This. Even kernel level anti-c-spyware can't stop a cheap vision model hokked to a mouse, see youtube for examples from simple auto input up to full on elctromuscular stimulation.
Yes the channel “Basically homeless” has a few variations on this. Using electrodes to move your muscles to more practical a bot that moves your mouse pad for you to give you perfect aim. No anti cheat can detect that because there is nothing to detect.
Although who knows, they might be outright lying about that just to scare cheaters, but I tend to default to assuming what they're saying is more or less true.
They can’t detect me splitting my hdmi output, feeding one of them to a separate machine with a vision model to detect what needs to be detected and the same machine moving and clicking the mouse. People are already doing this.
This is my experience as well. For a lot of these people, it's performative. Just kind of existing at work for 12 hours is "getting work done" to them, despite the fact it's life destroying for pretty much everyone that has an actual life to live.
How do you reckon? My understanding is that they're valid perm positions that legally must be offered to US citizens before they can be filled by anyone else.
it's really, really easy to say that applicants don't meet the requirements, since hiring is sooo subjective. "none of the applicants had 8 years and 2 months experience in this company working on this team, so they won't be able to perform the duties".
or, if they do have a flood of qualified applicants (the point of the website), they can simply not go forward with PERM at this time for their selected candidate. PERM roles aren't new jobs in the sense that the employer is "down" one employee if they don't fill it. PERM roles are simply a status change for an existing employee.
Nominally - although perhaps more often barking and not serious - is if you're a super duper qualified US citizen, you either can find a job there, or, you sue the company for discrimination, either way you get paid. The latter being the part that's highly hypothetical and potentially not realistic.
> I'm not sure exactly all of the forces that have led to this changing so much
I believe the change is largely demographic, and I'm NOT referring to gender/nationality/age/race. Rather to the personality of people working in tech today. Long ago tech people were almost exclusively sourced from the weird kids who couldn't/didn't read the room and other things of that nature, they just said stuff, asked stupid questions because they wanted to know. Most people don't do that, so if tech is now made of more "commonly adjusted" people, then there will be less dexterity in navigating a less social and more (actual) productivity focused medium (remote/async comms).
> The meta-point of the article is that we should express are thoughts without qualifiers and embellishments to manipulate other people's perceptions of us.
In my experience this is a common failure point among tech/analytical folks (myself included) which leads to their words and actions being genrally misconstrued and effectively misunderstood by the larger segement of the population which is rarely able or disposed to handling communications without embellishments.
You're wrong (IMO) The onus should not be on the communicator to qualify every statement of opinion. This is tedious and unreasonable.
Not prefacing what clearly is an opinion with "IMO" is not a jedi mind trick that makes others believe it as fact.
You're also demonstrating some hypocrisy by presenting your own point of view in the same manner. No qualifiers. You're simply stating something as truth
> The onus should not be on the communicator to qualify every statement of opinion. This is tedious and unreasonable.
I fundamentally disagree with this. In my experience, it's in pretty much in possible for people to perfectly understand intent without a certain amount of effort from both the communicator to express it clearly and the listener to understand it. In practice, I don't think there's a good chance of successful communication for any nuanced topic without good-faith effort from both sides, and I can't differentiate between the language the author used and what I'd expect to hear from someone who reflexively dismisses any disagreement as in bad faith.
This argument over the semantics of how to express an opinion feels like a proxy for people who strongly disagree with him on remote work seeking an outlet.
I say that because you (and everyone else who seems upset) clearly understand it's just his opinion. Therefore, why are you offended by his intent? Whatever his intent might be, I think it's irrelevant. It's simply a strongly held opinion.
> I say that because you (and everyone else who seems upset) clearly understand it's just his opinion.
I genuinely don't understand whether it's the case or not, and I've tried to be clear about that. I am not able to tell whether it's their opinion or if they actually feel like they're objective facts; both are plausible to me, and I'm arguing that if they want people to understand which they mean, they need to be more specific. Otherwise, people will draw conclusions that may not align with their intent, and that's something they could avoid if they put more care into how they expressed it.
