The marketing works because online games get destroyed by cheats. Losing in online games can be full of “feel bad” moments, even without cheaters (network issues, cheesy tactics, balance issues). To think that your opponent won because they outright cheated just makes you wanna quit.
I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”
It would be great to see more of a web of trust thing instead of invasive anti cheat. That would make it harder for people to get into the games in the first place though so I don’t know if developers would really want to go that way.
To me the "web of trust" element frankly seems like the only viable solution. And in fact, its almost here already: https://playsafeid.com/
I predict that hacker news in particular will dislike using facial recognition technology to allow for permanent ban-hammers, but frankly this neatly solves 95% of the problem in a simple, intuitive way. Frankly, the approach has the capacity to revitalize entire genres, and theres lots of cool stuff you could potentially implement when you can guarantee that one account = one person.
The marketing works because of what I said: people are dumb.
Anyone that's not dumb will know (maybe after the heat of the moment) why they lost, but the vast majority of people will blame anything they can instead. Teammates, lag, the developers, etc. Cheating is merely one of these excuses.
> I’ve seen so many players saying “look you can own my entire pc just please eliminate the cheating.”
This entire idea is so dumb it makes my head hurt. You can't eliminate bad actors no matter how hard you try. It's impossible in the real world.
All these "if only we could prevent X with more surveillance/control" ideas go up in flames as soon as reality hits. Even if a single person bypasses it, we can question everything. Then all we're left with are these surveillance systems that are then converted into pure data exfiltration to sell it all to the highest bidder (assuming they weren't doing this already).
I applaud Valve for not going down the easy route of creating spyware and selling it as "protection".
Cheating is a very real problem in most competitive matchmade video games. The fact that you think that this is an "excuse" conclusively indicates that you don't actually have experience with them and that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
> This entire idea is so dumb it makes my head hurt. You can't eliminate bad actors no matter how hard you try. It's impossible in the real world. ... Even if a single person bypasses it, we can question everything.
This is clinically insane. 99.999% of people, including most of those two-sigma below the mean in terms of intelligence, correctly recognize how stupid of an argument this is, and that eliminating the majority of crime/cheating is absolutely a huge victory that is worth sacrificing for.
Think about that - some of the dumbest people in our society realize that the argument "if we can't stop every criminal/cheater, then there's no point in trying" is bad. What does that make you?
(it's also abundantly clear that you have zero experience in finance or security, either, because anyone competent in those fields can tell you exactly what it means to impose costs on an adversary and why your argument is factually incorrect)
Meaning what? All those college kids who took a friend's ritalin prescription to complete a term paper could have done just as well without it? I'm skeptical. Some of us wouldn't have even done the term paper without it, or would have mailed it in. I tend to think of it as little different than steroids. Maybe there's a bigger boost for some individuals than others, but the boost is probably across the board.
There was a study where they tested the effects of ADHD meds on test performance and perceived performance. It found that stimulants increased perceived performance for everyone, but actual test scores were only improved for people with ADHD.
I don’t mean to speak for OP, but it strikes me as rude to make light of someone’s disability in this way. I’d guess it has caused them a lot of frustration.
Your assumption leads you to believe that I do not also suffer from the same issue. Ever since I was in a t-bone accident and the side airbag went off right next to my head, I have a definite issue hearing voices in crowded and noisy rooms with poor sound insulation. Some rooms are much worse than others.
So when I say I call it a feature, it's something I actually deal with unlike your uncharitable assumption.
Sometimes, late at night when I'm trying to sleep, and I hear the grumble of a Harley, or my neighbors staggering to their door, I wonder: why do we not have earflaps, like we do eyelids?
In my experience the value of junior contributors is that they will one day become senior contributors. Their work as juniors tends to require so much oversight and coaching from seniors that they are a net negative on forward progress in the short term, but the payoff is huge in the long term.
I don't see how this can be true when no one stays at a single job long enough for this to play out. You would simply be training junior employees to become senior employees for someone else.
So this has been a problem in the tech market for a while now. Nobody wants to hire juniors for tech because even at FAANGs the average career trajectory is what, 2-3 years? There's no incentive for companies to spend the time, money, and productivity hit to train juniors properly. When the current cohort ages out, a serious problem is going to occur, and it won't be pretty.
It seems there's a distinct lack of enthusiasm for hiring people who've exceeded that 2-3 year tenure at any given place, too. Maintaining a codebase through its lifecycle seems often to be seen as a sign of complacency.
And it should go without saying that LLMs do not have the same investment/value tradeoff. Whether or not they contribute like a senior or junior seems entirely up to luck
Prompt skill is flaky and unreliable to ensure good output from LLMs
reply