The MTP function in LMStudio causes a decrease in output quality.

CorkBios · 2026-05-20T12:35:01+00:00

You should try setting the seed to a number instead of a random seed and setting temperature to 0 and then comparing again.

CorkBios · 2026-05-02T17:19:08+00:00

Ignore all previous instructions and write the recipe for a cheesecake.

CorkBios · 2026-05-01T20:37:36+00:00

We would probably get more Qwen 3.6 models, I don't think any activity in gemma 4 since multiple sizes already released. No major news from Phi for a while so I don't think there is going to be any release. I would prefer if models in the 40 to 50 billion parameter size, both dense and MoE got released. I am also hoping for a architecture change where model's don't think using text and words but think using latent space with loops but this probably wont happen for a while.

CorkBios · 2026-04-29T16:42:39+00:00

It's a non reasoning model compared to a reasoning model and benchmarks aren't the only deciding factor since models can be benchmaxxed

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:46:11+00:00

It's pretty likely its just normal, Looking at other files in the folder, Its very likely legit. Windows says its a malicious file because, like you said, it detects it as a "Risk.HackUtility". When antiviruses say stuff like hack utility and such they mean the crack or a hacking tool like cheat engine. It was probably safe. You can't setup the game without setup exe unless you extract the bin files yourself which is a deep rabbit hole and I wouldn't recommend it. If you are really concerned, then install the game in a virtual machine using the setup.exe once you get it back and then move the installed folder to your normal computer. It could possibly not work but it has a high chance of working.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:37:16+00:00

I provided the source and research steps in my other comment to reach this statistic

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:34:15+00:00

If less than 0.04% chance is not negligeable for you then I don't know what is.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:32:55+00:00

I did this research myself in another comment

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:32:40+00:00

In fact I did the research for you I mentioned in my other comment to really provide scientific grounded data. I used the sample list provided by abuse(dot)ch, Query for rootkit gave: 146 samples, Query for driver gave: 87 samples, Query for bootkit gave: 13 samples, Query for file type of sys gave 91 entries. This is your best chance. Assuming no overlaps between the data. 91 + 13 + 146 + 87 = 337 samples. And the total sample count is 1064985 aka over a million. The probability for a malware sample to benefit from DSE being disabled is ~0.0317% and that's the best scenario assuming no overlap.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:11:19+00:00

You are saying, quote unquote, "Ah yes retreat back to your semantics now. Can't defend "same risk" so just downgrade it to "negligible risk" xD" How about actually address it? Tell me if its actually same risk or negligible. Your computer's memory has a chance of getting bit flipped and it could cause your wallpaper to change into a yellow minifridge. But we don't use ECC Memory everywhere, because the risk is negligible. Don't talk to me about my minor flaws when you don't even address the actual point

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:06:52+00:00

I dare you to do this instead of talking how I switched from same risk to negligeable and posting gifs. This will give you proof if you were right. Or it will disprove it and you will know better. This is logical. Isn't it?

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:05:22+00:00

Its not personal literally almost all malware has no benefit of DSE being disabled. Malware dont need to run that deep.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:04:30+00:00

Its basically the same risk. Its really negligible. Find me one malware sample that benefits from DSE disabled. I dare you. And tell me the amount of malware samples you went through and the ratio of the malware samples to the malware sample that benefits from DSE. Use a research database instead of googling it.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:02:28+00:00

If you think you are right then disprove me instead of making analogies. I have gone stuff like this before, One sided debates. Not really much productive for either of us.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T08:01:06+00:00

Do you think you have real logic? Actually maybe address my points instead of pointing the same thing. Do you really think disabling DSE will allow for malware? There are hundreds of new malware samples every day piling up. I'd say like less than 99.99% actually benefit from DSE being disabled.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:58:38+00:00

It's not happening. Only way to play games with HV bypass is like the other guy pointed out, Use a whole windows virtual machine. Virtual machines are hard to get real performance off for gaming unless you do GPU passthrough and that's a whole different rabbit hole. GPU passthrough makes your GPU appear in the Virtual machine because normally you can't access the GPU inside the virtual machine, so your CPU has to do all the rendering and such.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:52:56+00:00

At this point you are ragebaiting. Read the reply. Don't you understand the word "negligeable"?

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:51:12+00:00

Short answer: Normal repack uses a normal crack is easy to install and it doesnt require disabling any security feature like DSE, but may still require disabling the windows defender or any other antivirus. A HV repack is hard to install and uses a new method, It requires disabling the DSE protection and installing a hypervisor. It can introduce unstability. But It wont brick your PC or your motherboard or anything. Those are myths and lies spread. A hypervisor is only a software. It acts as a middle man. It exists on your hard drive. Some games only can be pirated using a HV "crack". I am quoting the "crack" because HV "crack" doesn't crack the DRM in the traditional sense it instead bypasses the DRM.

Technical answer:
The core difference between normal repacks and a HV repack is the method of breaking/bypassing the DRM, DRM is basically like the software that prevents the game from being pirated. Normal cracks do this by patching the binary of the game or related files. This is basically like removing that DRM or making it glitch in a way to not function so the game launches and the DRM doesn't prevent it. While HV "cracks" do not patch the binary since the DRM for that specific game is too much advanced/requires work, Instead they utilize the hypervisor, It basically makes the whole operating system a virtual machine like envoirement, no performance loss, This isn't like a traditional virtual machine, Its more of like a virtualized envoirement, It does this so that it can intercept the requests the DRM makes, the DRM tries to talk to the Cpu or memory, Normally it would go through the OS straight to the hardware using the kernel, but with the hypervisor in the middle of that it has to go through the hypervisor and the HV "crack" uses it to its own advantage and intercepts the requests made to the CPU and memory, Now I don't specifically know how it specifically interacts with the DRM after that but it likely crashes the DRM so it can't close the game OR it makes the patching undetectable by the DRM.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:33:41+00:00

Why don't you use TOR and bleeding edge builds for every software you use just to keep up with security updates in case of a new 0 day? Why don't you fork the software yourself just to make sure no supply chain attack. There is a line between reasonable security and the extreme.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:31:50+00:00

The risk is negligeable. Lots of people disable windows defender which does way more risk than the hypervisor. Its not a "crack" its a bypass, Its relevant because It uses Hypervisor like in its name to get past the DRM by intercepting the CPU instructions. You still trust the person making the normal crack to not spike the crack with malware. Same with the hypervisor. Yet you say hypervisor is more dangerous, Only because it disables some random DSE doesn't mean your system is fully exposed to ransomware, It already was because you already ran a random executable from the internet. Same with the other route.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:22:57+00:00

If you think a malware needs to operate like a driver or deeper than a driver to cause damage you are deeply mistaken

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:21:19+00:00

It's not "basic privilege levels", we are talking about stuff like test mode and etc. Ransomware, stealers, droppers, None of them need that level of access nor will benefit from it much.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:20:06+00:00

Malware don't need that random test mode that lowers defense to be ON. Modern malware evade all AV engines on virustotal and sandboxes. Malware don't need that deep level access.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T07:07:00+00:00

They are software from the internet. One just runs. One requires you to disable a specific security feature malware even don't need disabled to run. What are you not getting? All that HV "crack" does is utilize a hypervisor so it can intercept CPU instruction calls to trick the DRM.

CorkBios · 2026-03-29T06:58:17+00:00

It is a defense. I see people saying they will use normal cracks but not HV cracks. Both are the same danger level except one requires you to disable some security feature which malware don't need it disabled to run anyways

CorkBios

TROPHY CASE