Antivirus / antivirus adjacent stuff is so evil these days, though also I haven’t gotten a virus in years (and it was a browser virus fiasco not any soft of malicious software and I run an inordinate amount of unsigned binaries from untrusted sources). I think most people have understood that on a personal level windows defender or clamav is more than enough antivirus but corporate environment really doesn’t want to deal with any slowdowns from a bug on their networks, and they want a quick and easy preventative solution they can just pay for and forget about it. However, the people who make these things are also corporate, and so the thing is in a doomed spiral. I think that’s all obvious and I’m not adding anything but yeah.
I’m pretty sure it’s best to use a paid antivirus than a free one if you’re on Windows.
What would be an actual anti-virus? As if, a virus-like program which kills off real viruses from a computer and then spreads to others to do the same, perhaps even mutating and evolving to become better…
I’ve never heard of a computer virus that can mutate.
An actual anti virus, if we take on the literal defition of the word, would be an virus that would annihilate a common virus in a matter-antimatter reaction.
1 Like
It’s funny you say that
I had a conversation with friends about it.
If and when a computer virus is released that is able to evolve, it will be the end of the internet. We have no real way to deal with it as quickly and efficiently as a virus like this can do other than physically disconnect it completely from the internet.
Antiviruses are not able to evolve as well (probably artificial intelligence is able to do this, but it is limited) and depends on updates and this will create a serious arms race.
Biological viruses are the most successful ‘lifeforms’ on earth… computer viruses are named after them, so…
It sounds like I’m bringing the apocalypse here, but that’s what I think will happen.
5 Likes
Good antivirus detects all kind of harmful code. If a virus mutates from one harmful code to another harmful code it won’t make a difference for an antivirus. It can only mutate to non-harmful code but it won’t be, well, harmful. Onlly chance for it is to mutate to destroy/modify anti virus before it destroys it.
3 Likes
By the way, why do you think you’re the “least favourite developer”?
You know, when you say something to potentially precede another one’s reaction you can sort of prevent it.
For example:
Before you say I’m stupid, …
Also I don’t think I’m that worth respecting as other developers…
1 Like
However all developers have contributed to this game and so are worth respecting. Hhyyrylainen is the sole full-time one, so I would say that all the volunteer developers have the same value.
3 Likes
Two other patents! The Deckard is getting closer.
1 Like
But how close, or rather far, is it?
Idk maybe a month… or a week.
crazy laugh
NEW PATENT!
Title: Camera Device Employing Spatially Varying Polarizers
Document ID: US 12058427 B2
Date Published: 2024-08-06
That’s today!
Now that I think of it… What is the deckard supposed to be? Because I never heard someone actually talk about what it is.
Except antivirus heuristics aren’t bulletproof, so by randomly changing virus behaviour could make the difference between being detected and not triggering a heuristic.
BTW all competent viruses mutate already: they re-scramble their own code on each infection to ensure the file hashes are unique. This prevents basic (bad) antivirus software from detecting them as they are based on signature checks (so they hash files on your hard drive and compare the result hashes to known viruses).
2 Likes
It’s the next VR headset from Valve. Some call it the “Valve Index 2”, but the official name, according to the Linux kernel leak, is “Valve Galileo”. In reference from Bradley Lynch’s videos/streams about data leaks, the Deckard will:
- Be wireless and/or standalone
- Have something to do with Waydroid (an Android emulator for Linux that uses Wayland)
- Probably have hot-swappable headstraps for upgrades
- Have spatial computing like the Apple Vision Pro
- Use MicroOLED displays
- Have eye-tracking
- Have splay sensors for fingers (detects how much your finger is rotating, not bending) in the controllers
- Have inside-out tracking using computer vision instead of base stations while also allowing the base stations into the equation
- Have proper Linux support (SteamVR 2.0 brought major changes to Linux apparently)
Why do they say Google has a monopoly? A monopoly of what exactly? Search engines? As far as I’m concerned, there are other search engines such bing, Ecosia, Yahoo Search, etc. Do they even know what a monopoly is? @hhyyrylainen, what’s your opinion?
I just read the Judge Opinion and basically Google is a monopoly and has used it monopoly to ensure it will continue to have an monopoly by staging exclusive deals to make sure that google is the default instead of which is illegal and uncompetitive.
Monopoly itself is not illegal in the U.S, it only illegal if it’s monopoly that is not established or maintained through having a better product (otherwise known as not having a skill issue). So Google is an monopoly if they can act in a way that is uncompetitive in a free market (Basically exclude competitors and control prices).
They do acknowledged the other search engines in the report (even whacky ones like whatever the belgium a branch is???) but that google still has a monopoly because it uses dominance in the market to not create a better product but to ensure that by signing exclusive deals to be the default search engine everywhere and then just coast on that for the rest of time (12 days).
Being a default one having such a strong effect but the evidence is pretty compelling (one of the stat on the judge’s opinion was from google and that half of iPhone users did not know if they used google or not [They were btw]). They also found that even for user who want to change that it was too hard for them and usually give up (built different imo)… Half of google revenue come from the fact that is default one on most platforms in 2017 (Fact 75).
You can tell that from being the default because on Microsoft edge where bing is the default search engine (they call it a GSE in the document and I think that’s beautiful) 80% of users stick with bing instead of google (this is me btw I just use bing on edge lmao).
They also maintain their monopoly from the fact they are the biggest and so can just have more data than their competitors which allow them to improve in a way that their competitors can’t (Honestly I didn’t really get the reasoning for this session so I am probably wrong on why this is wrong exactly). But the more data you have the better your search engine can be and since it so hard to get user to switch, it hard for a hypothetical better google to exist.
They also found that through internal google research that a search engine quality is not as relevant to a consumer choice as when they deliberately degraded their search algorithm by removing Wikipedia, they only lost less than 1% of revenue from search (134).
So google is an monopoly because they can not only have a dominant market share but also other companies can’t compete because all the distribution channels (phones, browsers, Samsung Smart Fridge) are all locked up with Google (along with the cost to even start it)… So there’s no way for google monopoly to be overturned in the foreseeable future.
Also something unrelated is all the evidence that google destroyed (years worth of chat) because they knew that were probably doing something monopoly-like and anything that could be said would be used against them and had to be sanctioned to be stopped, so (they used probably the most extreme language that a boring court document can use)
Still, the court is taken aback by the lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants. It is no wonder then that this case has lacked the kind of nakedly anticompetitive communications seen in Microsoft and other Section 2 cases.
I am no lawyer (obviously) but I am pretty sure this is the equivalent to a nuclear strike on google hq.
Oh yeah they also a monopoly on text search advertisement but I didn’t really care about that and so just skimmed it lol.
3 Likes
What is the worst search engine?
What happened to your grammar, @Evolution4Weak?
he going after me in my way, so he learning the grammerless ways
1 Like