A tangent, but this is the second time in two days I've seen the word spelled "often times" instead of "oftentimes". Is this some variant spelling I don't know of? I see it more than "oftentimes" now, which I was hitherto convinced was the only correct spelling.
I believe you may be correct, but they're both readable-enough.
Like "cannot" vs "can not": One form may be more-correct, but both are very readable.
Either way, it's easy enough to blame spell check on our personal pocket supercomputers for these things.
(Every year or two, Google Keyboard on Android makes it its purpose to screw up "its" vs "it's". You type it the right way, you see it on the screen as being correct, and then it changes it to the wrong form. This happens 100% of the time and then the problem disappears in a few weeks.
I'd give Google a break, but they don't deserve one.
I also blame them single-handedly for the variations in spellings of brake-vs-break on the longer timeline: Sometimes, people get it right and nobody notices. Oftentimes, it's all backwards. The oscillation suggests that it is an auto-derp problem more than it is a cognitive one.)
Cannot and can not are slightly different in that both are correct (in the prescriptivist sense, I suppose; arguably whatever gets the point across is correct). But there are cases where can not is more correct.
I use a keyboard (Thumb-Key to be precise) without autocorrect, though it doesn't stop me from making typing mistakes.
Yeah, it is controlled by the vendor. If you can't find the option, you will need to use `adb` to enable it that's what I did basically. You can Google it and you'll find what I'm talking about. IRC, it is `pm enable ...`.
> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.
That is unmistakably an insult, even if you say it's not.
It's not the same as EasyAntiCheat and doesn't support the same features. It's like saying Excel works on iPad, but you can't even use VBA on that.
Or a game example: I have Minecraft (Bedrock) on my phone so therefore I should be able to do the same things as Minecraft (Java) on Windows. The problem is they're the same names for different software with similar, but not the same, functionality.
So you're saying that easy anti cheat on linux is different from on windows? I am aware it is not as effective as detecting cheating on linux, but does this affect gameplay itself? Or do game developers not want reduced efficacy of detecting cheaters, and so they don't support linux at all?
I don't play those games myself but the word is that the EAC on linux lacks the same kernel hooks that are available on Windows. I personally consider that a plus but if you're a developer obsessed with strong anti-cheat you probably do not.
Linux kernel provides ways to observe from user space. The problem is that there’s nothing to stop someone running a kernel which neuters anticheat tools ability to observe using that functionality. As far as I’m aware the only way to mitigate that is via measured boot attestation and having signed kernel etc.
reply