TootSweet
@TootSweet@lemmy.world
- Comment on Chromebooks are getting a new button dedicated to Google’s AI 1 month ago:
At work, I used to use a Mac, and when they switched me to the model with the touch bar (because of a recall around potential battery explosions), I had a terrible issue with hitting that fucking Siri button just barely north of where my backspace key was all the time when I was trying to hit backspace. This would be similar.
- Comment on Research AI model unexpectedly modified its own code to extend runtime 3 months ago:
Likely this is just criti-hype. Whether it is or not, AI is a mistake.
- Comment on AI PCs made up 14% of quarterly personal computer shipments, Canalys says 3 months ago:
Ok. So an “AI PC” is a computer with neural network acceleration features in the CPU? Are these features completely useless for non-“AI™” use? (Like I can use my graphics card to search for large prime numbers or Folding@Home or whatever. Are there uses specifically for “AI PCs” other than misinformation generators and plagerism laundering?)
- Comment on This hand-crampingly tiny GBA clone has a 0.85-inch screen 3 months ago:
What is this, a Gameboy for ants?
- Comment on Mozilla buys Anonym, betting privacy is compatible with ads 5 months ago:
Ok, I get that writing a browser rendering engine is “hard”. But Jesus do we need more, better options. And full-featured ones. Not just Gecko and WebKit.
- Comment on ‘Dune: Part Two’ First Reactions: Rave Reviews Topped By Critic Who Claims, “It’s The Definitive Sci-Fi Epic Of A Generation” 8 months ago:
I’ve read all six of Frank Herbert’s Dune novels and nine more by Brian Herbert and Keith Anderson and I’m planning to continue. I’ll happily wish for as many movies as they could possibly make. Prelude to Dune in particular was an amazing series of novels. Probably among the more difficult to adapt into movies, but they’ve apparently done an amazing job with the two they’ve done so far.
I haven’t met or talked to many who have read any of Brian and Keith’s novels, but from my small sample size (and from my own personal experience), I get the impression not that they’re not bad, but polarizing. People either love them or hate them. The most hard-core Dune fan I know says he likes the Brian and Keith books better than Frank’s and he wishes they’d made the movies in chronological order – starting with Legends of Dune set 10,000 years before the first Frank Herbert novel and detailing the start of the Butlerian Jihad – rather than starting with the first Dune novel published. He also recommemds reading Dune in chronological not publication order.
- Comment on ‘Dune: Part Two’ First Reactions: Rave Reviews Topped By Critic Who Claims, “It’s The Definitive Sci-Fi Epic Of A Generation” 8 months ago:
I’m still amazed how well they managed to pull off part 1. There are really good reasons why Dune was known as an “unfilmable” franchise. But by Shai Hulud, they fuckin’ did it.
It’s too much to hope for, but there’s not much I wouldn’t give to see them continue making more of the books into movies.
- Comment on How do you say Combs? 11 months ago:
kOƱmz
- Comment on Me shitpost 11 months ago:
Keep learning!
!opencourselectures@slrpnk.net
I’m in the middle of the “Introduction to Linguistics” course. Had my mind blown so many times already. Amazing stuff.
- Comment on Why do it 11 months ago:
Er… nope. The one on plagerism? YouTube has recommended it to me a couple of times. (I just watched the roblox off sound video the other day, though.) I guess I’ll put that on my short list. I assume I’ll find out that Internet Historian committed a lot of plagerism in creating that “Man In Cave” video I linked?
- Comment on Why do it 11 months ago:
Fucked up cave stories? Fucked up cave stories.
- Comment on Most "simulation" games aren't simulators 11 months ago:
Wait. Are you telling me Goat Simulator isn’t accurate?
- Comment on A new way of fishing 11 months ago:
The new season of River Monsters is way lower budget seems like.
- Comment on I stole this post 11 months ago:
DPH vibes.
- Comment on Build him a dungeon? 11 months ago:
“Gimp”, aside from being an open source image editor is also a term used in BDSM fetish communities. I think the joke is basically that the developers who work on the image editor must also be into BDSM.
- Comment on A combination of languages to briefly cover the most of other languages. 11 months ago:
I know if you can read Chinese, you can “get the gist” of most Japanese writing and vice versa. I think a lot of east Asian languages trace their origin to or at least have borrowed a lot from China. So probably Mandarin?
- Comment on Why is anti-cheat always client-side? 11 months ago:
A lot of people in this thread are probably going to explain to you all the reasons why it’s necessary to do anti-cheat on the client.
And they’ll be correct that it’s not really reasonable to expect a system where data is sent to the client only when it’s needed to render (in order to prevent things like x-ray vision and such) to be performant. (At least not in the most common and general case today, but more on that later in the comment here.)
All that said, I very much believe that a lot of folks don’t suffifiently consider alternatives to client-side anti-cheating rootkits.
And this is all going to be a hot take, so strap in.
