Not really answered in the paper... were those levels fun to play? The "Levels Evaluation" seemed a little lackluster too.
Back in early 2000 I ran a Quake server that generated levels that were decent. It would build a new one ever 15 minutes so when playing you would always find yourself in a new map regularly. I spent time tweaking it for fun and diversity which were the interesting bit. I didn't want to play the same level type over and over with guns just slightly shifted, but to play a wide range of experiences some of which were very surprising.
I have one of those (but no Internet of Shit devices to segregate). Still, it's nice to know I can do so if I need to.
Unfortunately, all is not rainbows and unicorns. Ubiquiti's GUI doesn't treat IPv6 as a first-class citizen; if you want IPv6 you need to head for the CLI and hope you hit upon the right recipe to enable it for your provider - and make sure you set up your firewall rules to only open IPv6 addresses/ports you want open.
This is also a feature on Pfsense, or just about any high end router, switch, or firewall.
The article asserts, "It expands the attack surface and most of this isn't covered by traditional defenses", which is bogus. It's just another device that doesn't need to be on the same network as critical services.
Tomato makes this very easy. I've set up an "untrusted" network, devices in which can't connect anywhere, neither to local nor to remote machines (only I can connect to them).
There are certainly teams of people of that technical caliber today at Blizzard, Riot, Sony Santa Monica (and lots of other places farther from me) making amazing, cutting edge game tech. But there are also teams like the ones the author described that don't have amazing tech skills that still can make games we couldn't dream of thanks to game engines. I think it is exciting.
What's Blizzard done that's technically impressive as of late? They scrapped Titan, and Overwatch isn't particularly groundbreaking from what I can tell.
This is a sad comment that reeks of the gaming community where nobody creates anything so they've no grasp on the feats that these companies have been delivering over and over again for decades.
It's a genuine question; their most recent games have been an FPS, a MOBA, and a card game. I can't tell what "cutting edge game tech" that they happen to be creating with them.
Good games? Depending on your outlook, yeah. But there's nothing really...different? About them?
There are still great people working in the games industry, but it's larger and segmented. These days you can be an engine programmer working on e.g. Frostbite or id Tech for EA and ZeniMax, respectively. These have resulted in games like Dragon Age: Inquisition and Doom (2016). Dragon Age: Inquisition required a lot of engine work because Frostbite was originally designed for first-person shooters like Battlefield, and Doom is a bit of a technological marvel, and it's kind of a showcase piece for id Tech 6.
Bear in mind everything that's not included in this analysis: AI, mesh deformation, level logic, player mechanics, enemy mechanics, all the lower level stuff and so many things I haven't even thought of.
Presumably if they can revive you as you are now, there's a fair chance they'll be able to just directly dump your memories and search for hex strings without ever actually running you.
Real rubies I awesome. I picked up 50 of them that are 1cm in size to replace the plastic ones that come in my board games. The weight of them in my hand is unexpected. The upside had to be when I brought them to work and got to pore a pile of real rubies into someones hands. Only "downside" is that even though they are really hard, they can scratch each other. But eh they are cheap enough that I just tossed them in a velvet bag and in the board game box.
Curious, where are you buying real rubies from at that quantity. A quick google search returned about 10 different places, but they look more like the jewelry quality level.
I bought the ones that are round cut so yeah they are the jewelry quality ones you probably saw. I might end up turning a few into a set of earnings or a necklace or something. It was tempting to get a rod of raw ruby and smash it or something, but it is also just cool to show off a pile of rubies cut and ready to put into jewelry that I am just using as tokens in a mining board game. :D
> They also might think, does she really enjoy tech, is she a nerd like me, or is she just looking for a cushy office job in software that the "diversity/women-in-X" groups are so loudly promoting.
Hell I think that about all my colleagues whatever their gender is. Seen plenty of males don't really want to code, but it pays too well to not.
> My own theory, is that CS (programming) is perceived as having low social status.
A colleague told me when out at a bar he refrains from telling women that he is a programmer because they suddenly become way more interested because they know how much $$$ programming jobs bring in. That does not sound like low social status signalling to me, but the opposite at least for males.
Having a high income gives a high status to men, but not to women. Women are not at all judged by their income like men are. Therefore, the fact that programmers make money attracts men to being programmers, but does not attract women.
Back in early 2000 I ran a Quake server that generated levels that were decent. It would build a new one ever 15 minutes so when playing you would always find yourself in a new map regularly. I spent time tweaking it for fun and diversity which were the interesting bit. I didn't want to play the same level type over and over with guns just slightly shifted, but to play a wide range of experiences some of which were very surprising.