so even if you've added the apps to the exception list in magisk they'll refuse to launch.
Installing the same apps in the work profile makes the magisk app inaccessible/invisible to them, which allows them to start up normally.
Fair. I was playing a warrior so combat wasn't as much an issue for me. Tbh when we were starting, someone told us to play DOS 2 instead of 1 since it's a better gameplay experience and I wonder if all these rough edges have been fixed.
Tell me more about what you disliked about D:OS. I'm playing through in co-op (in the endgame right now) and want to commiserate.
For me it was the bugs and some weird choices where things that should work to progress don't, and some progress is so convoluted that we had to look it up and we were like ugh wth.
Looking up stuff is annoying when something you're sure should work logically doesn't.
OMG long-press to peek is so satisfying. And small things like image viewing. So easy with one hand double-tap slide, while connect had me pinching like a caveman.
Since you haven't mentioned Ion Fury, I'm going to add it to that list. Not interesting for PC since they wanted PvP but it's a great Build engine shooter.
The reality is that it’s a whole bunch of entirely separate environments and we’ve walked this path well with email
On this I disagree. There are many fundamental differences. Email is private, while federated social media is public. Email is one-to-one primarily, or one-to-few. Soc media is broadcast style. The law would see it differently, and the abuse potential is also different. @faeranne@lemmy.blahaj.zone also used e-mail as a parallel and I don't think that model works well.
The process here on Mastodon is to decide for yourself what is worth taking action on.
I agree for myself, but that wouldn't shield a lay user. I can recommend that a parent sign up for reddit, because I know what they'll see on the frontpage. Asking them to moderate for themselves can be tricky. As an example, if people could moderate content themselves we wouldn't have climate skeptics and holocaust deniers. There is an element of housekeeping to be done top-down for a platform to function as a public service, which is what I assume Lemmy wants to be.
Otherwise there's always the danger of it becoming an wild-west platform that'll attract extremists more than casual users looking for information.
Automated action is bad because there’s no automated identity verification here and it’s an open door to denial of service attacks
Good point.
The fediverse actually helps in moderation because each admin is responsible for a group of users and the rest of the fediverse basically decides whether they’re doing their job acceptably via federation and defederation
The way I see it this will inevitably lead to concentration of users, defeating the purpose of federation. One or two servers will be seen as 'safe' and people will recommend that to their friends and family. What stops those two instances from becoming the reddit of 20 years from now? We've seen what concentration of power in a few internet companies has done to the Internet itself, why retread the same steps?
Again I may be very naive, but I think with the big idea that is federation, what is sorely lacking is a robust federated moderation protocol.
I'd argue that the nokia software is better than Samsung! It has fewer bells and whistles but that's precisely why it's better. It's stock and updates regularly.
Lenovo is pretty much the same but they don't update as regularly because they have too many devices on their portfolio.
I bought a cheap nokia tab and it is excellent for watching videos and playing non-demanding games.
Understood, thanks. Yes I did misread it as sarcasm. Thanks for clearing that up :)
However I disagree with @shiri@foggyminds.com in that Lemmy, and the Fediverse, are interfaced with as monolithic entities. Not just by people from the outside, but even by its own users. There are people here saying how they love the community on Lemmy for example. It's just the way people group things, and no amount of technical explanation will prevent this semantic grouping.
For example, the person who was arrested for CSAM recently was running a Tor exit node, but that didn't help his case. As shiri pointed out, defederation works for black-and-white cases. But what about in cases like disagreement, where things are a bit more gray? Like hard political viewpoints? We've already seen the open internet devolve into bubbles with no productive discourse. Federation has a unique opportunity to solve that problem starting from scratch, and learning from previous mistakes. Defed is not the solution, it isn't granular enough for one.
Another problem defederation is that it is after-the-fact and depends on moderators and admins. There will inevitably be a backlog (pointed out in the article). With enough community reports, could there be a holding-cell style mechanism in federated networks? I think there is space to explore this deeper, and the study does the useful job of pointing out liabilities in the current state-of-the-art.
It doesn't help to bring whataboutism into this discussion. This is a known problem with the open nature of federation. So is bigotry and hate speech. To address these problems, it's important to first acknowledge that they exist.
Also, since fed is still in the early stages, now is the time to experiment with mechanisms to control them. Saying that the problem is innate to networks is only sweeping it under the rug. At some point there will be a watershed event that'll force these conversations anyway.
The challenge is in moderating such content without being ham-fisted. I must admit I have absolutely no idea how, this is just my read of the situation.
I get only 30 on series S and Xbone at 1080. I don't think the game does 60fps sadly.