kbal

I don't think that kind of anti-labour attitude is likely to be prevalent among people who play daily NYT word games. A more mainstream response is probably more like "whatever, nerds."

Having apps that do what users want but try to hide it from reviewers really highlights the absurdity of letting Apple decide what software you're allowed to run.

Cross-country skiing is fun! I think so, anyway. Take it easy, don't expect to be super good at it right away, et cetera, but maybe try out whichever winter sports appeal to you. What everyone else said, but also don't forget to go outside and enjoy yourself sometimes.

Well, he's not wrong that it's "super hard" to see any benefit of Denuvo for anyone other than the beneficial owners of Denuvo Software Solutions. Gamers might have a better than average ability to suspend disbelief, but that "new study" was pushing it a bit far.

Athena, goddess of wisdom, olives, and weaving.

I had that problem when I used whatsapp five years ago. Amazing that they still haven't fixed it.

Non-google android is the way to go unless you're looking to be even more adventurous. Which phone you should look for depends which of the OS options you prefer. No pixel means no grapheneOS. LineageOS is the one I chose, runs on quite a few mostly older phones. There are many others.

The "you'd have to prove to someone that you're an adult" is where we disagree. I was talking about parents setting a "user is a child" flag on the devices they let their kids use. They already know who their children are, no proof is necessary. The device can then send an http header to websites for example indicating that it's a child user. That part could be mandated and standardized by law. It's 99% of the problems solved (in legal theory; obviously not every website and app in the world will choose to participate in any of these schemes) with 1% of the dangers.

So long as they don't go overboard with misguided efforts to make it impossible for children to defeat the thing, it seems fine. It's dismaying that all the proposals end up with all these ridiculously dysfunctional ideas instead.

When I hear about "device-based verification" what comes to mind is a device that can be put into some kind of child safety mode, by parents who want to give their children phones or whatever. The device then "knows" whether or not its user is a child without any kind of biometrics or identification.

It has some problems and could case a lot of harm if it's badly designed, but it's the only method that seems close to workable in any conceivable form. Why is it never even talked about in these discussions?

Did this highly scientific study contemplate the possibility that this is in part the result of people feeling like they're more justified in turning to piracy if a game is burdened with Denuvo?

Spoiler: It does not, so far as I can tell at first glance. It appears that the model is constructed entirely from DRM-crippled games that got cracked, and then then the estimate of how much revenue would be lost by going DRM-free from the start is extrapolated from that based on the assumption that it makes no difference. Maybe it's true, but the acknowledgement that it "can and often does cause problems, and some developers have chosen to avoid Denuvo altogether because it had such a negative impact on how well their game would run" sort of suggests otherwise.

https://abs.freemyip.com:84/share/_5WuM4QF — be careful following strange links you found on lemmy, but this appears to be the pdf.

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.

Fortunately, the page did its job just fine and was able to tell me to use javascript blocking without needing javascript to do it.

This helps protect our community.