I would much rather my 45 minute game be disrupted and the user booted permanently by moderators VS every game be disrupted for months while the developers try and work out which parts of my privacy they can invade to maybe hopefully boot the cheaters.
You didn't answer the GP's question. You talked about what you wanted.
The answer to their question is: the majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online have decided that they want anticheat, and disagree with you.
It's funny because this isn't even a hypothetical, you're actually just wrong!
The majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online didn't get consulted, the developers put anti-cheat in after the audience was already entrenched. The players didn't "decide" anything, Riot games decided it in like 2020 and the players have middling to negative feelings about it. You weren't talking about Riot Games? Well you said "majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online" and that's Riot Games, so yes you were.
> It's funny because this isn't even a hypothetical, you're actually just wrong!
Citation needed. Strong assertions like "you're just wrong" are automatically false if evidence isn't provided. Where's your evidence for this?
> The majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online didn't get consulted, the developers put anti-cheat in after the audience was already entrenched.
Completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about here. Although I'm not surprised, given that it's coming from someone with other utterly insane statements like "I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market." that suggest that you've never played competitive matchmade games or interacted with trolls on the internet, or completely failed to respond to hombre_fatal's question (whether due to bad faith or lack of reading comprehension is unclear) and just made some unrelated snide statement.
That they brought up League of Legends in 2020 makes me wonder if they were around when all we had were private servers or custom lobbies. That would explain their rose-tinted glasses.
In games like Warcraft 3 and Halo 2, the automated ranked matchmaking was well-regarded and a huge departure from waiting for a lobby to fill only for the admin to kick you because his friend wants to join or because you're playing the Age of Empires civ that he wants to play.
Auto randomization also baked in solutions to questions like how to stop people from farming rank.
The developers aren't pro players either, the cutting edge for anti-cheats still require that non-cheaters play with cheaters for months. I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market.
I'm in a major city (>1 million pop) and with exception of the BBQ type places every eatery I've visited has had a passable meat imitation burger (or nuggets, etc) on offer.
Are you based in a more rural area? That might account for why the selection is small where you are.
This is a myth. You could be confusing the story of the factory workers who had popcorn lung, or you may be thinking of the bootleg marijuana carts which had vitamin E in the mix, in either case the story is wrong and also about a decade out of date.
Politeness is not the same thing as gratuitous praise. Politeness is appropriate; being excessively glazed for asking an obvious follow-up question is weird.
Right, and neither politeness nor gratuitous praise are even remotely similar to being edgy. These words have meanings, you have been using at least one of them incorrectly, that is the point I'm trying to make.
> Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left.
This framing is laying on the narrative a little bit thick don't you think? It makes it seem like she's hated for being wealthy, when it is actually because she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked.
The "standing up for women" rhetoric is a little bit hollow in the face of her non-existent feminism when the subject isn't physically attacking trans women, she didn't make a single comment during the recent uptick in abortion debates taking place in the UK for example.
You are just proving my point. Statements like this show that it's worthless to engage.
Can you provide any source for her "calling for trans people to be physically attacked"? Because you seem fixated on it, and I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking for one, and I can't find it.
What I can find is her spending so much goddamned money on philanthropy that she stops being a billionaire, while not dodging a dime of taxes precisely because she considers it her obligation. A fortune amassed in what is probably the most ethic way possible, through exploitation of nobody, writing books.
Related to this I can find the foundation of the Volant Charitable Trust, "a grant-making trust to support charitable causes in Scotland, helping vulnerable groups with an emphasis on women, children and young people."
I can also find a comment of "every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them".
And that's the point. You want to paint her as some lunatic who would like to hunt trans people down for sport, when it's crystal clear that she has the "radical" (standard 2018 radical leftist) notion that trans women are not the same thing as biological women and that the definition of women shouldn't be changed to appease to them.
But again. It's not worth it to engage, because we both know I can spend 20+ minutes working on this reply and you are not going to change your stance. An apostate is worse than a heathen, which is why people complain about Rowling rather than anyone who is actually right wing. Because you are scared that if you defended her, you would face the same judgement. Making the world a worse place through and through.
