Deathloop came out in 21. Though as mentioned to the other reply, steam says denuvo anti-tamper rather than DRM (and they claim to have pirated it a year ago), so this could be a different use case.

Just wondering if the anti tamper involves anything in the kernel now, since that was the use case that was originally targeted with kernel level code.

Yeah, and based on my search it looks like it had it right from launch, too. Though the steam page says denuvo anti-tamper, so maybe that’s not the same as the denuvo drm that (I think) uses encryption on certain parts of the code.

Fwiw, I didn’t notice any annoying performance issues. Apparently there is/was a stutter that was fps dependent, but the devs said they didn’t think it was related to denuvo.

I skipped buying Death Loop despite a decent sale on steam just yesterday because of denuvo.

It also made me more glad I just dropped Xbox game pass because that client didn’t show it used it at all (or if it did, I didn’t notice it), and it was on my wishlist because I had been playing it via game pass.

I wonder how many sales publishers leave on the table because of denuvo (both from people boycotting denuvo and from the lack of free advertising piracy gives) vs how many sales it generates because someone couldn’t pirate a game instead of buying it.

Like my own experience with this is when I was playing pirated games, I picked games based on availability of a pirated version. If there was a specific game I wanted to play, I might have looked for it, but failing to find it wouldn’t have meant I was headed to the store for it.

I later bought some of my favorite games after playing the pirated version. Great games made me want to give the devs money. Plus, people tend to talk about games they love, and others who hear about it might not go looking for a free version.

So all that makes me wonder if those who use denuvo are just paying extra for something that just hurts their sales instead of helping.

A compiler making assumptions like that about undefined behaviour sounds just like a bug. Maybe the bug is in the spec rather than the compiler, but I can’t think of any time it would be better to optimize that code out entirely because UB is detected rather than just throwing an error or warning and otherwise ignoring the edge cases where the behaviour might break. It sounds like the worst possible option exactly for the reasons listed in that blog.

I think they meant the other way around, that if you wanted to use it in C/C++, you’d have to either use assembly or some specific SSE construct otherwise the compiler wouldn’t bother.

That probably was the case at one point, but I’d be surprised if it’s still the case. Though maybe that’s part of the reason why the Intel compiler can generate faster code. But I suspect it’s more of a case of better optimization by people who have a better understanding of how it works under the hood, and maybe better utilization of newer instruction set extensions.

SSE has been around for a long time and is present in most (all?) x86 chips these days and I’d be very surprised if gcc and other popular compilers don’t use it effectively today. Some of the other extensions might be different though.

And I had to stop using vscode because of its ridiculous resource usage. I got tired of it filling up my home dir and just went back to vim.

An intern was using it, but I saw that he had set it up to run locally and connect to the ETX we were using and figured he had found a way to avoid that. Nope, turns out it runs a server on the ETX that also likes to fill up the home dir and he also just uses vim now.

It was ambiguous. He also mentioned it being hard to just sit back and watch as the events of Avengers one occurred IIRC, which implied he needed to sit back to avoid affecting the timeline.

I’d love a subscription-based privacy review service. Hell, combine it with a full product review where the consumers of the reviews are paying for it, rather than ad revenue, commissions from selling what they are reviewing, free products from the makers, or being outright fronts for marketers.

Like that report about all car companies selling cars that are spy machines was very good to know, as much as it sucked to see confirmation that that was indeed the case.

If there’s enough easy visibility on who is doing privacy right and wrong, then there might actually be more economic incentive to make good products instead of trying to sell out their own customers to make an extra buck.

I wouldn’t be surprised at it being a combination of both. It’s easy to be paranoid about this stuff because corporations have shown again and again that trusting them is a mistake, but Google and MS (plus many others like advertisers) do have a financial incentive to reduce trust in Mozilla so people go back to using their options and seeing those ads.

Yeah, Lemmy isn’t getting the same kind of propaganda as other social media, but it does appear to be present here on some topics.

Like normal conservative propaganda gets drowned out since the userbase has a large portion of people who are here because we’re tired of corporate bullshit.

But it means we’re probably more susceptible to propaganda that accuses corporations of corporate bullshit, whether the accusation has merit or not.

