The crazy part is the “stripped down” was still relatively modest. She was in underwear and bra, but they covered a hell of a lot more than most people wear to the beach in a lot of the world.

SteamOS is arch, so some of the derivatives are too.

Steam shouldn’t really care though.

Yes. Exactly identically to them spending money on DRM despite an obscenely strong body of work showing that DRM doesn’t serve any purpose in any context. It’s pure theater.

It doesn’t meaningfully impact the rate of cheating at all. You’re making the deluded assumption that it does something despite a complete absence of evidence to support it. It’s a complete fabrication with no connection in any way to the real world.

It is not security. It does not in any way resemble security. It’s pure theater that catastrophically compromises the actual security of everything it touches.

No, it doesn’t. Cheating is still incredibly common on games that install malware. If people care enough to cheat, they will cheat whether you have kernel access or not. It doesn’t make a dent. They use it for the exact same reason they use DRM. Because they can.

It also can’t possibly theoretically “reduce harm” when every single installation on every individual computer is many orders of magnitude more harm than all cheating in every game ever made.

It is exactly that simple. You already have to account for latency because everyone but one player (who you also can’t trust no matter how many rootkits you install) is not the server. Having a proper server doesn’t change that in any way.

Client side validation cannot possibly provide any actual security, but even if that wasn’t the case and it was actually flawless, it would still be unconditionally unacceptable for a game to ever have kernel level access.

I’m not sure why you think I’m saying client side is better when I called it malware.

There is no approach that is theoretically capable of doing anything at all to impact a camera and automated inputs, and there is no way of trying to do so that is acceptable. It’s simply a reality of online gaming.

No options that resemble legitimate or evidence based in any way.

If a computer has the exact same input and output tools as a human, you cannot possibly do better than guessing. It is a literal certainty that you will ban legitimate players doing nothing wrong for being too good if you try, and it’s unconditionally not acceptable to do so.

Only if you’re OK banning real people.

Yes, people can still cheat with a camera and manipulating inputs. There will never be a way around that.

But that’s entirely unchanged by adding malware, that, even if it could theoretically work, should be a literal crime with serious jail time attached. Client side validation is never security and cannot resemble security.

Your core premise is broken. Relying on trusting anything from a remote client cannot possibly result in a fair game.

He wants all of his books in one index.

Can you lock it so only you can upload?

It sounds like a useful way to share stuff with friends, but not if any random person can upload stuff.

They need to know to be capable of living their life.

It is literally impossible to make intelligent decisions about their future health without all the information available. Willful ignorance is not a valid position, and health care professionals aren’t permitted to allow you to make decisions without knowing everything you need to know for a reason.

And again, by definition, you cannot be qualified to make the choice until you know what the information you’re asking to be withheld is, because that information is required to make a rational decision.

Neither of those shows the tiniest hint of kindness.

Either makes you a monster.

That right does not exist, because it is literally impossible to have the information required to make it, and it inherently requires someone else to do inexcusable, unforgivable things. You don’t have the right to compel someone else to be a monster.

The act causes the hurt. The knowledge of the source of the hurt is the only way it can possibly be addressed.

It’s really not a choice, because enough of you knows to be massively harmed. And there are numerous potential physical consequences. But ignoring that, it’s not a choice you’re entitled to.

Literally any doctor, mental health professional, police officer, or other person in any other position of influence/authority who doesn’t give you the information for any reason is an unforgivable monster who belongs in a maximum security prison cell for a minimum of half a decade per offense, with every other person in there knowing that they’re there for covering up sex crimes.

Being informed is not a choice. Care is the choice.

Being informed is a prerequisite to decide care. There is no other possible way to make a rational decision.

So am I.

The person being fully informed is the baseline legal requirement all the time because it’s literally the only way they can possibly make decisions about their best path forward.

Not informing them isn’t just unethical. It’s fucking unadulterated evil with no theoretical justification.

No, it is not. That is not informed.

Information being shared with the patient is not something that takes their consent. It is the baseline bare minimum obligation of every provider in every circumstance.

A lawyer can’t allow a client to decline to hear a plea offer. A doctor can’t choose to allow a patient to make any decision without being fully informed of everything the doctor knows relevant to their case. The information is always mandatory, and it’s always malpractice not to provide it.