First off, an option that I’ve heard of is to require the client to send not just data like “my avatar moved to location X,Y,Z and has this velocity in this direction and etc etc etc” but also exact, specific keyboard and mouse inputs with timestamps. Then the server can a) validate that the given inputs at exactly the reported times produce the same location and velocity (this may involve running a copy of some portion of the client code on the server) and b) do better heuristic analysis on the inputs to detect things like aimbots more accurately. That would take more CPU on the server side, but it would go a long way toward making client-side anti-cheat rootkits less necessary.
But aside from that if a tabletop boardgame brought out the worst folks who played it and made it easy to cheat to the point that the game had a bad reputation, that would reflect poorly on the game designers’ ability to create fun games with mechanics that ensure everyone has fun, right?
So I have to wonder when a video game has either rampant problems with cheating or a draconian rootkit to lock down the client’s whole computer, how is it that people don’t ever consider that the video game designers should have put more thought into how to change the mechanics, incentives, or other design aspects of the game to avoid those issues.
A quick anecdote. There’s an open source Minecraft clone called “Minetest”. A handful of years ago, the developers announced they were adding client-side scripting to it. A lot of the players lost their absolute shit. “How can you encourage cheating like this?” And the developers were like “a) there are already scriptable clients in the wild modified by third parties so us not adding this feature won’t solve anything and b) things like x-ray vision are better solved on the server by, for instance, not telling the client which nodes are ore nodes until one face of the node is exposed - there’s already server-side scripting that can be used to do that.” Unfortunately the very vocal anti-client-scripting crowd won that argument just by being really loud and pitching hissy fits and the client-side scripting the developers added ended up pretty useless. (And keep in mind this even keeps single-player games from accessing the features offered by the client-side scripting effort.) And again, scriptable clients already existed in the wild.
Now, it’s really hard to come up with game design principles that would deincentivise all cheating in all genres of games. But just a few ideas:
- What if there was an FPS that just gave every player x-ray vision to level the playing field for everyone?
- What if you made scripting the client to make grinding or aim bots a feature rather than trying to prevent that, but required that all bots play only on bot-allowed servers? Even if that couldn’t be perfectly enforced, I’d guess it would reduce the incentive to try to play unfairly with client scripting. (Plus if there’s a built-in client scripting system that reports what it’s doing, or for some architectural reason has to report what it’s doing to the server, it’s probably going to deincentivise hacked clients.)
- Not all game designs can get away with not sending data to the client until the client needs to render it to avoid x-ray hacks, but you could certainly design a (fun) game that did allow for some version of something close to that. A team v. team FPS game where the entire map is divided in half with a big opaque wall that disappears two minutes into the match whereafter basically has line of sight to everyone else for the rest of the match. You could not send player location data for the other team’s players until the wall disappeared.
- Make the games player vs NPCs rather than players vs players and predefine the NPCs’ paths.
- I mentioned the Minetest “don’t tell the client which blocks are ore until a face is exposed” thing above.
- Maybe player rating systems? To where if a player is obviously cheating, other players can give that player a 1-star review. Enough of those and they get put on the naughty players’ server.
(I’d list some more ideas here but it’s 2:00am and I really should sleep. Lol. Maybe I’ll see if I can come up with more tomorrow.)
Aside from that, I’ll say that, for all the talk about how server-side anti-cheat can’t really work well, I’d have to submit that… client-side anti-cheat doesn’t really work that well either. Folks regularly find ways around it. And there are companies out there that make anti-cheat software that have started to tip their hand about how much it doesn’t/can’t work by partially giving up on making bulletproof client-side anti-cheat that works (because that’s not that feasible), but by bringing lawsuits against people who break their client-side anti-cheat. (It’s the same trick they pulled with DRM, at least in the U.S… It’s not really possible to make DRM secure against the user who has physical access to the machine on which the DRM scheme is being executed, so instead of making DRM that works, they made laws to criminalize the breaking of DRM.)
All in all, I wouldn’t personally play any game that required a rootkit. Don’t care how fun it is. That’s just straight up a deal breaker for me. It’s my computer, dammit!
- Comment on Could we not bring that to Lemmy, please? 11 months ago:
Stay with me here.
/c/pornporn, but it’s SFW.
- Comment on Fuck Disney tbh 11 months ago:
I’m not sure I fully understand your statement here.
(For purpuoses of this conversation, I’ll be limiting my comments to U.S. law. I can’t say I’m any expert on that, even, but as little as I know about U.S. law, I know far less about any other country’s law. IANAL. Not legal advice.)
I’m referring to this intro sequence that they’ve started adding at the beginning of the significant majority of Disney movies and TV shows. (I don’t think they add it to Marvel or Star Wars things, for instance. Only to more explicitly Disney-branded ones.) It’s probably restored, but it’s the clip from the original Steamboat Willie short.