I think the issue is that the OP wasn’t giving an opinion. They stated things as facts. When you say “x is y” you’re making a truth claim, and people are going to challenge it if it sounds wrong or depends on context.
A lot of folks flip to “it’s just my opinion” only after they get pushback, but if you present something as a fact, it’s fair game to question it.
Like if someone says “apples taste bitter and have no flavor” that reads like a universal claim, so yeah people will argue. If you say “I find apples bitter and lacking flavor” that’s obviously personal taste and nobody is going to demand proof.
Nobody is asking for IMO everywhere. Just don’t frame opinions as facts or the other way around.
"In between working on my game and dying of various accidental injuries, I sometimes feel like I need to milk a particular joke until its inevitable demise," Brock says on the Nexus Mods page for his new creation.
"I will do this no matter how many legal threats, actual threats, black vans with the Mattel logo on them, or severed Barbie heads are mailed to me.
This is because I have issues with authority, particularly authority derived from intimidation.
I kicked a lot of bullies in the nuts when I was a kid."
I won't be installing these games in order to apply this and other mods but I endorse the spirit that created them.
IANAL, but I can imagine the prosecutor's pushback on that: "at what point did you attempt to straighten out your own lawyer about their misinterpretation of your evidence? Can you point us to the line in the transcript where you tried to explain the correct interpretation in court?"
Like, if my life was on the line, and my lawyer was screwing up my evidence, I think I'd try to point that out to someone.
Thank god that isn't the bar for ineffective assistance of counsel.
A vast majority of defendants don't know all the ins and outs of law... that's why we have a profession to deal in this domain. Asking the average defendant to check their counsel's work is ridiculous.
I disagree. Clients shouldn't be expected to know the ins and outs of legal procedure and rules of evidence and a million other things like that. I think they should be reasonable expected to say something when their attorney is making factual mistakes, like "when my client wrote this, they meant...", when the client knows that's not at all what they meant.
To give an example that might resonate to HN folks, suppose your attorney says "I know my client had a bunch of hacking tools on his computer, and that looks bad". Now suppose the laptop in question is your work-issues computer, and you work in pen testing, so you possess all of those for legitimate work-related reasons. I think it'd be hard to appeal on those grounds. "My attorney should have said something?" "You just sat there and went along with it, though." Appeals aren't meant to be an infinite series of do-overs were you get to relitigate every single thing you wish you'd said differently.
If your attorney messes up on legal issues, that's on them. When they mess up on the basic facts, and you don't say anything about it, I think that's kind of on you.
For starters, most attorneys won't allow their clients to utter a single word to law enforcement or on the court record.
Your proposal is that the client has to have enough of a grasp on the legal strategy related to self-incrimination that they could challenge and disregard their attorneys advice, in order to save themselves from something the attorney misinterpreted.
I personally think that's way too much to ask of a defendant. You even see the accused who are lawyers themselves just hire other lawyers and promptly stfu. Counsel always decides and implements the strategy.
No one would expect the defendant to address the court, but if you’re on trial and your counsel is screwing something up, you need to let them know. “Psst, hey, that’s not what I said.” So is the defendant claiming that their lawyer overrode their correction, to their disadvantage? Because, if not, they should have said something.
The defendant could raise an "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument, asserting his counsel was incompetent and it prejudiced him. You can make that claim in your direct appeal, but for procedural reasons, defendants usually make them in separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus. That's not a lawsuit against the lawyer, though. Instead, it's a lawsuit seeking your freedom from the state.
With PayPal you don't need to imagine, you will get cut off randomly just by using it. Oh you have triggered fraud detection, let's waste a week of your time talking to customer support.
I finally gave up on PayPal. Years ago, some hardware vendor had a discount for paying via PayPal. I made an account using my real personal info and personal payment cards, and they immediately flagged the account as fraudulent.
I put in a support request and, after some back and forth with support, they eventually, what I think was weeks later, marked the account as legitimate. At least, that's what they said they did. That promo was still going, so I tried it again. PayPal still wouldn't let me pay due to being flagged as fraud. In a follow-up with PayPal, they claimed it would take a few days before I could actually use the account. The promo expired at the end of that day, so I just deleted the account and decided PayPal is a waste of time.
reply