If you don't read what was written you may come to that conclusion. If you actually read and understood what was written you'll see the auditor laid blame at virtually every level.

Singapore. What's your point? Singapore isn't China, it's not known for cost cutting or cheap shit.

Contributing to death and proving liability are two very different things with very different legal bars. To prove liability you will need to show beyond reasonable doubt that the call going through would have lead to survival.

Typically when enshittification sets in options for new products are slim. It's one of the enablers of that strategy. Lock users in to an ecosystem before you screw them over. Be it Windows only software, or speakers which have Spotify Connect, or any other hardware for that matter.

You're operating under the usual 100% effective fallacy. No players are not en mass building a literal robot to move the mouse. A tiny tiny tiny insignificant portion of players are building such robots and you're unlikely to ever encounter someone going to those lengths to cheat.

Anti-cheat is about preventing the common cheats, that is people doing a google search, downloading and running a program.

Except that is completely irrelevant. Most games have private modes. You can very much play with just your friends. Most games very much have that as a matchmaking option.

Your conspiracy isn't just a conspiracy it's built on a incorrect premise. Frankly I don't care what you call it. As long as it reduces cheating (which anticheat software objectively does, as evidenced by developers who were late to include it turning their online games into a stupid cheating shitshow before the introduction of anticheat) I'm all for it. Please I hope to only meet you online with a developer forces "DRM" (actually called anti-cheat) on your computer. I don't know you and don't trust you not to ruin a game for me. It turns out random strangers are pieces of shit.

Developers aren't calling for anti-cheat, it actively costs them money to implement. End users are calling it. And the "DRM" angle is especially stupid given that there's actual DRM software out there for that purpose.

Please take your conspiwacy elsewhere.

Actually major online competitive games work on a minimum trust model. There may not be client side computation, but there is plenty of client side trust involved in how content is displayed to be interacted with.

Virtually every such "zero trust" game has an element of wallhacking for this reason.

No they don't. Your bodily autonomy is preserved, Vanguard isn't installed in your brain. That said there are a lot of competitive sports where the actual sports equipment is in fact analysed before and after the game, and some with real time monitoring too.

People whinging that their skills are the only ones that matter and that they are upset that other people are entertained by other people's skill are the only thing that is truly stupid in this entire debate.

The ball in the article can't be used by yourself or exclusively by your friends. Some games can't be played non-competitively. Kind of like when you kick a ball around, as soon as you field an 11x11 team you are guaranteed to be outside of the scope of your friends.

The analogy holds quite well when you think about it.

Indeed. But that why should be under the recipe not on top of it. You know, like it is in a traditional recipe book. The recipe is at the top, and the rest is at the bottom usually listed as notes.

There is a wealth of good info on recipe sites. But you still need to skip through pop over advert rubbish, affiliate links to amazon which aren't even available in most of the world, and for 90% of recipes you don't need to the wealth of good info. Half of that good info is "I don't have X what can I substitute for it", how about we cross that problem AFTER you show the recipe and AFTER I check my pantry.

You missed the point. I'm not spiteful, nor are we destroying anything. They destroyed themselves by making their sites unattractive to visitors. This predates LLMs and Google. People have literally started products to circumvent their bullshit long before AI in its modern form existed.

No one made a complaint. This is an oped written by a third party. So no, I don't have a beef with that person specifically. If you're going to try and make a point by being pedantic it helps to pedantically read TFA first.

Precisely no one here is complaining about anyone writing things.

Living things require entertainment. Watching things is entertainment. The question wasn't whether sports is good, the question was whether watching sports is good.

You're supposed to be arguing AGAINST, not for. Did you forget which point you made?

You use the product, one that has killed people. You have literally have your skin in the game.

All I'm saying is, be safe. Elon has pushed a sub-par hardware with software that overstates its performance. Some people are already dead because of it. There's a reason they STILL haven't gotten approval to consider FSD a L2 self driving system in Europe despite their shills and Elon himself claiming its level 4.

Stay safe. It's a great system, but don't trust it with your life. People have made that mistake.

It doesn't matter. It was a loss making company with little R&D or products of value. Chinese alternatives already outclassed iRobot's products in virtually all metrics.

Not every company deserves to survive, much less one that produced a good idea once and then never properly innovated on it. There just hasn't been a compelling reason to buy a Roomba since about a year after it came to the market.

No sorry, this had nothing to do with this. Yes copying from China / Amazon is a risk for businesses, but the reality is iRobot created something unique and clever and then never again innovated or iterated on the design. They were surprised by other companies in the same business long before they made any deals with anyone.

It was a cordless vacuum cleaner attached to wheels with the intelligence of a undergrad university mechatronics engineering assignment (actually that's no fair, what we did at our university especially in the maze solving robotics assignments was far more intelligent and clever than what iRobot produced). You didn't need any of their "technology" to produce something better. There was no amazing R&D here, just a good idea that was trivial to copy.