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...

there are a few of us still bodging around out here.

I'm curious if anyone has experience with this stuff with an AMD card.

If I could finally ditch my windows gaming rig I would be a happy man.

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.

you better watch out for the DS9 people...

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.

So far, these things are clearly statistics with extra steps. Like you, I need to see some serious evidence before I would begin to believe this in the slightest.

Two modern commentators, author Albert Jack[17] and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak,[18] claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by "the water of the womb", thus "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.

I have heard this story of the meaning being the opposite, but it comes from people with no history background who cite no sources.

So maybe the contrarians in these comments can cite some actual reasons why they're claiming this is all wrong instead of glib rejoinders.

Same. Thought maybe some local woodworker produced a beautiful lectern.

No, turns out it's from amazon with some spray paint and Arkansas is just being Arkansas.