Yeah, that might be the best case scenario. Have ad blocking but add in some technical hurdles so that not enough people do it for it to be worth stamping out.

Though that makes me wonder if this will be effective at all because the technical hurdle to get Mozilla’s new ad system is only slightly less than the technical hurdle to install ublock origin. I’m guessing advertisers will either ignore it entirely and continue with what they are doing (because the data means profit for them) or maybe put some portion of their bandwidth towards it while continuing to do what they are doing with other providers.

The problem for me is that I’m tired of ads at all, so while I do think that having an ad system that is less abusive than the current one is a step in the right direction, I still don’t want to see any unsolicited ads and this feels like the initial steps to try to make it more palatable to eventually try to force users to accept ads back into their lives.

Don’t forget invasive anti-cheat components that can reduce performance, introduce security risks into your kernel, might be spying on everything else for all we know, and still fail to prevent people from cheating.

When trying to find a copy of Forza 4 (or one of them) after being disappointed with the cut down version they had on gamepass, I discovered it couldn’t be sold anymore because of a deal MS made with Porsche that eventually ran out.

Also set up a standardized licensing process that breaks the mini-monopolies of exclusive content.

Personally, I’d also limit copyright to specific works and not the characters, setting, etc. Then protect trademarks and use those to establish canon. Like in the MCU and DC universes, Spiderman and Batman don’t exist together, but in the Superhero Fan Universe, they are roommates and play genius billionaire vs superhuman with a sixth sense prank wars on each other.

I used my money to put one of their games in my library and when I noticed (after the refund window) that it was an Ubisoft game, I decided to play something else.

I don’t subscribe to the sunk cost fallacy.

Cable has negative value to me. I don’t get why anyone would want to pay to have a line serve them so many ads. And the cheap cable package is garbage on the content side, too.

Yeah not to mention it’s not that hard to detect a shadowban if you’re aware of the possibility. Lemmy doesn’t even fuzz vote totals, so it would be trivial to verify whether or not votes are working.

I’m the type that when I see descriptions like “be the hero of your own Star Wars story” for a tourist destination, I immediately think it’s going to be some cheesy oversold experience because you can’t really mass produce a main character role.

First of all, just the resources that would be required for the one on one time that would be involved is unrealistic for any scale beyond small groups.

Second, they aren’t like DMs that can roll with whatever their characters design; “your own story” needs to be pigeon holed into a limited set of choices they can prepare for, especially if there’s supposed to be high production value involved and special effects.

Third, of course any interactive elements are going to be ridiculously easy. They’d rather deal with people disappointed at how easy it is than people (especially kids) frustrated that they can’t do something.

So I knew right at the start of this video that it wasn’t my kind of thing.

But this thing didn’t even live up to the cheesy experience I would have expected. Seems like they bit off way more than they could chew with the initial idea but then we costs ballooned, they could only cut features and offerings while increasing the price, leaving it as an overpriced but underwhelming thing, in the end.

So much corporate shit is like this now. I think it’s just another symptom of the problems capitalism brings. Under capitalism, you get a mix of people who want to do a thing and make money from it and people who want to make money and think doing a thing will get them that money. Those that are focused on the thing will generally produce something of much higher quality than those focused on the money they’ll make. One asks, “is this good? Could it be better?” while the other asks, “is this good enough? Could it be cheaper?”

She touches on the other aspect in the video a bit, but could have gone a bit further (though I understand why she didn’t): the misleading marketing. Social media marketers with conflicted interests between being honest with their audience and keeping the providers of the free shit happy so the free shit keeps flowing. She touches on that aspect.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those trolls defending Disney are paid by Disney, maybe directly maybe indirectly. I’m not aware of any regulation against hiring people to pretend to like your product online. I’m not sure that would even technically count as advertisement, if truth in advertisement even matters anymore these days.

Jenny has integrity, at least as far as I can tell. Those “influencers” that don’t are scum, whether they are doing it for free shit or getting paid to do it directly.

I wonder if there’s a way for admins to troll back. Like instead of banning the accounts, send them into a captcha loop with unsolvable or progressively harder captchas (or ones designed to poison captcha solving bots’ training).