TheTechnician27
- 2 Posts
- 27 Comments
It’s less about which ISPs have IPv6 and moreso how much work one has to do to get it working on their home network. Thankfully I think we’re in an era now where any new router you buy will support IPv6 and most major ISPs support it. However, in order to get IPv6 working on my home network, I need to 1) know that IPv6 is a thing (massive filter), 2) know that I don’t have it, 3) be motivated to have it, 4) call my ISP and ask them for a prefix, and 5) go into the router settings and enable it.
For cellular Internet, this is (short of using settings or Termux to see my IP) completely, 100% transparent to the end user, as it should be. It should be the default, not a process 99.9% of people wouldn’t even know exists, let alone initiate.
Point of clarification: the article was semi-protected, and “locked” is an oversimplistic description of it (understandable, since a lot of people who report on Wikipedia don’t really understand how it works). Technically there’s a way to lock a page such that only the Wikimedia Foundation staff can edit it, but realistically, full protection (i.e. only administrators and those above them can edit it) is probably the closest thing to a proper “lock” that ever gets used.
Semi-protection (the grey lock with a little person in it) just means that you need to be autoconfirmed (technically confirmed works too, but that system is basically disused). If you’re autoconfirmed, that means you’ve made at least 10 edits on Wikipedia and your account is at least 4 days old – an extremely low bar to clear that largely keeps out spam from IP addresses and sockpuppet accounts. The semi-protection on this article is set to expire in three days.
There’s also extended protection (the blue lock with an ‘E’ on it) that you’ll generally see on highly contentious topics such as ultra-high-profile political figures, enormously contentious disputes between nations (Russia–Ukraine, Israel–Palestine, and India–Pakistan, to name a few), and then some miscellaneous ones like ‘Atlantic Records’ and ‘Whopper’ (the latter was because Burger King launched an ad which is designed to trigger your Android device to read out the first part of the Wikipedia article, making it red meat for vandals). This requires an account to have at least 500 edits and be at least 30 days old.
New bypass just dropped: not buying a single-player game that makes you create and log into a third-party service exclusively because that service wants money in the form of your data/wants to enforce DRM.
Edit: the ‘Steam tho’ comments below are true and Steam’s DRM does suck (I use GOG when I can), but they miss the point I’m making, which is that if you’re buying a game through Steam, you already have the account set up to comply with the DRM. That’s just inherent to the steps of purchasing the game on Steam. Whereas for something like a Sony account here, you don’t necessarily have that, and unlike Steam for instance that at least has the value proposition of cloud saves, you’re getting fuck-all in return here. Additionally, this account is used for likely only one or two games, just introducing a needless logistical hurdle for account management. Think of how many dozens of essentially burner accounts you would have if every game publisher put this bullshit in.
Yeah, they left off the rest of that lesson, which is “boycotts don’t work if you don’t fucking do them”. Boycotts work when they happen, and it’s still a good thing to personally boycott a game you feel isn’t up to your standards even if the broader community isn’t, but it’s been consistently shown nonetheless that gamers are horrible at wide-scale boycotts.
That’s neat. Until a representation of something on a blockchain has any legal meaning regarding authenticity, ownership, or anything else, and until the overwhelming majority usage of NFTs isn’t as a scam, NFTs remain a pathetic and comically stupid class of speculative asset constituting a pyramid scheme that also happens to destroy the environment.
Whether something is open-source or not is dependent on what license if any its creator chooses to put it under. a) This comment confuses me more than anything, and b) if you want to make a better Flappy Bird game, you’ll probably have a better shot forking one of the existing clones than waiting for whatever steaming, uninspired pile of shit comes out of Belfort’s wallet.
- NFTs are objectively a scam, and unsurprisingly, 1208 – these developers – proudly and prominently display Wolf of Wall Street Jordan Belfort on their homepage.
- They just say “open-source” without stating a license, and coming from people willing to put a pyramid scheme in their no-effort mobile game, that sends up red flags for openwashing.
- If it is open-source, that isn’t god’s gift to mankind or anything. There are plenty of existing open-source Flappy Bird clones that mimic it – as best I can tell – one-to-one because Flappy Bird isn’t a complex game. And I’m somehow doubting a game designed to hawk shitty-ass NFTs has a lot of detail put into it either.
I trust GOG the most, but Steam is solidly second-most. Guaranteed that if Epic had their way, the PC gaming landscape would be just as trash as the console one, if not moreso.
Valve could definitely go off the deep end after Gabe is gone, and that’s why good third-party competition is still healthy. But for right now, they’re one of the few large companies I’ve seen that aren’t on the enshittification warpath.
Lmfao, no clue why you’re being downvoted so much. It’s absolutely true that the camel-case here looks like a clusterfuck, even when it’s easily explained.