I posted that earlier without checking and recalled wrongly, rather than calling for people to physically assault she instead called for her following to take photographs of trans women in public toilets and disseminate those photos to the public[1].
That was my bad, I knew that she had done something abhorrent and indefensible but it was 5 months ago and I'd forgotten which kind of hatred she had been producing specifically. I'll cite the source first next time.
1: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLPG5DlIFIz/ -- I don't have a twitter account to forward the original, but there are news stories about this from the time if you're unsatisfied with that link.
This only holds if you assume that the hiring process is already fully meritocratic (which it very clearly isn't) and that it isn't missing talented women already (which it very clearly is).
If hiring managers are, subconsciously or not, more likely to pick the male candidate when faced with a choice for equally capable male/female candidates then there is inherent discrimination in the process and the DEI approach balances the scale.
This means more women working these roles with the same capability as men, it doesn't mean replacing men with women who are worse at the job, which ironically is an attitude making up part of the reason efforts like this have to be made.
> This only holds if you assume that the hiring process is already fully meritocratic (which it very clearly isn't) and that it isn't missing talented women already (which it very clearly is).
Citation needed. Certainly neither of those is "clearly".
> If hiring managers are, subconsciously or not, more likely to pick the male candidate when faced with a choice for equally capable male/female candidates then there is inherent discrimination in the process and the DEI approach balances the scale.
And if it's the opposite, as the best available evidence (not that there is any really solid evidence in this space) suggests?
I'm all for ensuring that everyone gets a fair chance that reflects their skills and experience, regardless of personal characteristics. As far as I can see DEI initiatives are working against that.
Does it become ok if we redefine wronging you so it's no longer a crime? This is what the people looking for reparations are arguing, no wrongs were ever righted because the responsible at no point considered it their duty to do so.
This means they have been generationally disadvantaged compared to you. It means they have had worse social mobility. By the time Obama rolled around there had only been four black US senators in its history.
The US's historic (and ongoing!) poor treatment of its people based on skin colour is so obvious from the outside that I struggle to understand how you don't see it. The government can snap into action for Florida but cannot find its energy for New Orleans, and many other such interesting coincedences.
> done by their ancestors long enough ago that most have no real life recollection of it anymore.
The last US school to desegregated did it in the 1990s, it very much is within memory.
> Does it become ok if we redefine wronging you so it's no longer a crime?
In a way, yes. Of course, it's different nowadays in that if I don't like how country X is treating me I just move to country Y so I won't touch that too much. If we make it equal to where I get sold (how did I become property? Debt? War? Kidnapping? The country just decided to cover some debts?) to go plow fields in bumfuck nowhere, I likely won't be happy, but that's so outside of modern life I have no idea how I'd feel since people are kinda weird under stress.
The thing is that it wasn't morally or legally wrong for a long time. So it's just holier than thou modern people judging people of the past and wanting retroactive punishments for legal actions to people who have nothing to do with said actions. Sure, it could have happened faster, it also could have not happened at all.
And again, the people who'll be punished by a retroactive application of a law will punish mostly people who had nothing to do with it.
> The last US school to desegregated did it in the 1990s, it very much is within memory.
No clue if that's true, apparently two high schools in Cleveland got merged in 2017 due to segregation. Anyway.. This is covered clearly as of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). So anyone who had an issue with it could sue based on it. It's how the system is supposed to work. Not via redistribution systems based on "reverse" racism/sexism/etc.
> And again, the people who'll be punished by a retroactive application of a law will punish mostly people who had nothing to do with it.
It's better to feel punished now when your illfound gains are equalised to the people who lost out for you to have them, than to continue punishing the people who lost out forever because you don't have the humility to say "yeah my ancesters were probably wrong about this"
> No clue if that's true, apparently two high schools in Cleveland got merged in 2017 due to segregation. Anyway..
"No clue" might be the best I'll get, if you want to look it up and learn it's Duval County, Florida which integrated in 1999.
There is a new book by Owen Flanagan ”What is it like to be an addict”[0] where he goes through the phenomenon of addiction from many different angles and argues that rat park type findings are true but only give partial view to the problem. His view is that it is very multifaceted subject and can’t be understood or tackled with any one easy fix.
