Quoting: DonkeyActually there is. Machine learning requires a very limited and specific set of instructions. Nvidia does have hardware for this included in their GPU to speed things up. It is true that they use other computers to calculate the weights for the machine learning model, but without the dedicated part, even the creation of the model itself would probably have been to expensive.

I'm not sure what you're saying. As far as I know, there is no actual machine learning going on in the RTX cards. Just the execution of the models. Yes, they use hardware that is well fitted for that task, but it's just the execution, not the machine learning itself.

I'm not sure what you mean with "very limited and specific instructions" for ML. ML is possible on any hardware, as far as I know. Not efficient maybe, but possible. What kind of instructions are needed for ML in your view?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeThat's quite different. While he can ignore the articles automatically, it's not possible to ignore all such comments in an automated fashion. (I'm not saying anything about if such comments are useful or not, I'm only talking about "automatic" visibility.)

I meant the statement to ignore content you're not interested in. You're of course right about using content tags to ignore something you literally never want to see again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

> Does not require dedicated Machine Learning (ML) hardware

The meaning of the terms around "artificial intelligence" are weird. There's no machine learning hardware on RTX cards as well. RTX cards simply execute the process that was the result of the machine learning that was done on different hardware - which also happened to be regular hardware.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: andy155Valve reduces the size of the Steam Deck client in the latest update? Honestly but who cares? You really exaggerate with the deck news.

Despite what others suggest, your comments are welcome. Your opinion is valuable as much as the opinion of others, no matter if you agree with the majority or not.

On the internet, there are often discussions like this. The irony most people don't see: If it is true that you can simply ignore any kind of content, no matter how often it is posted, you can ignore posts just the same as comments. But that's not how it is, and the comments that say that you shouldn't comment ironically prove that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Alm888User's access to kernel is a 0-level vulnerability in the "trust-chain". That is why WINE/Linux is not, and shall never be treated as "secure" platform. All hopes that a "client-side" anti-cheat will be a thing on WINE are just pipe dreams.

Is there anything that can be considered a secure platform, where nothing can be loaded before the anti-cheat is loaded?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul(excluding android)

You've written so much, and even this in particular, but you're still not seeing it. I'm gonna leave it at that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrinIDK if and how much he knows about Linux, but it looks like he's just throwing random things out there as an explanation why his company won't do something hoping they get repeated all over and the more people he convinces the Steam Deck is not for them the better for him.

He simply doesn't like Linux, for whatever reason. Which leads him to ridiculous statements like this one: https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/964284402741149698?lang=en [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NociferNo, I'm disagreeing with you because you contradicted yourself. "It really depends" agrees with "the malware capabilities will be limited by the size of the hole", a statement with which you disagreed in the rest of your comment. If it does depend on the "size of the hole", then it also does make sense in the digital world to talk about holes and sizes.

Question to ponder: How can you measure the size of a bug? I say that you can measure the amount of consequences of a certain exploit of a bug. But you can't measure the bug itself, which is what I meant.

Quoting: Doc AngeloSo it goes without saying that I do not think the argument is stupid, and I don't agree with your explanation about why it's stupid.

I don't see an argument, just a statement that you don't agree - which is of course fine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapuli cant believe i have to explain something so simple...

You are correct that this is extremely simple. That is exactly why this is a part of my point, which you missed.

Quoting: elmapuldue, i'm not saying 10 is the exactly number, i dont know what the break point is for each human being, what is the point that he give up playing something, it will vary from person to person, i was just quoting a few numbers to explain the point, not trying to inform the exact number where everything breaks.
i'm not paid to comment on the internet so i will not waste hundredes of hours doing research to reply something.

I'm not talking about exact numbers either. Maybe I was unclear about what I mean with "the other way around". I am saying that there are 10 times more Linux users than Fortnite players. That's why I asked if you mean Linux gamers or Linux users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NociferThat's not correct. Some holes can indeed lead to privilege escalation and thus provide full access to the whole machine, while other holes are more or less limited in what they can do. It's not a given that a bug/exploit will lead to total foobar. It's as you say at the end: it really depends.

Exactly. I said it depends. You're essentially agreeing with what I said, yet you're stating that what I said is incorrect.

Quoting: NociferThe argument is that the bigger a player base is for a game, the more lucrative a target it is for cheat developers and cheat consumers alike. Even a minuscule 1% of cheating players amounts to a very different number in a game with 10,000 players versus a game with 250 million players.

I already explained above why this argument is a stupid one. Yes, the statement is correct if you look at it isolated from the context, but it doesn't make sense the way he's using it in his argument. That's a common tactic. Say something that is obviously correct, then misuse that in an incorrect argument and hope that people fall for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments