DS4 is pretty close.

That depends on how strong each economy is. If both sides have sufficient ability to replace the bots, it could go on for some time.

It’ll be like the Cold War, essentially an economic war.

Yeah, it’s not released or supported outside of the Steam Deck or handheld partners. So you’re probably not going to get Nvidia drivers or anything else that’s not built in to the kernel.

You don’t need it though, you can just run Steam in big picture mode on whatever distro you want.

Yup, looks just like a DualSense controller from the PS5 without the trackpads.

Yup, I love my Steam Deck and usually prefer asymmetric joysticks, so as long as it feels like the SD, it’ll be fine.

I’m not sure what the standard for large vs small hands is, but I haven’t had issues with pretty much any controller except the OG Xbox controller:

My kids have no issues with either the Xbox 360 controller or DS4 controller that I have.

Steam Box

Ahem, it’s a GabeCube.

Yeah, I’m debating getting this one as my first headset. It looks dope.

And even then, most games are available on multiple platforms, for similar prices. So you can get the same game from Steam, GOG, or EGS in many cases, plus all of the stores that sell Steam keys (and Steam probably doesn’t get a cut of those sales).

Eh, for the number of CUs, it looks fine. It looks like a slightly smaller RX 7600.

I think that’s mostly for the camera. He seems like a really down to earth guy.

Yeah, Steve is about as non-smug and non-jerk as I’ve seen in this space.

Awesome, I hope we get something similar in my area in Utah. We have awful traffic, and I’m convinced a large part of it is awful drivers and road rage. If people could instead take a self-driving car and do other stuff, I am hopeful road rage would reduce.

If there was an option that would take me from a park and ride near the highway to a park and ride near my work, I’d take it. Mass transit to my work sucks, and this would fill that gap until the state prioritizes that area.

Jail should be reserved for cases where there’s intent/malice, or significant negligence. For example, drunk or aggressive driving qualifies, whereas speeding and most fender benders don’t. An automated system likely doesn’t qualify, so restitution should be sufficient.

Nobody wants to put in protected bike lanes because everybody drives.

If you build it, they will come. The Netherlands used to be very car dependent until the government put in a massive effort to build out bike infrastructure, and now it’s the bike capital of the world. Here are a few things they changed to make it happen:

• eliminate routes through cities to push cars to go around on the highways instead of driving through the city center
• design traffic calming into roads - raised intersections, narrow roads, bollards to force cars to not travel in a straight line around residential areas, etc
• improve arterial mass transit, and build bike and pedestrian infrastructure to get to them

Once the cars started moving outside the city center, cycling and transit became became much more practical, but it all started by making driving less convenient so other modes of transportation became more attractive.

My commute to work is about 90% highway, with most of it near my home. If I could take an autonomous car from a parking lot near the highway in my area to a park and ride near my work, I’d do it. Transit there is a nightmare and would take nearly 2 hours each way due to unfortunate transfers, and takes 30-35 min by car.

So yeah, I’m 100% in favor if them running fixed routes until mass transit options can catch up. Run them between park and ride areas near highways to destinations, and maybe a handful of routes within cities (certain designated roads with clear markings and whatnot).

Original comment:

Here’s a fun fact: phone manufacturers know this. So what they call “100%” is not actually 100%.

My response, which was a small clarification:

That depends on the manufacturer, some do, some don’t. My phone has a setting to control the max charge, so I set it to 80% when I got it.

And the follow up from a different user:

Yes, but that 100% is not really that. It has been programmed to display that percentage, when i reality its 80%.

And my response:

No, I’m saying that not all manufacturers have that limit, and it’s a relatively new setting (last few years). If you have an older phone or something not from the top few manufacturers, it might not have that feature.

Then our conversation started. That’s the context. Here’s your first comment:

Exactly, which is neither a user setting or relatively new. Battery manufacturers have always had to decide what voltage is what state of charge (percent).

The user setting where you limit it to 80% is on top of what the previous commenter was describing

And then my response:

Sure, if the manufacturer sets it to not charge to the max. I’m saying some manufactured charge to the max by default, hence why that setting is useful.

My point is and has always been that this isn’t universal, so don’t just assume that your phone stops charging at 80% if battery longevity is important to you. Check if your phone does it so you can know.

If anyone is trolling here, it’s you.

The OP said “all phone ma manufacturers stop charging at 80%.” That means phone manufacturers have a definition for 80% and 100%, and they use 80% universally while showing 100%. The first part is true, the second part isn’t. Some manufacturers show 100% when it’s actually their definition of 100%, meaning charging to 80% manually on those phones has value in prolonging your battery, whereas charging to 80% manually on the phones that cap at 80% doesn’t have value.

It is a security threat, and to claim it doesn’t count is absurd.

Oh, absolutely.

Replay attack is the wrong term, here’s the threat model I’m talking about. Basically, the attacker watches the authentication flow and uses the resulting session (token?) to make web requests as you, stealing whatever data it wants. There’s no attack on the authentication scheme, but on the shortcuts web services use.

It doesn’t matter if you use passwords, TOTP, or webauthn, there’s going to be some vector to attack the system without breaking the authentication mechanism.

The average user isn’t going to see much security benefit from webauthn vs TOTP in the same way that adding a better lock to your front door is unlikely to improve your overall home security, because at a certain point, the burglar will just smash a window. TOTP is good enough because it’s safe from attacks on email and SMS that worse one-time code systems use. You should definitely have a lock on your door, but at a certain point, the lock is no longer the weak point in the system.

And yes, I’m using “code generation” as a generic catchall. I group auth systems like so:

• offline threats - e.g. passwords that can be broken by seeing the hash
• reliant on third party service that can be attacked separately - email and SMS
• “code generation” - uses some cryptographic mechanism to generate some unfakable code that can’t be reused; seeing more examples doesn’t help, and codes can’t be reused

If your password manager handles the second factor, the user experience of TOTP vs webauthn is nearly identical, and the security is nearly identical to your average attacker, to the point where they won’t attack the authentication mechanism itself, but something else on the website or the password manager itself.

The problem is that most people do only use plain old passwords. If we can get any kind of extra security, even TOTP, then all the better.

Exactly. The difference between TOTP and webauthn only really matters if you’re a government or something else where state-level actors are part of your threat model. If your service uses one or the other, the distinction isn’t important to the average user.