sad and amazing how true this is.

to find anything worthwhile in Google search you often needed to add site:reddit.com

to find anything at all on Reddit you needed Google

well, glad I don’t go to those websites anymore…

And the incorrect assumptions just continue…

Edit: Who I am shouldn’t matter to you. Addressing the idea that you can shift some or all anti-cheat to the server is something you should try to engage with directly rather than appealing to authority. For what it’s worth, I’ve spent time as a programmer in the game industry in a handful of different roles and your search will eventually find me if you keep going down that road. My experience isn’t what I am arguing here, though.

Frankly, I feel like it’s wrong for you to say that the problem is pushed onto users when you don’t understand the code and effort the developers are writing to solve this issue specifically with counter-strike

You are the one who continues to make assumptions about what I do and do not understand about the code that makes this work in various games.

I don’t really feel like getting into the nitty gritty here in comments, but if your experience is what you say, I’m very surprised at some of your unqualified statements.

I’ll bow out now.

I wrote a snarky response because of the final insulting comment in yours but then thought better of it, going to try to address a couple of your points legitimately even after the unnecessary personal attack.

It’s a lot cheaper to make your server dumb. It costs you less in programmers with deep multiplayer programming experience, it costs you less in ongoing hosting because of reduced CPU usage, and it makes the problem less “yours” as a developer.

I’m saying that’s shitty that the developers will try to save money that way rather than investing in actual effective, privacy-respecting cheat prevention.

Your argument seems to be that a quake-style predictive algorithm is the only solution possible for online games. I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, using some raycasts on the server for some basic sanity checks on what data to send to players is an example of where lots of developers just can’t be bothered.

If you want to dismiss machine learning as heuristics, I’m sorta ok with that, as I think they are just glorified heuristics, but even the most basic analysis isn’t done by most developers. Instead, they rely on the sales pitches of various anti-cheat software and don’t implement anything beyond it, even when there might be some low hanging fruit.

I am not saying developers are lazy, there’s tons of stuff to work on. I am mad that this problem gets repeatedly pushed onto the users rather than the developers, though, and I think it’s reasonable for me to offer some pushback when both my CPU cycles and my privacy are being abused.

people really enjoy the boot of anti-cheat on their necks.

maybe these companies could move their cheat detection to the server where they control the code. maybe don’t just send all player positions so wall-hacks become impossible. maybe use some machine learning to look at input patterns and detect when a player is sending things that don’t look human.

the list of things companies could do to actually fix cheating in pvp games is long and all they want to do is pay for ridiculous anti-cheat that impacts normal users.

ridiculous.

The lack of religion isn’t a religion. What is so difficult about this for the religious to grasp?

At this point does Google ever do anything that isn’t awful for the consumer?

Eject, friend, eject!

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. I was trying to make sure people aren’t handing out respect and trust willy nilly.

I guess I need to clarify that you give courtesy until and unless someone gives you an obvious reason not to. I thought that would be assumed and understood, guess that’s on me.

Courtesy should always be given. Respect and trust are earned.

this is how the fediverse starts to take over and I am here for it

Did you skip the second sentence of my comment?

Am I religious if I say there isn’t a marble at the table? Or a walnut? I don’t see one, I have no reason to believe one is there, based on how the world works elsewhere there isn’t anything there.

But you’re telling me I need to faith to avoid these beliefs in small generally round objects. I say it is you who is using faith to assume the existence of one particular type of thing there and you’re claiming I am the person operating without any evidence.

It’s ridiculous.

What you wrote doesn’t even pass the mildest smell test: there is ample evidence that forming babies hear and react to stimuli from outside the womb, for just one example.

But even if there were no evidence of a world outside the womb, I wouldn’t expect a baby to think one existed. Nor would I threaten that baby with damnation were they not to believe me without evidence.

Atheism isn’t faith-based. If you show me reproducible evidence for the existence of a god, I’ll change my tune no problem.

You are not clear on what faith is if you believe atheism to be faith-based. Atheism wouldn’t even exist if religion did not. Because religion and unfounded beliefs are so common, there is an actual name for not believing in a god. There aren’t a lot of specific terms for a lack of belief in other things without evidence.

Here, let me rephrase what’s written above:

Because an invisible pink sky elephant cannot be disproved or proved with any non-supernatural intervention, you must grapple with the imaginary to address the issue.

…

That’s not how the world works. We don’t spend any time grappling with things for which there is no evidence.

Both sides are all just humans being the worst we have to offer as a species.

Egged on by ridiculous stories about men in the sky, they fight for no reason when we could all just treat each other as human.

Not going to agree with the commenter above, but I want to point out that this happens a lot:

A person who holds views that are detrimental to others comes to a community of those people and cries “why, when I am not quite like other people who hold these views, but agree with them on the detrimental stuff about you, do you not accept me?”

The people in the community try repeatedly to explain why holding views that harm others is harmful and that the person asking may need to revaluate their own views.

The person then says they’re being attacked. Everything they predicted about this community is coming true! They feel like they’re being kicked out!

And they are! Because when they came to engage then didn’t change, let alone evaluate, any of their own views, the community rightly showed them back to the door until they are ready to actually listen and put themselves in someone else’s shoes.

I am sure you feel like you have been badly treated at this point. What you do with that now is up to you. I’ll say this: I have no hate for you, I would like nothing more than to give you some feedback that might help change how you view some things. I hope there is enough food for thought here for everyone.

I find it positive to think about these writers, inspired to try to create something scientific and exciting but lacking the education themselves to do it justice, but then inspiring generations to learn and explore, who then return having learned enough to spot the problems.

I hope Star Trek can use science, and the generations of fans now inspired, to keep pushing these stories further because it feels like our collective need for Star Trek’s vision is as deep as ever.

At what point do we start to discuss how evil the Russian regime is? I mean, this is feeling like we are approaching the lines in the sand that we drew after WWII, if we haven’t already blown past them.

I have no desire to lose more lives, but this is evil. How can any country support Russia in this?

FWIW: these types of password rules are discouraged by NIST -

1. Eliminate Periodic Resets

Many companies ask their users to reset their passwords every few months, thinking that any unauthorized person who obtained a user’s password will soon be locked out. However, frequent password changes can actually make security worse.

It’s difficult enough to remember one good password a year. And since users often have numerous passwords to remember already, they often resort to changing their passwords in predictable patterns, such as adding a single character to the end of their last password or replacing a letter with a symbol that looks like it (such as $ instead of S).

So if an attacker already knows a user’s previous password, it won’t be difficult to crack the new one. The NIST guidelines state that periodic password-change requirements should be removed for this reason.