This comment… Confuses me.

Black box testing is MUCH harder than white box testing, especially as, and I hate to say it, AI based security scanners become better and better at identifying flaws in source code. Having more information about your target is always the first step in penetration testing, and more information is ALWAYS better.

This is exactly why security by obscurity is a valid tactic. It hides information and makes a system harder to attack.

Absolute security is achievable, but comes with costs. If I’m willing to airgap everything and never go online, only using my own code, my device will be safe.

No, it’s not. Every system has flaws. Using your own code is especially a bad idea, as it is much more likely to be flawed than a 20 yo open source project. Your airgapped device may be secure from remote attacks, since it is not connected to any network, but if it is stolen, that means nothing.

Absolute security is impossible.

Yep! I don’t know a single engineer who would say that security by obscurity is never useful. Everyone knows, as you said, to put SSH on a random port. It’s the first step you do to secure a server.

And what part, exactly, is not true?

I’m curious to see how this will go.

My guess is: When the products were sold, the price was simply higher and the tariffs not mentioned on the invoices. Customer did not pay taxes themselves, they agreed to pay a high price. Of course everyone knew why, but I doubt a capitalistic country like the US will rule in favor of the customers here, unfortunately.

Again, I never disagreed with the issue: (90%) solo games requiring an internet connection disappearing suddenly is a major issue in the gaming industry

I disagree with the solutions people want for it, which I find shortsighted.

And yes, such a legislation would force to rethink some designs, and force using one over the other not because it fits the final product better, but because it does not have the additional pressure of compliance. And that, I think, makes it a poor solution.

What I’d like to see is something similar to minimal warranty in the EU. So, a game has to provide X years of playability, clearly shown on the product page/box. They can guarantee longer if they wish. They then have a legal obligation to keep it online. Add to it a mandatory warning X years before shutdown.

Then the consumer is no longer deceived, and the studio has less pressure to comply with EoL requirements.

And why not make releasing the source code a viable way to comply with these requirements, and have a special label for “forever playable” games, either fully singleplayer or through code release.

Just don’t force every studio to release their codebase.

Do you think only big studios make games that need an internet connection? Or why is this comment relevant?

This shows me you don’t work anywhere near software. It is not as easy as you think it is.

I find it weird that you’re making what seems to me to be a strawman argument about “burdening (mostly) small developers,” as I’d say they are mostly not the ones trying to do this bullshit where they try to retroactively destroy art and culture because it stops being profitable enough. Indie studios typically don’t design their games to use publisher-operated servers with ongoing costs attached in the first place, let alone to self-destruct when they shut off!

Releasing source code isn’t without extra work. My point is, unless you make sure to specifically target the companies abusing gamers, you’re going to mainly hurt the part of the industry that is not the problem.

This would be the only type creative work that would be burdened like this.

I find it paradoxical that we’re trying to save the gaming industry by burdening (mostly) small developers. Larger studio will no longer be able to abuse the system, but complying will be easy for them.

For indies and small to medium studios though? They struggle enough as it is. Adding the burden of compliance on top is not a great idea.

If we could legally categorize studios in a meaningful way, and therefore target the big ones and leave indies alone, I would support such an idea.

They are exploited constantly. And fixed constantly.

No. It’s a valid tactic but needs to be part of a much broader strategy.

Absolute security is unachievable, but it is much harder to probe a black box to understand how it works than reading its entire manual.

Exactly this. On top of being liberticide and hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.

Ban smoking anywhere that is not your home, problem solved

I am of the same opinion, but when it comes to laptops, I’d rather go for an american company that cares about repairability, sustainability, and genuinely good laptops than a EU company without those values. It’s not all black and white, and this is a clear case where paying a US company is one of the better choices.

I will trust people using their IT experience as a reason to avoid something, though

I’m not sure where you are from, and perhaps it depends on the location!

I would definitely call it bias, because if it can summarize Al Jazeera for the Strait, it could certainly summarize Al Jazeera for ICE!

Oh yeah, it is definitely heavily biased already. Just google anything controversial and you’ll see it to some degree.

“Is ICE doing illegal operations” -> “Allegations…” Anything about the strait of hormuz -> straight up no summary whatsoever lmao

It’s not implying any causality, it’s just denouncing hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy in dreaming to move to some other country as long as you’re not trying to stop others from achieving that same dream.

Wow, I wasn’t expecting so many conspiracy theorists on the leftish side of the political spectrum. That’s concerning.

That should never be a reason not to share open source knowledge!

Then it won’t happen. Vance isn’t stupid, he knows he can’t hold maga on his own.