When you say “you can’t claim only part of an intellectual work” I assume you’re referring to copyright. But what I’m saying is that Disney has finally accepted that they can’t prevent copyright protections on the original Steamboat Willie short from expiring on January 1st 2024 (I don’t think there’s any likelihood of them pulling out a last-minute surprise before then) and are changing their approach. They’re trying to establish a case that they’re using Steamboat Willie (or that clip, at least) as a trademark. (Trademark law and copyright law are different. The rules are different.) I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect that a part/clip of the original Steamboat Willie short couldn’t be used as a trademark.
If someone made/released a film featuring Steamboat-Willie art of the Steamboat-Willie Mickey Mouse on January 2nd 2024, that would be fine from a copyright perspective. (So long as they didn’t do something else that infringed on copyright somewhere.) But it looks like Disney has specifically taken steps to ensure they have an option to come after such a person on trademark grounds.
Now (oh blast, I said I wasn’t going to talk about non-U.S. law, didn’t I? I guess I lied), my understanding about Blood and Honey is that a) it was made in Great Britain and b) the copyright in Great Britain technically hadn’t expired when Blood and Honey was released. Basically, Blood and Honey was (technically) a pirate film. It wasn’t (technically) allowed. (Any more so than would be an unlicensed romcom starring Darth Vader and Jar Jar Binks would be in the U.S. – both characters from works that are fully covered by copyright.) In fact the director of Blood and Honey has said he’s shocked he hasn’t been sued yet and that if Disney did sue, they’d probably have a case.
Now, theoretically, if someone had made a movie in the U.S. with Winnie the Pooh as a character after January 1st 2022, that wouldn’t have infringed any copyright so long as they used only art styles and story elements and such from what Winnie The Pooh works had entered the public domain. Mostly just the original Milne book.
There was a court case where someone made an unlicensed Sherlock Holmes book while some of the original Sherlock books were still in copyright but others had passed out of copyright protections and the courts basically said that you can use any element of Sherlock from the public domain books, but not any elements (such as his dog or his bipolar (which I’m guessing they called “manic depression”) diagnosis) that were from works still covered by copyright. (And it sounds like you understand that last bit. Just wanted to add clarification for other folks that might see this thread.)
- Comment on Fuck Disney tbh 11 months ago:
When the ball drops in Times Square, I’m going to yell “Steamboat Willie’s in the public domain (in the U.S. at least)” instead of “Happy New Year.”
Yes Disney is using clips from Steamboat Willie at the beginning of all movies and such to try to establish a case for trademark protections (again at least in the U.S.), but it’s still a bit of a victory.
- Comment on We never see the moon's turtle though 🤔 11 months ago:
Fake. There’s another turtle under that turtle.
- Comment on Why can't I argue against claims of suffering? 11 months ago:
Clearly not.
You’re being disingenuous saying in one place “I’m thinking wrong and need you to help me” and another place arguing with people who are answering you. This is flamebait and you’re a troll. Pure and simple.
- Comment on Why can't I argue against claims of suffering? 11 months ago:
Do you have some reason to think they’re not suffering? That they’re feigning suffering to manipulate you or something? If not, don’t be a dick and tell them they’re not. That’s basically gaslighting.
Imagine going to the doctor and saying you’ve been having terrible headaches and the doctor’s response is “I don’t think you’re having headaches.”
No one can prove they’re actually having any particular feeling. But everyone has feelings constantly. If they’re saying they feel a certain way, their assertion is automatically more valid than your denial. You don’t live in their head. They do.
People sometimes feel a certain way for no apparent reason. (Depression, for instance, is sometimes idiopathic.) But it’s not as if people aren’t really having feelings. And you have no basis on which to tell them they’re not. Nor that their feelings are baseless (or for that matter not baseless.)
If someone says they feel a certain way, there’s usually no constructive benefit that can come from denying that they even have those feelings.
I personally suspect that in most cases even those who use their own feelings to manipulate others (folks suffering from “cluster B” personality disorders, for instance) generally are still subjectively having the feelings they use to manipulate. If they say “you hurt me deeply” because you set a reasonable boundary or some such, it’s probably the case that they do indeed feel “deeply hurt” even if they are using that feeling as a weapon against you. (And, again, don’t be assuming they are unless you’ve got good reason to.) Denying that they feel that way is a) probably strictly false and b) completely unconstructive even if you are (in some sense) correct. Better would be to work out a solution/compromise that works even in the presence of those feelings. (And in extreme situations, it can theoretically be best to, for instance, cut off all contact with a manipulative person. But even in that case, I don’t really see how denying the manipulative person’s feelings could be helpful.)
All that said, when it comes to manipulative people, I can understand the impulse to deny their feelings. It’s cathartic in a really unhelpful vindictive kind of way. But still, it’s unhelpful.
But I think I’ve gone way off on a tangent here. You’re not asking about manipulative people so far as I can tell. The example you gave was just transphobic conspiracy-theory-level bullshit that you’re trying to pass off as somehow lOgIcAl.