Th4tGuyII

Them saying that is like me saying Bizmuth isn’t radioactive because it’s half-life is many, many times longer than even the most conservative estimates for the heat-death of the universe.

In finite time that’s effectively true, because the universe itself would decay before a block of bizmuth lost any significant weight - but it isn’t physically true, because with infinite time a block of bizmuth left completely alone would evaporate away via alpha decay.

And that’s the point of infinite time - to let you throw away time and probabilities as obstacles and strictly focus on whether something could physically happen, rather than the odds of it occurring.

Knew about Haemoglobin and Haemocyanin, but never heard of the other two before. Very interesting.

Also, RIP Penis worms. Got a terrible name and have low efficiency oxygen transport.

Look, I’m not here for a pointless back and forth where we just call each other wrong over and over again, so I’m making one last comment then I’m leaving it at that.

The interviewer asked him to give an explanation for why people hate Denuvo. The reasons are varied, so no matter what he says, that answer is not going to represent every single gamer.

Yes, his major hypothesis being that the most vocal people about these apparently non-existent issues (their critics) are the pirate community who want game publishers not to use Denuvo’s software, and as such influence non-pirates who don’t see any benefit to using Denuvo (because it adds bloat and messes with their games).

Basically, two different parties are going into online discussions with their own relatively biased goals of changing opinions about Denuvo. […] He’s making the point that pirate groups are the other.

Which is to say that he thinks the ones trying to influence people away from Denuvo, as in those criticising Denuvo for its issues, are pirates.

You grasp that, yet when I say the quiet part out loud that they’re implying all their critics are pirates, you disagree with me.

Nowhere in that paragraph that I quoted did I see anything even implying “All gamers are X”

And nowhere in my post did I imply he meant all gamers were pirates. I said he believes their critics are salty pirates, as to dismiss those in the gaming community whoare vocal about thinking Denuvo hurts their games.

Lastly, what did you even mean about burning a bridge?

This whole article is about Denuvo attempting to win back over the gaming community, so them turning around and effectively labeling the most vocal in the community as pirates is (in a phrase) burning the bridge with thr gamimg community they’re claiming to be trying to fix.

Clearly we disagree on the interpretation of what this guy said, and I doubt any comment I could make would sway yo on that front, but I don’t think it’s a very hard conclusion to draw based on his own words.

RPS: Why do you think Denuvo has garnered such a poor reputation?

Andreas Ullmann: I think two main reasons. First, our solution simply works. Pirates cannot play games which are using our solution over quite long time periods, usually until the publisher decides to patch out our solution. So there is a huge community, a lot of people on this planet who are not able to play their favorite video games, because they are not willing to pay for them, and therefore they have a lot of time to spend in communities and share their view and try to blame Denuvo for a lot of things - trying to make the gaming publishers to not use our solutions so they can start playing pirate copies of games for free again.

Yeah, people don’t talk like what you said, but they do make implications, like he did exactly here. He isn’t directly stating all their critics are just salty pirates, but he sure as shit is implying it.

He goes on to say about the plight of gamers, but stating this first and foremost makes it very clear what he thinks.

Logic-wise, this whole article is about their “attempt” to reconcile with the gaming community - so while I also don’t get the logic behind burning the bridge while claiming to be trying to fix it, that is what they’re doing.

Denuvo has the reputation it has for a reason, and labeling their critics (most of the gaming community) as salty pirates is not going to help them any.

When it comes to performance claims, why on Earth would I believe the salespeople for Denuvo over the people forced to play with it? The former has every inventive to quash any and all claims of causing performance issues.

Exactly. Labeling their critics as salty pirates and dismissing them out of hand shows how disingenuous they are…

Though that’s to be expected considering they cherrypicked the hell out of the study they were referencing, then criticised it because the authors dared to suggest that Denuvo was only important for the first couple of months of a game’s lifespan

Calling all their critics salty pirates is one surefire way to pit people against you real quick - especially when you’re already pretty reviled by the gaming community

Well I think I can confidently speak for all “meat and potatoes” men when I say that not only would this not change my mind, I think I’d never be able to look at a prune in the same way again after eating this

Honestly. Working with academics in science was so annoying at times exactly because too many academics talk just like this.

Too often I sat with them wishing I could just tell them to speak plainly FFS - unnecessarily complex, overly specific jargon doesn’t make you look any better, it makes you look smarmy.

My first instinct is to say “No shit Sherlock”, of course people who get paid more for their projects can afford to contribute more time to them…

but I do understand that having empirical documented evidence of something, even of it should be common sense, is really important, cause common sense isn’t as common as people think it is (especially when a lot of people in power seem to quite intentionally lack it)

Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it…

But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it’s bow.

Governments don’t seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be far done already.

So the idea behind the ruling is that a lack of non-competes would cause irreparable harm to the companies themselves…

As opposed to the current system that causes harm to the workers, causing them to be unable work in their field of expertise for an arbitrary amount of time, in which they’re expected to just find work in a different industry they’re not trained in to feed their families.

If these monoliths work as well practically as they do here in a small-scale test, then we might actually have a chance at minimising the damage done by unregulated release of PFAS, which would be good for all of us.

Having said that, I do fear that the rise of these “fix it in post” environmental solutions will be used by big bads to justify the continuation of bad environmental practices because “ThE sCiEnTiStS wIlL jUsT cLeAn It Up AfTeR”

Yeah. If you’re on a public forum accessible to anyone, which the whole fediverse is, then you should never assume privacy.

Honestly transparency in this regard would be better - they’re already visible to much of the community, so they might as well be visible to everyone.

To be fair, there’s a point to be made that someone who’s overly trigger-happy on dislike should be shamed for it. Just like you would be if you kept being snide to everyone in real life.

I agree that transparency would do much more good than harm, plus compared to the info that people already put in their profiles/comments, it’s not likely to make them anymore identifiable.

Votes should absolutely be public. They were on KBin, and it made people more civil for it because you could be shamed if you were dislike trolling or liking all of your own posts/comments to make them look better (which is something you actively have to do on here, unlike Reddit).

Given this place is pseudo-anonymous anyways, and people comment far more personal and identifiable info here anyways (which tbf you should be careful about), I think public votes would do much more good than harm.

What’s the point in making something illegal to patent if you can just side-step it by a technicality and enforce a patent anyway?

If the point was to protect food security, then make it illegal to patent regardless of how the breed was created - sorry if you spent more breeding them artificially, food security for the people should be more important than money.

When even the most reviled dictatorships in the world are voting in favour of the UN recognising food as a right, it sure does make the US look uniquely scummy.

The Tories were in power for almost a decade and a half, only interupted by their own internal power struggles, and the best thing they could come up with to “help” Asylum seekers was the racist and inhumane Rwanda scheme.

Yet Labour repeals that and suddenly they’re the bad guys for not being able to undo over a decade of bad decisions in a month.

Conservatives can’t see past their own racist noses.

Damn, I would’ve expected this kind of rhetoric from “ReformUK” or one of the other alt-right parties, but to hear this from someone meant to be representing labour is horrid. Such little empathy towards these people fleeing the horrors of their home countries - deport people like her to Rwanda then see how they feel about what they’re advocating for.

Edit: Also, glad to see a new alternative frontend for Xwitter since Nitter got nuked out of existence.