In certain conditions gcc will actually generate instructions that use this same bitvector described: https://godbolt.org/z/6Gfjv6PGd
(notice the funny 130159 value in there)
The only thing I did was to adjust the range of characters so that the bitvector fits 64 bits. Sadly, I do not this it would work for the author's bigger range.
I would prefer if I could pick a color in a faster way than switching to the color picker or using the palette: maybe middle click or Ctrl + left-click (gimp does that). It would reduce the mouse travel quite a bit; sometimes I happen to have the exact color I want next to my cursor.
I would also suggest putting the trailer on Steam. All I see is images in the steam carousel thing; I think the trailer being in the carousel would help.
I've been playing the same 2 games for many years and I think I got pretty good at them and I've used multiple accounts - under your assumption I look like a cheater.
In a proper statistical analysis there are far more variables than what I outlined in my preceding two sentence post. It would be naive to think that I would consider anyone a cheater only based on the account age.
Smurf accounts are also bannable in plenty of games and I certainly support that.
Beyond that, the level of "good" we're talking here goes way beyond dominating in a random match. Cheater stats are usually better than literally the top #1 player in the world.
Take something like Battlefield, where on the public leaderboards the "top players" have a kill-to-death ratio in the thousands. That is so far beyond human possibility, yet they are still not banned because of this aversion to statistics.
I think what's naive is to assume that statistical detection methods haven't been investigated at length by the anti-cheat companies.
When a complete newcomer comes to a field and sees professionals not doing a simple thing, the right question isn't "why don't you just do this, duh", but "I thought this would work, why doesn't it?".
Newcomers definitely make naive assumptions, Chesterton's fence etc.
I'm not a newcomer though, I've worked on both cheats and anti-cheats going back more than two decades. I know how the sausage is made and it's not pretty.
The anti-cheat companies you talk about mostly sell a mass produced product that works very similarly to anti-virus software. Games embed the anti-cheat module and its cheat definitions get updated. Statistical analysis requries both knowledge of the specific game and access to its database. Often also additional game programming to even store the crucial data. A bespoke solution. This can't be mass produced and is expensive, so most games don't have it.
So to bring it back to the newcomer question, I thought this would work, why doesn't it?, the answer is that game companies don't want to spend the money. [1] A classic answer to most annoyances in life, really.
---
[1] An interesting outlier is the online gambling industry, especially online poker. They spend way more money than non-gambling game developers and have much more sophisticated anti-cheat systems, including statistical analysis. It's also fun to see how techniques used to get around online poker anti-cheat detection slowly make their way into mainstream gaming with a delay of about 15 years or so. As a simple example, nobody serious was even running their code on the same system as the game client back in 2005, instead parsing the video signal and simulating HID inputs. [2] Took more than a decade to see popular cheats for regular games go to that length to avoid detection. Not because the cheat developers were less capable, but because the anti-cheats didn't warrant the investment.
[2] Thus taking the battle almost completely to the statistical analysis realm. Are your mouse movements random enough, with good jitter? Does your bot take belivable micro breaks? Does your average performance, including reaction times, degrade at the end of a long session as you get more tired? Et cetera.
Picking out the statistical outliers are not that hard, but will this not have diminishing returns? As soon as the cheaters learns that being too obvious gets you banned they'll change up how they play. Eventually there wont be much difference between the really good players and cheaters, is some false positives okay here?
Many cheaters were already trying to not be obvious, most I've encountered playing various fps games are not the typical spinbot in csgo. Instead they might play with only wallhack, aimtrigger, or even no hack, and only turn on the big hacks halfway through a game if they're not winning or think someone on the other team is hacking as well. In some games they use bots to dunk their stats when not playing.
AI detection is also coming to videogames with anybrain.gg, but seems like these can be countered with AI enhanced cheats no?
As an experienced player with an anti cheat/cheating/security interest it doesn't seem like statistics is the silver bullet you claim it to be, at least as your only detection/protection. It combined with normal protection/detection methods is likely what Riot is doing.
