One of these three is not like the other two.

Clicked on link expecting a Tom Clancy book. Was severely disappointed.

If your software cheat gets detected, which has much lower odds of happening for some games than it does for others, you spend $30 buying a new account. That is much cheaper than spending $500-$2000 on a DMA card and then an assload of money on the actual cheat software that uses that card (because DMA cheats are much more expensive).

I promise you there’s at most a single digit number of people using DMA cheats for Rust, because software cheats are more than sufficient to evade the bog standard EAC they use.

Why would you bother going through all that trouble if there is a way to software cheat undetectably? This is a rhetorical question.

Yes it does, and there are at least some non-EAC servers with a whitelist system that Linux users can play on.

I’m sure he’s at least mostly right about the cheating thing, because in many cases the Linux-compatible EAC binary is just a stub with literally no detections of any kind. And even if they did have detections, given that the EAC runs within Wine they’d have no way of detecting something as simple as information cheats (wallhacks, ESP) that read /proc/$(pidof rust.exe)/maps from Linux userspace. For a game like Rust, such cheats are probably the most popular ones.

What I do seriously doubt is his claim of Linux users making up “less than .01% of the total player base”. It just seems incongruent with the total Linux user market share on Steam. Though he does qualify it by saying this stat is from when they stopped supporting Linux, i.e. 2019. The situation is obviously quite different now with Linux being at 3% total and ~6% of English-language users on Steam, so if it’s not an outright lie it’s at least very disingenuous.

If you’re waiting on Wayland to reimplement the thing that made X11 a monolithic unmaintainable mess, you’ll be stuck on your rotting platform from the 80s for a while.

This could literally be a Dwarf Fortress randomly generated inscription.

Yeah. “Feature parity or get out”, like dude we’re long past feature parity.

Wayland supports so much more stuff than X11 does, and what does X11 have that Wayland doesn’t? X forwarding? Just use a modern remote desktop solution, all X forwarding was doing in “modern” times (read: the 21st century) was streaming pixels anyway, just less efficiently than modern remote desktop.

Mr ChatGPT didn’t even understand that the meme is agreeing with its anti-Wayland prompt lol.

Thank you Mr ChatGPT

Fairphone also lets you change out the battery very easily, so it’s not that big of a deal if it degrades. You might save the world 20% of a battery’s worth of e-waste by micromanaging your charging, which won’t really make a difference.

The fact that there’s textbook fascists in the US government and many people I know seem to still be in denial. Mostly non-US people, in case that changes the equation.

Maybe like 13. However it wasn’t until my twenties until I learnt what it actually means, and I’m convinced most of the general populace never learn that.

Most if not all mammals will do that.

Lol. None of this had to do with Musk. I don’t know why you brought him up.

The woman in the video is the one who brought him up.

You can’t just maneuver a space elevator. The entire way it works is it sits at one point. The amount of forces it’d put on the structure to maneuver it is insane, especially if it has to be in time to avoid a hurricane. It has to stay at the equator

OK, you’ve got space elevators wrong, and that’s OK.

In most designs the base station sits on a moving platform in the ocean. That way it can be moved around to avoid things like storms. This doesn’t put much extra force at all on the cable, because the cable is very, very long, and as a consequence even a large movement at any given point is only a small change in terms of angles.

The cable itself is also flexible, which means that even with a stationary base station it could be maneuvered to avoid collisions by pushing on it along its length.

Trash can’t be maneuvered. We don’t even know where 100% of it is.

By the time we’d actually be building a space elevator we would also undoubtedly be a lot more capable and motivated to track orbital debris along its path, and probably also able to clean it up.

You can’t shield the cable. The weight of the cable is the entire issue why we need insane materials to build it. If you add shielding then you’re adding to the weight, and therefor multiplying the size the cable needs to be.

Shielding can be very light and it would be in space, probably only along high-risk segments. In any case, it’s mostly an implementation detail that may not actually be necessary anyway.

The people who opened companies “doing research” into it have all shut down. Either it was a scam or they realized it isn’t possible.

This means absolutely nothing. Quarterly capitalism is incompatible with extremely long-term projects like space elevators, is this news to you? Nobody sane actually expects a space elevator to be built on a timescale that is of use to investors. Even if we had the requisite materials and technologies and the construction started right now, it would likely take decades to complete.

The people doing materials science adjacent to this are not doing materials science to build a space elevator. They’re just trying to come up with new useful materials.

