LinXitoW

Is the main problem with cheaters that it's unfair, or that it feels unfair/ruins the experience?

Because if you force all the cheaters to hide well enough to look like "normal" players, no one will know, and the game feel will not be negatively impacted. Outside of the tippy top of competition where money becomes involved, it's kind of irrelevant if the game is technically fair, as long as it feels fair to everyone.

But you couldn't. After all, there's a lot of hardware based cheats that even KLA can't reliably detect.

If you're "not sure if someones cheating or just good", maybe that's a mental problem with you? Put differently, if all cheaters were perfectly hidden (aka looked exactly like a real player of that skill level), would you still care? If yes, you seem more interested in a morality than actually enjoying the game.

I don't expect that. I expect that publicly traded companies will cut corners in developing their kernel extension (like always), turning them into literal root kits waiting for anyone willing to exploit them.

See: https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/h/ransomware-ac...

I agree that profit driven companies will never ever care about the morality or the safety or the social impacts of their choices.

I don't think, however, that "publishers would use disabled children slave labor if they could" is really an argument you ought to make.

Until the obviously detectable cheaters like spinbots get INSTANTLY banned, I don't believe for a second they've "tried everything".

If hackers have to limit themselves to behaviour that looks like real skill, it's kind of unimportant to the games community if they're cheating. Cheaters only ruin the experience if they're obvious to the player.

Finally, something like Overwatch in CS, together with paid employees and PUBLIC bans of high paying cheater accounts (including hardware bans) would create a chilling effect, further forcing cheaters into hiding.

IANAL, but this seems more like a classic temper tantrum thrown by a big corp over reasonable legislation.

They could offer an API for security relevant scanning for EVERYONE, including their own antivirus software. But that would make the world better, and make the legislation look justified.

It's the exact same thing with the Google Maps integration on Google Search. They could offer an API and a selection of map provider to the user. That would make Google Search better for the user AND enable competition. Instead they threw a temper tantrum and disabled map integration entirely, so they can blame the EU.

If I ask my repository (backed by an sql db) to get a user, there might be 3 different scenarios I'm interested in:

- Technical problem (like connection problems) means I don't know what's in the db

- No technical problem, but no user entry

- No technical problem, and a user entry

You need the Result for the technical problems, and the Option for whether there's a user entry or not.

Almost all criticisms of monopolies comes from the abuse they enable. On an abstract level, a monopoly is the best option, because it removes so much extra cost, and has the ultimate scaling factor. Like early Netflix with it's seemingly infinite catalog.

In practice, of course, monopolies under capitalism exist specifically to exploit it, making things far worse for customers in the long run.

Steam is, to me, the closest we have to a benevolent monopoly. A monopoly that exists purely because it offers the best product.

You're comparing apples to sofas, in my opinion.

The issue with monopolies isn't just their existence, it's their active efforts to keep their monopoly and the negative effects this has on the customer.

Apples monopoly hurts customer, reduces freedom and extracts rent from developers that HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

Steams (supposed) monopoly comes entirely from offering the better product to users and developers. Did you know you can generate Steam keys of your game FOR FREE, and sell them away from Steam, giving Steam 0% cut and 99% of the distribution costs?

Compared to Apple, the vast amount of options on PC to acquire software or games means Steam isn't even close to a monopoly. At the very least, they don't have the power to do monopolistic practices and they also just don't abuse them.

Steam is genuinely the closest thing to a perfect company (at least if you like capitalism).

People choosing the better product is not and has never been a monopoly. It requires active anti-competitive actions to maintain that monopoly that makes it a monopoly.

At least, that's the way I've seen people speak of monopolies exclusively.

How can you call any of that "punishment" or anti-competitive?

Steam offers the far superior platform, in every possible aspect. Every thing you've said is them OFFERING (not FORCING) better solutions to things.

For example, in what universe do you think it's sane to think a store front should accept random reviews from random people? Having bought the game is the one of the best metrics to tell if a review is even approaching sincerity.

Not having random reviews in the steam reviews is a feature.

And in the context of Android or iOS, the PC gaming market is SUPER DUPER EXTRA diverse. I own games in like 5 different stores, but always prefer Steam or GOG where possible.

Offering better services and getting more user because of it is not malicious or anti-competitive or monopolistic. It's the best possible outcome (assuming you like capitalism).

In the context of pollinators, our pointless want of animal products is a far bigger factor. Something like 75% of farmland is used for animal AG, which only provides x<<75% of calories and protein we consume.

Honey comes from a farm animal, the honey bee, that is out competing other native animals, and has all the fun problems of a monoculture.

If companies want the nice parts of being "a person", they should also deal with the bad parts of being a person. Financial fines are not enough. Though I'm not sure how we'd build a jail cell for an entire company.

No, it's still a range, the difference is simply that a good manager would plan such that Christmas is at the very far end of the range. Bad managers will plan with the optimistic end of the range, and then expect crunch time from exploited workers following their passion.

From my very limited exposure to virtual threads and the older solution (thread pools), the biggest hurdle was the extensive use of ThreadLocals by most popular libraries.

In one project I had to basically turn a reactive framework into a one thread per request framework, because passing around the MDC (a kv map of extra logging information) was a horrible pain. Getting it to actually jump ship from thread to thread AND deleting it at the correct time was basically impossible.

Has that improved yet?

So you've never been screwed over by an online-only product becoming horribly shitty, or incredibly expensive? To me, the ability to counteract any insane company policies is a big reason that the ability to self host is incredibly important.

Even if it's just a stop gap solution while we find a better solution to migrate to.

But you'd need other data to prove (or at least strongly suggest) that the data isn't representative.

You can't just say "the data COULD be unrepresentative", then just use some random guys anecdotes on the internet as more valid than national statistics.

245032701. The first number I ever memorized, and likely the only number eternally burned into my mind.

"Species" is, in and of itself, a man made construct. To define your own morals by an arbitrary distinction isn't just simplistic, it's downright dangerous.

It wasn't long ago that certain people were considered "subhuman", and therefore open to all kinds of abuse. Did you learn nothing from that?

And of course, the same is true for your ridiculous "might makes right" argument. Have you considered making other horribly uneducated arguments, like "it's natural"? Maybe add some "we've always done it that way".

WE should keep the history of the world in mind. How things shake out when people say "there's too many people". Who gets killed first? Who gets involuntarily sterilized?

WE should consider that in the equation of "overpopulation", the other variable, "resource consumption", is far easier and more ethical to reduce.

The issue, of course, is that option 1 hurts others that aren't us, while option 2 will require changes from US, like not eating meat, reducing personal cars, reducing consumption and infinite growth in general.

Rgenerative AG is BS. For example, they'll talk about how they sequester CO2, but fail to mention that after 10 years, the ground reaches a limit, from which point forward it produces far more CO2 than our current meat production.

They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.

In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.

Just because you can adapt to verbosity does not make it a good idea.

I've gotten used to Javas getter/setter spam, does that make it a good idea?

Moreover, don't you think that something like Rusts ? operator wouldn't be a perfect solution for handling the MOST common type of error handling, aka not handling it, just returning it up the stack?

  val, err := doAThing()
  if err != nil {
    return nil, err
  }

VERSUS

  val := doAThing()?

That's irrelevant if the the resource usage is already far beyond what is sustainable. If you take on a lot of debt that you can't pay back every single year, claiming that you're going to stop taking on new debt is not the win you think it is.

In addition, resource usage grows when peoples lifes improves. So we don't need to have more people, we can just give more people basic rights and have economies like India grow. Their consumption of luxuries like meat is constantly rising, because more people can afford it.

An extreme example (from memory) is Ghana. One american uses as much CO2e as 200-ish Ghanans. Imagine a miracle happens, and we stop with the neocolonialism. Suddenly, Ghanans can afford the basics, and they use twice as much CO2e pP.

Well, because more and more farms are being bought up, making farms bigger and bigger, and reducing the amount of "hard working, honest small family farms" everyone likes to imagine they get their food from.

There is no reasonable difference between what "farmers" say and what Facebook says, or the Collection of sad landlords, or the conglomerate of weapons manufacturers for world peace. It's all the same lies to keep the cash cow going as long as possible to extract as much value from our planet before everything goes to shit.

If people did do research, they'd find out that the main, humonguous problem is animal agriculture. Whether it's water (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-wa...), land, energy or CO2e production, it's not anywhere close to sustainable to eat meat every meal, not even every day.

They are, more and more. They richer a country becomes, the more they demand meat and animal products, the more they overconsume resources relative to provided calories/protein.

And who cares about India, when we're already screwing ourselves over well enough: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-wa...

70% of the water used from the Colorado River (which is slowly losing water) is used for crops, and 80% of that is used for feed production. But let's stop taking so many showers, that'll fix the issue.

Hmm, if there was a movement that organized around ending animal ag, and they called for individuals to stop consuming animals, would that not count as working towards systematic change?

Conversely, all your examples also require individuals to make individual choices. Arguably, no systemic change has ever happened without individuals choosing to act.

The simple issue is that in the calculation "amount_of_people * amount_of_consumption > carrying_capacity", only one of them is easily advocated for in an ethical manner. We have a loooooooong history of measure taken to reduce population always fucking over the minoritized. Ironically, those are the people least likely to have caused the problem in the first place.

TLDR: Veganism is easier to advocate for than not having kids. I say that as a childfree vegan.

Considering that alfalfa production is drying up the Colorado(?) river, wastefully and destructively producing feed crops at home instead of importing them is not the win you think it is.

grass fed or grass finished? Because if they graze for a bit, but then still have to fed a ton of feed crops to fatten them up fast enough, it's a distinction without a difference.

In the end, all versions of beef production remotely possible are either insanely inefficient in yield or in resource usage or objectively cruel (aka factory farms). A vegan diet is absolutely going to be the better choice on every reasonable metric for the vast majority of people and life situations (aka Inuits don't count).

Which is an efficiency not required by us at the moment, and a mode of production that couldn't cover even a percent of the entire current or future meat production.

Our problem isn't tetris with land. We have way, way, way more land to produce food crops than we need to feed everyone, we don't need to optimize for the few places where we can raise a few cattle exclusively. We can feed the same amount of people using far less water, land, and power using a vegan-ish diet.