

I use a wacom intuos + xournal++.
The wacom is nice because it has bluetooth and pretty much “just works” on Linux.
Xournal++ lets me edit pdf files and/or export stuff as pdf. I also like that I can add text with xournal++.
I use a wacom intuos + xournal++.
The wacom is nice because it has bluetooth and pretty much “just works” on Linux.
Xournal++ lets me edit pdf files and/or export stuff as pdf. I also like that I can add text with xournal++.
Try translated Chinese web serials.
Try 40 milenniums of cultivation. It’s half fantasy though, with it’s own magic system. Actually, most web serials I read are fantasy, I haven’t seen much sci fi.
There are also actual novels though, like the 3 body problem, which was popular enough to get adapted to a netflix series but I only really care about web serials.
All these people explaining that server side anti cheat is “easier”. Let me explain to you the real reason why games use client side anti cheat:
I’ve heard one rebuttal to this: Not all cheaters can be spotted by a human, sometimes they pretend to be a really good player.
To be blunt: I don’t really care. I don’t really understand why people care about that kind of cheater either. The point of kicking cheaters is to keep the game fun by not having everybody get crushed. But if the cheater is just like another good player, then they’re just another good player to me.
I used to play this browser game, https://krunker.io/. It’s a browser based FPS game, and due to being browser based it was really, really easy to write cheats. The devs gave up after like a month, and simply stopped updating the anti-cheat, opting for a different system instead — deputization. Players would become “krunker police”, and while playing, if a cheater was reported, then they would anonymously, and silently watch, and then take action.
It worked pretty well, then krunker got bought by a mobile gaming company and the game lost a lot of members. But I think the original io browser game is still under full creative control by the devs though, it’s just the discord, facebook, and mobile versions of the game that are enshittified.
Anyway, when I was playing a few months ago, I encountered a cheater in one of our lobbies. They were trolling, while advertising cheats. But there were like 5 good players in the lobby, it was a cracked lobby, and we stomped them. They couldn’t even make it to top 4/8 people.
Imagine aimbotting, advertising those aimbots, and still getting stomped. We called them out on that, and they just left. And that moment was a shit ton of fun.
But anyway, in the comments, I see some of this same sentiment that companies parrot: That cheaters are inherently bad, and need to be stopped because cheating is bad. This frustrates me because cheaters are not the only entity which can make a game unfun, there are also other toxic elements which should be moderated, but are often not, because of the focus on cheaters.
Play with cheaters, or play without DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat, pick one
Like this snipped from one of the comments below.
But people do cheat with DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat? I can think of 3 ways to do it off the top of my head:
And I especially hate this particular dichotomy because, by assuming DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat is invincible, it creates a sort of “blindspot”, where when someone does cheat, they may not get noticed because it’s assumed they are unable to cheat in the game, which is not the case.
The SSPL requires that all software used to deploy SSPL software is open sourced. If I deploy my software on Windows, do I have to provide the source code for Windows? What about the proprietary hardware drivers, or Intel Management Engine?
The SSPL is not the next generation of licenses, it is effectively unusable. And both Redis and Mongo, dual licensed their software as the SSPL, and a proprietary license — effectively making their entire software proprietary.
Except Redis, and Mongo were making money. They had well valued, well earning SAAS offerings — it’s just that the offerings integrated into existing cloud vendors would be more popular (because vendor lock in). They just wanted more money, and were hoping that by going proprietary, they could force customers away from the cloud offers to themselves, and massively increase their revenue… They did not get that.
Another thing is that it’s not “stealing” Mongo/Redis’ when cloud vendors offer SAAS’s of Mongo/Redis. Mongo/Redis, and their SAAS offerings, are only possible because the same cloud vendors put more money than Mongo/Redis make yearly into Linux and other software that powers the SAAS offerings of Mongo/Redis, like Kubernetes. Without that software, Mongo/Redis wouldn’t have a SAAS offering at all.
I definitely think that it’s bad when a piece of software doesn’t get any funding it needs to develop, especially when it powers much more modern software, like XZ. But Mongo/Redis weren’t suffering from a lack of funding at all. They’re just mad they had to share their toys, and tried to take them away. But it didn’t even matter in the end.