Exactly. Where did I claim otherwise? My point is that the research has been done to show that it’s physically possible and what the approximate material requirements would be. Material science research has shown us that materials that can meet those requirements exist (carbon nanotubes, diamond nanothreads), but currently can’t be produced at scale. Thankfully such materials would also be incredibly useful for a great many other purposes, so materials research labs can stay in business investigating how to manufacture them at scale, and at some point in the future once they can be manufactured at scale, they may be used for constructing a space elevator.

Again, how is this unusual to you? This is how literally all technological development works. Theory will show that some technology is physically possible decades or even centuries before practice catches up and makes it practically possible, and after that manufacturing and economical realities may or may not make it practically feasible.

One could argue that a space elevator will never be practically feasible because e.g. launching rockets will always be cheaper, or even that it’ll never be practically possible because e.g. manufacturing the necessary quantities of advanced nanomaterials will forever be out of reach – a much more tenuous argument than the first. But no, you’ve chosen the most tenuous argument of them all, that it is physically impossible – something theory has already shown to be false.

Space elevators aren’t “pop-sci”. There’s a plenty of real research that says that one is possible. That is not to say one is going to be built any time soon (though it’s not as implausible within a century or two as one might think), but it is to say that one is not physically impossible; physics very clearly says that it’s possible. Not “on the very edge of being physically possible”. Possible, period. The margins are more than realistic.

The people who did that research weren’t idiots and did in fact account for everything you brought up rather than just assuming a perfect vacuum and spherical cows.

Sure… How do you deal with wind on a space elevator?

By maneuvering the base station to avoid high wind weather systems. Though the effect of wind on the cable would not actually be anywhere near as great as you make it out to be.

We can barely build buildings that withstand storms.

Oh, really? When’s the last time a skyscraper fell due to wind?

Then there’s also satellites and space trash which will be hitting the cable. It’s not a thing that can work on Earth.

The cable can maneuver to avoid trash and satellites, and satellites can maneuver to avoid the cable. Shielding can be applied to protect it from micrometeoroid impacts.

This video talks about some of the issues realistically, though it’s mostly focused on math. It mostly is in the position of “if it were possible, why would we even want it” though, not is it actually possible:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aHMB4Tje4&pp=ygUcYXJlIHNwYWNlIGVsZXZhdG9ycyBwb3NzaWJsZQ%3D%3D

“Why would we even want it” is such a colossally idiotic question that it could only have been uttered by a regressive leftist who’s so brain broken by their Elon Musk hateboner that they literally become the guy in the below image, and lo and behold that’s exactly what I found by clicking open the video. “Uhhhh we don’t need more satellites in space actually because uhhh we have problems down here right now? And uhh billionaire tourism le bad.”

I am so fucking sick of terminally status quo brained people like this who view everything through a lens of present-day American politics and are as a result completely unable to envision a better world.

No, it’s not physically impossible. For an explanation see my previous comment.

I find it funny that you started this conversation by telling me that I’ve “got space elevators wrong” and then proceeded to spout strange and verifiably false nonsense like this on multiple different points.

I hope you’re right, but on the other hand let’s not forget that Hitler started out by wooing the working class with socialist rhetoric, but got in bed with bankers and industry moguls as soon as enough of the working class was tricked into supporting him.

This is, in many ways, exactly what Trump has done too. His rhetoric was never socialist, but then the American working class has gone through 50 years of conditioning to ensure that capitalist rhetoric of a certain kind appeals to them more than socialist rhetoric.

It’s not “physically impossible” on Earth. The forces involved are great, sure, which means you can’t build it out of any present-day material like steel, but they’re not so great that constructing a space elevator would be physically impossible using non-exotic matter like it would be on, say, the Sun, or possibly even just Jupiter. We already know of materials that could be used to make a space elevator cable on Earth if they were available in sufficient quantities – namely carbon nanotubes.

The “top” can’t be anywhere, because not everywhere along the length of the elevator will put released objects in orbit. Turns out on Earth, an object released off of the elevator would reach a stable (but very eccentric) orbit 2/3rds of the way to geostationary orbit – below that, it would fall back to Earth. Conversely escape velocity would be reached at about 53000 km, which is past geostationary orbit but much closer than where the counterweight would be (in most designs?). Objects above escape velocity will by definition escape Earth’s orbit, which most of the time means ending up in a solar orbit.