LMYahooTFY

What you're saying might be plausible if Dario and Sam didn't take every other opportunity to call for regulation. And that's a massive understatement with Anthropic.

They're facilitating a doomerism cult that is lobbying and clearly making headway in Congress.

You have to put your head in the sand to think open weight models aren't a threat/large revenue loss to their business.

No, it's not morally equivalent, as one of these is very obviously unintentional and a result of simply living one's normal life, and the other is neither of those things.

It's also somewhat irrelevant since the vaccines do not prevent transmission. At best they lower the chance to some degree and now you're in the weeds of trying to measure something that's too multivariate to measure.

Cars and gun ownership were not mandated by the government.

Perhaps "vaccine skeptics" say this because the Covid vaccines are not covered under VICP. They're covered under CICP, which is more stringent and has paid out one person $6 million, and a few hundred grand spread out between some dozen others.

My friend who was diagnosed, by multiple doctors in two hospitals with Myocarditis caused by the vaccine has yet to receive any money. It ruined his career.

"Tyranny of the minority" doesn't remotely apply here. No one has the authority to sacrifice one group of citizens to save another group of citizens.

It's often part of the life if you're lifting competitively.

No idea what you're basing these thoughts on, but I don't think you understand the military or what makes it effective.

The reasons grooming standards are enforced are the same reasons anything is enforced.

Underreporting has been looked at in both military and the general population. Data is difficult to source and there are obvious methodological challenges on both sides.

Conviction for sexual assault in the military is an automatic dishonorable discharge and loss of all benefits as a minimum sentence. However, while the military generally has a slightly higher conviction rate than civilian courts, you don't have to be convicted to have career altering or even ending consequences.

The bar to convict is also lower. It doesn't require a unanimous vote, there's no statute of limitations, and you're generally going to face immediate consequences once accused.

You're just frankly uninformed.

Shaving waivers have been so abused it's a running joke in the army.

It's still trivially easy to have a doctor get you a waiver.

Facial hair doesn't matter, you're just required to shave.

Tattoos don't matter unless they're in a particular set of extremes.

Marijuana also really doesn't matter, it's easily waiverable if you didn't have a chronic problem recently.

Harassment is so heavily punished in the military I don't think you're informed on this topic beyond a few wild headlines.

It's extremely common knowledge that harassing women will ruin your military career very quickly.

This is based on nothing.

The raising of the recruitment age has nothing to with "desperation" (recruitment has been at a high) and everything to do with people living longer/healthier lives and the military has been handing out age waivers for years.

The max enlistment age has been de facto 42ish for a while, they're just getting rid of pointless paper work and obstacles that don't make sense.

This is exactly right.

The goal is delivering a useful product to someone, which just requires secure enough, optimized enough, efficient enough code.

Some see the security, optimization, or efficiency of the code itself as the goal. They'll be replaced.

The reality of what exists today shows that the opposite is true.

Pulling out a few games with less than 5000 players globally isn't remotely comparable to having hundreds of thousands of players daily.

It's amplified even more for games that have a global ranking system and a professional competitive scene.

Yeah saw that after posting. Pretty tragic.

Don't forget that WB also managed to burn Christopher Nolan after over a decade and lost one of the best (and most profitable) directors to have ever lived.

Personally I just hope Netflix takes interest in the UCI mountain bike racing and does a better job with it.

Then I wish nothing but good fortune for you and the crew and hope the game continues forever!

It's clearly one significant measure. What do you think is going to happen to tournament money if every other tournament has a cheater? How many esports fans want to go play League after watching Faker decimate another team if they have cheaters in their match every other day?

What it tells you most of all is popularity and incentive to cheat. Cast a big enough net and you'll inevitably find cheaters. The bigger the net, the more cheaters you'll collect.

Not sure how to understand these questions. Have you ever played in a competitive game of any type, virtual or real?

A cheater isn't evenly matched against you. No one is good enough to compete against wallhacks/aimbots, never mind that it shouldn't matter. It ruins the experience, ruins games, ruins the spirit of competition and sport.

Do you work on community maps?

Rust remains maybe the last true community game that's just solid all the way through where the studio is good to its players and doesn't patronize and betray them. I can have the sort of fun I would have had 20 years ago in Rust, and everything else feels like monocultural slop by comparison.

