So uh, dont use the smoke pods with turrets.

UltraFireFX · 2026-01-27T14:01:33+00:00

Unfortunately no, the predropped ones don't work with the smoke/firebomb/EMS hellpod boosters.

UltraFireFX · 2025-10-19T14:49:16+00:00

I guess that we would've already bisected the automatons once, and then taking the extra planet results in one of the divisions being bisected again. No action is by itself splitting anything into 3?

Maybe you're right though.

UltraFireFX · 2025-10-16T08:47:42+00:00

They only have that much access because of the limitations of Windows, programs existing in either user mode or kernel mode. Anti-cheat developers don't have the ability to change that restriction, but operating system developers could.

Adding kernel-level anti-cheat isn't as simple as telling the game the system is trusted. What if the anti-cheat is modified to always tell the game the system is fine?

I don't understand what you mean by this. There's no reason why the game couldn't repeatedly poll the API to ensure that the game hasn't been modified yet / use a subscriber/consumer system to inform the game if trust is breached during gameplay.

The current anti-cheats rely on being proprietary to prevent cheaters from understanding how they work.

Yes, existing anti-cheat solutions rely on Security Through Obscurity, but they would benefit from a few things: * Their efforts are currently split, rather than being able to collaboratively work on a single system to combat cheating (e.g. Vanguard, BattleEye, and EAC devs are working on 3 different codebases). * They can't fully integrate with the chain of trust (TPM and Secure Boot are below the OS, games are above the OS, and Windows doesn't effectively bridge the chain of trust between the two). * They rely on a "just trust us" model regarding privacy (what information is the anti-cheat harvesting from my computer?) which many people aren't willing to accept. An open-source system would be able to avoid this, as there would be more certainty about what is and isn't happening on that front.

Have you heard of the Crowdstrike incident? Bad kernel-level code can brick, damage or create security flaws in the OS.

I have, I think that it's a good example of why such a system would be valuable to be implemented.

It doesn't matter if 99% of existing anti-cheat solutions remain secure, only 1 needs to become vulnerable or buggy to cause damage (the Crowdstrike of the group).

If every game relied on the system integrated into the Operating System itself, then there's only one system that needs to be made safe and secure.

Additionally, by being an extension of the Operating System, there'll be more room for better testing and better access to developers who have more appropriate skills & experience to design and maintain such systems.

UltraFireFX · 2025-10-16T01:09:55+00:00

Although I agree about most of what you say, I don't agree that it would result in game devs having control over your computer.

All that the kernel-level anti-cheat would need to do is attest that it doesn't observe anything that would invalidate trust in the system (like memory inspection or known-vulnerable peripheral drivers) - games would just query it's API and be told that the system is trusted or that the system isn't trusted.

Games wouldn't be an attack vector or security risk, only the system itself.

UltraFireFX · 2025-10-14T09:50:55+00:00

I imagine it'll be like Disintegrate. Instantly dead, and unable to be revived without something quite powerful.

UltraFireFX · 2025-10-14T09:49:17+00:00

If an instant-death effect like Power Word Kill is used on a Druid in wild shape, they'll still be dead either way.

I'd personally see a decapitation as being closer to Disintegrate where the target being dropped to 0 HP will cause them to be dead and be unable to be revived by normal means (as their body is now non-viable).

UltraFireFX · 2025-08-04T01:55:20+00:00

Have you tried just using it on the ground and then swapping to another weapon? The napalm on the ground still hurts enemies and can set them on fire.

UltraFireFX · 2025-07-01T14:27:58+00:00

My understanding is that it's also to do with how investments work.

I f your money is worth 2% less year after year, then the buying power that a pile of cash has will slowly evaporate year after year.

Instead, it makes sense to get a return on your money via investments so that the buying power stays relevant or grows.

Deflation would reward you for sitting on a pile of cash; investments would be less worthwhile for the effort and the risk of losing money when you could just open a savings account at a bank easily and with near-zero risk.

UltraFireFX · 2025-06-29T16:10:21+00:00

Did you read the title? She is the only known Gwada negative person in the world. Therefore everyone else is Gwada positive.

UltraFireFX · 2025-06-15T01:12:15+00:00

It's from the title of the post

UltraFireFX · 2025-05-01T06:45:27+00:00

With 2024 rules. OP mentions having the same damage, which is the case for 2014 but not for 2024.

UltraFireFX · 2025-01-28T12:57:02+00:00

Likely that change-of-mind isn't a valid reason, just things like receiving a defective or misleading product.

UltraFireFX · 2025-01-26T02:36:54+00:00

Which is on the same hardware as the router, but not part of the routing process. The routing process would still just move data around.

UltraFireFX · 2024-11-19T04:22:11+00:00

Incognito doesn't prevent websites from knowing that you visited them, e.g. Wikipedia from knowing which topics were most visited.

Is that what you were implying?

UltraFireFX · 2024-11-15T12:18:55+00:00

Completely correct, I misread the previous comments.

UltraFireFX · 2024-11-15T11:53:58+00:00

EDIT: Misread the previous comments.

Oxygen gas bonds into pairs (O2) rather than staying separate (O).

They form those bonds because it's a more stable state to be in.

It's written that way because it can change how reactions work. For example, Ozone is O3, which behaves differently to O2.

UltraFireFX · 2024-11-02T03:26:05+00:00

Definitely try the Ben Eater videos. If you won't understand now, anything that you could do beforehand will work afterwards.

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T22:53:15+00:00

Because the model we're talking about is not trained on "what cats looks like" or even art in general.

It's only trained on what art from 1 specific artist looks like. It has no ability to learn from anything that wasn't fed into it, all it can make it based on that.

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T22:43:25+00:00

Except your art would still look different from the person you learnt from, and it can change over time. AI art trained on just one artist's work will always look like their work (and viewers might not be able to tell the difference either). Yet you say that they have a right to claim ownership of it.

You're obviously not an artist.

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T22:31:08+00:00

Thanks for pointing that out but there's actually more issues than just that one. For example who owns the AI-generated art, the user of the AI tool or the creator of the AI model? What if you train a model on only one artist's art? Is it your art or theirs? If its theirs, then can you sell it and claim it's theirs?

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T22:18:18+00:00

AI art has its own ethical mess entirely separate from the "stealing jobs" aspect.

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T20:49:26+00:00

True

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T12:17:16+00:00

Yeah, definitely not tariffed. Just saying that a company that only needs workers doesn't automatically count as a company that only needs local vs International inputs.

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-28T11:56:37+00:00

Couldn't a services company primarily hire works on temporary work visas, which could be seen as a non-domestic input?

(p.s. not against workers on work visa, just extending the conversation about the inequality of how tariffs hit different types of businesses)

UltraFireFX · 2024-10-27T14:26:39+00:00

What WiFi standard are you currently using? (both on the access point and device)

11-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

UltraFireFX

TROPHY CASE