Steam getting better isn’t linked to anyone becoming a billionaire. That sentiment sounds like people can’t stop looking for things to blame Valve for.
Is it too difficult to accept that every single company failed in competing with Steam? I’d say they didn’t even try their best (especially Epic). Must’ve assumed that just serving a website with a web app is all they needed to get as rich as Gabe.
It actually seems more like a windows 10 compatibility dilemma for developers. You can support older systems but it would require some effort. The problem is not the absence of some specific certificates, but the absence of newer ciphers altogether.
This does give security but also removes backwards compatibility with some clients that might be important for some websites.
Well did it help Epic when they added achievements? Guess not much. Either they never marketed this feature enough or most spending users never cared about achievements on Epic.
If you mean just the percentage of users I might agree. But those people don’t really correlate with the users who provide most of the profit of the platform.
My profile is also not public but it’s visible to friends. Also I can make it public when I want.
There are also achievement statistics.
I see. Still, I can see that for many people achievements with no value are no better than their absence. Platform provides value, and for now only steam provides a lot of it with almost each purchase.
Are you serious? Obviously people don’t care about achievements on a platform that has almost no community-related functionality.
I mean the basic logic of the service was designed somewhere before its release. Data policies, promises to users are nothing if you assume services should adapt to stuff like this, at the expense of breaking those policies and promises.
Here is an old article from telegram about reasons for how it works https://telegra.ph/Why-Isnt-Telegram-End-to-End-Encrypted-by-Default-08-14
No, just personal experience (I use telegram for many years) and absence of server data implications anywhere across the issues in the past (at this time too). You can find questionable or illegal businesses in telegram with a few words, they are all public channels. Hence “no moderation” accuses mentioned in every article.
There are of course darknet-like private communities, but I assume they are not a subject of interest at this time. Authorities would need to dig very deep past all the obvious illegal stuff, and telegram shouldn’t care about resources consumed by such a small chunk of user base. Those groups will stay, as they are, private and safe, I assume, for quite some time.
Assuming things should work that way is ignorant. According to you, service owners should design and redesign their services to not store any data in order to avoid arrests. Also that a service owner should invent stuff they might not had a plan for if they have even a theoretical possibility to help identify individual users, in other words go against policies they designed at some point.
That’s a wild way of twisting the logic. Just because the platform doesn’t fall under your e2ee definition doesn’t mean they had to do something that is only possible on purely cloud services.
The reason for arrest doesn’t even have anything to do with encryption. All content that facilitates mentioned crimes is public. Handling it shouldn’t involve any backdoors or otherwise service-side decryption.
Wording is confusing. Here are some better takes that sound valid and are true:
Telegram’s e2ee is only available for chats of 2 people, and only on official mobile client.
Telegram’s e2ee is a feature you have to enable whenever you need it (called secret chats).
On April 16, 2018, the Russian government began blocking access to Telegram, an instant messaging service. The blocking led to interruptions in the operation of many third-party services, but practically did not affect the availability of Telegram in Russia. It was officially unblocked on June 19, 2020
Some say it was unblocked because they made a deal with Durov. Another opinion is that too many people and services including officials continued to rely on it even during the time it was blocked. Regardless, Telegram did a huge job on circumventing those blocks.
Judging by the size, just another electron app.
Correct, it’s impossible. And anticheat will not help with identifying such complex cheats.
You can also mash them without doing much work with your fingers, and no kernel level anticheat will detect that. If you really want, that is.
Just decide that more than X inputs per second equals cheater, and measure that on the server side. No need to riddle users systems with code waste.
I really liked Haunting Starring Polterguy.
Because that leads to the degradation of the software? Or because they provide most of the valid feedback? Or because that would help more users become more advanced?
Developers have full control over servers in most cases. A viable server side anti cheat should be a thing. For every case of “client sending false data to server” we can come up with a solution to verify that to some degree. Finally, it should help a lot to rely on player generated reports and utilize replay recording on server.
But no, developers will continue to rely on 3rd party solutions (made by people who never developed a game), even infect their co-op-only games with it, and complain “uh oh we can’t handle Linux cheaters”.