I wish more of my friends wanted to play it, and wish I had more time for it.

I agree with you in sentiment and am very nostalgic for the pre-monoculture days, but I also acknowledge that competitive games are a multi-billion dollar industry, and trying to moderate a game with millions of players in a distributed environment is just a non-starter.

You reject the premise that such control is necessary for your idea of fun.

But millions of players enjoy ranked matchmaking enough that without aggressive anti cheat you will wind up with cheaters.

I hate the root kits as well, but if you spend any time playing Valorant vs CS, you will see the difference. If I play CS consistently I'll get cheaters once or twice a week. In Valorant it's almost unheard of by comparison. It sucks, but that's just what's happening.

Do I wish I at least had the option in Valorant or whatever to host a server? Absolutely. Do I think they use the rootkits maliciously? No, generally not. Do I think studios are disincentivized to provide server hosting due to DLC or microtransactions? Definitely. But I also think there's often also a game integrity component. All of these things can be true simultaneously.

What, 2000 players? 5000?

Moderating that game is multiple orders of magnitude off of major titles.

No Battlefield game is even in the top 100 of esports earnings.

More distributed and more manual. More administrative overhead. More localized culture we all get nostalgic for. Much more effort to play against peer competitors.

It's the same phenomenon you see in many sectors.

Access is democratized and the friction/barrier to play is dramatically lowered/free, and the localization is diluted or non existent and just a monoculture.

I don't think they're saying cheating doesn't exist for the game, they're saying the popularity/incentive is too low to attract many cheaters compared to esports games.

This isn't the reason.

The reason it's necessary is because players want to be able to play with/against other players around the world. Matchmaking requires some form of anti-cheat. Running your own server as admin can't give you the degree of competitive global ranking that players enjoy today.

And cheating is an arms race. It's just hacking. You either preserve game integrity or you're going to have cheaters.

I didn't downvote anything, and understand the point well.

Well that's really good to know.

Been a happy user of Graphene since the Copperhead days. Thanks for all the work you do. I know you've endured a ton of shit.

This is a very counter-productive distortion of privacy, and borders on a lie about Graphene.

Something designed to be private doesn't know the difference between a law enforcement officer trying to break into it and a criminal trying to break into it.

There is no special "anti-cop only code" that gets executed, any more than there are special "cop tools" that exist on some physical plane where criminals don't.

How is this different from a backdoor in every phone?

Some authority compels me to give them signing keys so now they can push anything they want, to any device they want?

> I just don't buy the narrative that if you don't threaten employee's and "whip them into shape" that then there's no incentive to do good. I refuse to believe that not firing people is, somehow, causing them to coast.

It's exactly what I saw, so take that for what you will. Similarly, I've also worked with white collar engineers in corporate environments, and have experienced the opposite as you go up the ladder. These are generalizations, but I am arguing that certain principles of how unions function in blue collar labor jobs have predictable results.

I think "threatening employees" is a beyond cynical way of describing low performance consequences.

If you can't understand how someone being virtually un-fireable due to performance results in coasting I'm really not sure how to discuss this.

I don't want to presume too much here, but if your reference point is only working with white collar engineers, it's hard to explain how different working in a unionized blue collar environment can be.

You're missing the economies of scale part.

OP is saying it's cheaper overall for a 10 million customer company to add infrastructure for 1 million more than it is for a 10,000 customer company to add infrastructure for 1000 more people.

If you're looking at this as a "share of the pie", it's probably not going to make sense. The industry is not zero sum.

Having been a member of the Teamsters union, I completely agree.

It seems likely the vast majority of HN has never been a member of a union themselves given the audience, so the obsession feels like a savior complex IMO.

Yeah, unions accomplished a lot of good things many decades ago. But if you think they haven't morphed over those decades and are still automatically a net positive for all workers, I could probably sell you a bridge.

For my experience at Teamsters, there was zero incentive for employees to actually perform. Everything was done by senority across the board, and you're literally just aging and waiting your turn.

The insurance was good, the wages were average, and the incentive to do better was non-existent. And yes, firing people unless they did something egregious was much, much harder.