In the same range of the probability of it happening anywhere else, but (if you’re honest with yourself) a bit lower. Seizure of property and/or nationalization of whole industries is not a novel concept.
JEP 484: Classfile API is going to be huge. It will take a while for full adoption, but finally being able abstract the backend of ByteBuddy/ASM/etc will be a gigantic boon. Being able to read/write classifies is one of the biggest hurdles at upgrade time.
This looks very cool - I'm going to read into the implementation, there's something about producing JVM bytecode from WASM instructions and then having the JVM JIT compile it into native instructions that amuses me.
Imagine my disappointment when I spent the time to set up a Cassandra instance and it did not immediately materialize a demigod woman who knew the answers to everything but was cursed to have no one believe her.
Basically the only anti cheat that is somewhat successful. Secure multiplayer matchmaking has its price unfortunately.
But any process your user runs can read memory of other processes of the same user, Windows provides an API for it. So its not just kernel stuff that is scary.
Can also stick to games that use good old dedicated servers with active admins that ban cheaters. Its the new matchmaking type of games that makes anti cheat software a requirement.
Its not bulletproof, but nothing really can be on the PC platform as it is today. Which is why I said somewhat successful, as no other anti cheat comes close.
it's not really a PC problem, its an attestability problem.
Even with kernel level nonsense a cheat can be made technically undetectable by essentially making a 'player robot' that uses a camera and CV to watch a screen and traditional mouse/keyboard interfaces. It'll only be detectable via player-action/movement heuristics and 'best guesses', and it needs no hooks into software or OS.
This type of 'bot' is going to explode across consoles and the like soon given the focus on AI with general purpose reasoning; you can already easily implement this style of bot against slow paced games like mahjong or poker inferring against big clunky slow image-inferring LLMs; given how easy most coding LLMs can spit out the code for specialty CNNs when knowing the criteria we're going to see this kind of cheating get a lot more accessible.
And I mean this practically. Go talk to Claude or ChatGPT about making a bot in this fashion for just about any slower paced deliberate-action game -- it's shockingly good at doing so with very little user input. Provide it with a few screenshots of the interface and it can even automate finding the bounding boxes or whatever other thing-of-interest you need to coordinate purely by description -- the barrier to entry for game cheating is lower than i've ever seen it , and that's one of the things I did for a living for a portion of my youth.
Its a PC problem because process memory is not protected from other processes or the kernel. Kernel anti cheat completely stops userspace cheats from working at all. It has problems with cheats abusing drivers or DMA based cheats, and of course hardware that only acts on your monitor output and adds input to your mouse.
Your argument seems to be that it is not bulletproof therefor we shouldn't use it and allow simple userspace cheats like cheatengine to work again.
>barrier to entry for game cheating is lower than i've ever seen it
Matchmaking rather than finding opponents/matches on IRC and private servers is also a big factor modern cheating.
People are locked in to the game with you in Valorant or CS, they are penalised for leaving and thus can be held hostage by someone who is blatantly cheating.
In older times, you would just quit and find another match, or if it was a community public server they will get banned.
Well, it's nice to know that Sable's entire portfolio is going into the public domain, it's a shame that the likely 50-100 other shell companies owned by this troll still have an arsenal of useless, but incredibly complicated, patents to use to extort money.
A just world would involve piercing the corporate veil and imposing personal consequences on the owner of this company.
I will start to believe the "7 years of updates" promise for Pixel phones when the first model that was released with this promise is approximately 7.5 years old. At that point, I may begin to reconsider my opinion. I fell prey to Google marketing when they released the very first Pixel model - I spent an exorbitant amount of money on it, only to have it utterly abandoned and deprecated, with support and updates dropped just over a year later.
As in all things relating to anything stated by Google with respect to the privacy, availability or expected lifetime of a consumer product, the maxim is not even "trust but verify", it should be "distrust, watch carefully, and assume the worst".
As far as I can tell from contemporary sources, Pixel 1 launched with a promise of two years of major releases + one additional year of security updates [0]. This was in October 2016. They exceeded that, and actually did three years of major releases, and security updates for a couple of months longer than promised, with the last one in December 2019 [1].
Seems like they a) delivered more than initially promised, b) did not drop it just a year after release. How long a support period do you think they actually promised, and where did they promise it?
I agree it's debatable. And not intuitive at first.
With that said, in all my years and thousands of tables across multiple jobs, I have yet to see a single case where I had to change a table to be case sensitive. So I guess for me it is a sensible default.