Idk what part of "make society affordable for everyone and ensure that everyone has access to adequate care and social support" sounds like an easy fix.
That’s a good goal and I think we should aim for that regardless if it fixes addiction. I would not call it easy though. And would it be world without addicts? There are plenty of well connected rich social happy folks who can’t handle simple molecules. Environment is part of the usage pattern but it’s not the only thing. That’s the books point I gather.
You have taken the point someone else made and run somewhere else with it, so I will reiterate it.
> People (and rats) with adequate social lives and decent living conditions are able to consistently overcome addiction
I don't think it's about riches, or power, or having friends. It is purely about how many stressors you have to deal with, how often and with how much reprieve you have available. More money can give more reprieve, it usually means more stressors too.
The more subtle point I guess is that it is not how much you have, it is the shape of your life and how each day feels.
Use the example of far northern countries. People who live in dark countries drink more, and they drink even more the darker it gets. The modern era says that the answer should be more mindfulness, more cognitive behavioural therapy, I think GP is saying we should be giving them sunlight which is clearly what they actually need. Substitute sunlight for whatever thing your locale is currently not managing well.
I recommend the book and the new research. It reflects on the rat park study and makes what I think are good arguments that addiction is not a simple thing we can fix only by fixing the enviroment even though it is part of it. OP was asking for evidence so I thought I’d chip in with a modern source. There are no socities that have solved addiction. Obviously it is a gnarly problem.
It’s a nuanced issue not a simple issue. Mental health is often involved but I guess your simple cure works for mental health too?
People read some articles about a few studies and not only form but propagate reductive takes with absolute certainty… It’s baffling to see people operate this way.
On the latter point, couldn't disagree more. He's saying "fuck you" to the product, not the person, and unilaterally removing extant features to paywall them imo is poisoning the well far more than a simple FU to a developer ever could?
We didn't remove the features, if you want to use the old ones they're still there in the repo. We just didn't want to support the old way of doing them when we actively tell people not to use them. If you're going to be a support burden going forward we want you to have skin in the game if not cool do it yourself no one's going to get mad at you
In any hypothetical open source project I make from now on where I am the owner and sole director I'll just get rid of the features entirely if they cause an undue support burden (which the datastar dev has gone up and down both threads saying this is what happened) to avoid specifically your comment.
Seems to fit in with your world view better and then I can just leave those people high and dry with much less concern!
If the point is good stewardship of the product, deleting features that users clearly need only to replace with a for-pay version stinks possibly only slightly less than deprecating features users clearly need and then replacing with nothing. Both of these things mean your product sucks.
That's fine, less entitled people is healthy for a projects ecosystem.
For a proper way this would work, you the user would contribute your time for those features so you don't overburden the maintainer, but people like you won't and so this is where we're at.
I'd rather avoid burnout (which will kill a project entirely) and lose a few folks like you.
> For a proper way this would work, you the user would contribute your time for those features so you don't overburden the maintainer, but people like you won't and so this is where we're at.
Sure, if you're up front and honest from the beginning then some users will do that, the majority are likely to go for other offerings which don't suffer this problem. Vanishingly few users are going to be cool with features disappearing and then reappearing later on with a price tag attached, which is the scenario we're talking about.
In reality, 99.9% of the users are going to be using whatever free thing is available and your project will live for just about as long as you personally care about it. Rightly or wrongly, the maintainer's work/life balance isn't on the forefront of your mind when you're looking at npm packages, no amount of grandstanding will change that.
Sure so the maintainers set the boundary themselves.
I dont know what world you live in where you can be entitled to something you dont pay or contribute to.
They can do whatever they want to ensure their project works and frankly once again the projects dont need people like you. You’re not that important or special at all, certainly less so than the people building things. Like I get that you really think you are it’s dripping from your comments, but you’re not.
And to be clear this was a discussion among their community it wasnt a sudden thing so your entire premise is wrong.
For the most part this HN community is comments bolted on to content from different websites, we call this a community with no issues. I don't think it's a stretch.