It's definitely a cat and mouse game and no single method, including statistical analysis, is a silver bullet.
I'm definitely not advocating for doing less to counter cheaters. I'm just talking about how more could be done. As in, continue with existing methods and add new ones.
Also, yeah many cheaters would start being more conservative and manage to evade detection. However that is also a win. It's the aggressive obvious cheaters that are the worst, because it makes it obvious that the fight was unfair. If the cheater made it look plausibly legit, then the victim won't feel as bad.
> but isn't the "general" architecture of most of our computers "von neumann"!?
That's something I was also curious about and it turns out Arduinos use the Harvard architecture. You might say Arduinos are not really "computers" but after a bit of googling I found an Apple II emulator running on an Arduino and, well, an Apple II is generally accepted to be a computer :)
What would prevent me from walking around the street or in semi-public places recording non-stop on my phone? Heck, I could have a few phones in my pockets!
Along the same lines: what would prevent you from using a knife to kill someone and hoping/attempting to make sure that no one notices?
Indeed, even though murder is illegal, it still happens. But the law is there to codify that murder is heavily frowned upon. Places where legislation were absent of the law isn't sufficiently effective enforced, tend to have more random violence.
I was thinking the same; they have a map of their route and I see they went through Rahova, Ferentari and they somehow missed Zetari and the cemeteries there on their way to Anghel Nutu; those areas are actually the worst off of the entire city - quite a coincidence :/
I’ve been almost daily through these areas for years; used to actually live on str Anghel Nutu; finding this on HN on christmas day is a bit surreal. I come here for tech articles mainly
I'm always a bit skeptical about physics because whatever models we find and celebrate now will have to be adjusted at some point in the future. I wonder if there's any way of knowing that something is indeed impossible or if our model of something is final and set in stone.
I'm happy there are at least some universal constants like absolute zero or the max possible temp or planck length.
And as for anything FTL, I hear it breaks the rules of causality and that seems to be a big no-no and is indeed impossible.
>I'm always a bit skeptical about physics because whatever models we find and celebrate now will have to be adjusted at some point in the future...
The physics we have at any given time is tested through experimentation, and has proven effective and accurate to some degree. Within those parameters it's verified.
So skepticism of current physics makes sense to a point, we know it's not complete, but we also know that in a massive range of many complex and sophisticated tests it turns out to be precisely accurate. That's got to count for something.
Testability is a strength not a weakness, it means we know for sure what the limits of our understanding are. Outside the domain of science we have no such heuristic, so we have no idea whether or to what extent anything we think up bears any relation to reality whatsoever.
I've never heard about the frostbitten onion before and I am Romanian as well - maybe it's particular to some regions?
"It hurts in my dick" is just a more vulgar way of saying "it hurts in my ass" (the ass would be a place you wouldn't care if you hurt or not); more vulgar because "pula" (erect penis) is more vulgar than ass.
The next level of not giving a fuck after that is "it doesn't even hurt in my ass" which I find amusing - to which someone can reply "well, when it's gonna hurt you'll realise how bad it is" in the sense that "you will wake up someday and regret it".
The least vulgar variant is "it hurts in my elbow" - elbows being usually bumped into things and not hurting much (unless you hit that special spot where the nerve lies)
The frostbitten onion one is "o ceapă degerată", worthless. The suggested form here is "nu dau nici o ceapă degerată" which is used, but less common than the painful dick/ass variants.
My favorite is "it breaks my dick" - "mi se rupe pula". Then there is the euphemistic "it hurts somewhere", with the reader left to guess where exactly.
The elbow variant is another euphemism for ass, due to lexical similarity "cur" vs "cot".
> "It hurts in my dick" is just a more vulgar way of saying "it hurts in my ass" (the ass would be a place you wouldn't care if you hurt or not); more vulgar because "pula" (erect penis) is more vulgar than ass.
Oddly enough, "butthurt" is a modern English expression for nearly the opposite sentiment.
The only thing I did was to adjust the range of characters so that the bitvector fits 64 bits. Sadly, I do not this it would work for the author's bigger range.
reply