I’m surprised no one has mentioned this: it’s a numbers game. It only takes a small number of cheaters to reach a critical mass where everyone is encountering them all the time. If only 1% of all players are cheaters and you play games against 10 people in one day, your chance of playing against at least one cheater is about 9.6% on that day. Play 10 players per day for a month (30 days) and your chance of meeting at least one cheater goes up to 95%.
Now consider the effects that cheaters have on the rest of the population: if people get frustrated by cheaters often enough they’re more likely to quit the game. Over time, this can cause the number of non-cheaters to go down, increasing the chances of everyone playing against cheaters. If cheaters are now up to 2% of the population then your chances of meeting at least one in a day (assuming 10 opponents again) rise to 18%.
Conclusion: Over a long enough time span the population of cheaters rises to 100%.
I’m inclined to give Linux more benefit of the doubt than, say, Windows. That’s because of the motives behind it.
Microsoft have a very long history of making design choices in their software that users don’t like, and quite often that’s because it suits their interests more than their customers. They are a commercial business that exists to benefit itself, after all. Same with Apple. Money spoils everything pure, after all. You mention privacy, but that’s just one more example of someone wanting to benefit financially from you - it’s just in a less transparent and more open-ended way than paying them some cash.
Linux, because that monetary incentive is far less, is usually designed simply “to be better”. The developers are often primary users of the software. Sure - sometimes developers make choices that confuses users, but that over-arching driving business interest just isn’t there.
I think that over time, the term for new patents should shorten.
History is accelerating, and the larger the world is (as in higher population), the shorter patent term can be and still provide the incentive for invention.
I think that people who invent useful things should be rich, but that should be balanced against the world’s need for that invention.
So you get a brief monopoly on the production, and then later on others can produce that same thing without your permission (patent expires).
The patent term should be shorter in the 2100s than it is in the 1700s, because in the 2100s:
There are more people, allowing the inventor to get rich faster by selling to a larger market
Interesting. I don’t have the biggest hands (fuck the Duke) and I didn’t notice the size difference. I don’t think I could go back to a 360 controller. The XBOne feels like the final form
The noise cancelling headphones are listening to noise coming from the outside and cancels them out. When the source of the sound is in your mouth (see also: bone conduction), the headphones can’t hear or cancel that sound.
The headphones should still cancel the background noise as usual, but they can’t cancel whatever noise is coming from your mouth. I wonder if this mismatch could result in some noise getting through?
If you’re wearing buds, the seal could become inadequate while your jaw is moving, so that could also explain some of the noise.
kbin.life
Oldest