I remember back in the day ATI Tray Tools also injected itself into processes and caused bans. I don't know what's with AMD and their complete incompetence in matters of software.
What does that have to do with incompetence, though? Incompetence would imply that the feature either didn't work or broke things, which it didn't. It triggered a very specific anti-cheat mechanisms of one specific and relatively new game.
The game still worked as intended, though.
It's not one game. And remember they enabled it on very few multiplayer games, yet all of them have reported issues. CoD just crashes when it detects antilag+, while apex actually handed out tons of bans
"What does that have to do with incompetence, though?"
They've made this same mistake before, didn't learn their lesson, and repeated the same mistake. That's pretty incompetent. Like Cisco-level incompetent.
Unless either tool was actually a cheat, the mistake in both cases was made by the anti-cheat software: a false positive.
Users should be free to play without cheating and not worry that the a anti-cheat will falsely think they are.
"but wait!" one may protest, "the tool is similar to a cheat if they detect using [technique X]!"
Well, I'm not forcing them to use [technique X], and they aren't entitled to exclusively use it, if it returns false positives. Sounds like they need to think of better techniques. And if they can't, and it turns out they don't know how to solve the problem without hurting innocent people, they aren't entitled to exist, either.
"Unless either tool was actually a cheat, the mistake in both cases was made by the anti-cheat software: a false positive."
No, they should know injecting/hooking into the engine .DLL would trigger this from VAC. It happened to them before. It is well known in the exploit scene you don't go directly-jacking into things, you always proxy or you're going to be found in extremely short order.
AMD has no reason to be doing this. Let the game engine handle timing and latency. Stick to your hardware and driver stack and focus on making those top-class instead of what they are now.
> they should know injecting/hooking into the engine .DLL would trigger this from VAC.
More importantly, Valve should have known that triggering based on only this would cause false positives, and picked a better thing to trigger on, and/or acquired better confirmation that the tool was a cheat, before banning.
> AMD has no reason to be doing this
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't justify Valve VAC banning people for cheating who aren't actually cheating.
Two similar bugs over multiple decades is an utterly routine occurrence in software development.
Graphics cards and drivers are a marvel of engineering and maths. They work miracles, and are the product of thousands of specialists along the production chain. It’s hardly a damning indictment that they didn’t place compatibility with the anti cheat engines of competitive multiplayer games at the top of their priority list.
Almost certainly there are quite a few different firmware and software engineers working there now, but I agree, and I recall that one thing AMD and ATI had in common even before the merger was being strong on hardware and weak on software.
Where's the hate for valve's anticheat being buggy and too aggressive and unable to identify benign code from cheating code?
I'd be happy to argue the semantics of the mistakes made by AMD, and I probably could be convinced they fucked up. But the ethics of guilty until proven innocent that comes with anticheat software, are so appalling that I'm angry valve isn't getting roasted for saying "we're not going to do anything until after AMD does.
IMO, if your accusations can "ruin lives" (even if it is just a gaming life) you don't get to make mistakes if you're going to ignore them until it's convenient to.
This isn't unique to anticheat, anti-virus and EDR aren't immune to detect a suspicious behavior that many malwares engage in as a false-positive, and flagged a normal process doing something unusual as malicious by mistake.
Well I checked my Windows 95 VM, even opening a command prompt and typing "date"; changing the date view in that panel does change the date instantly. I never knew this was the behavior.
He describes changing the behavior in Windows 2000 being "reluctant"; I would say it was the proper and expected design from the onset. Windows 95 does not have instant-change settings anywhere else, it's always safeguarded behind OK and Apply buttons. Changing the date immediately on changing the view is inconsistent with the rest of the operating system's GUI design.
You can use https://archive.ph to archive webpages instantly and (seemingly) forever.
Btw, I've been aching for a browser extension that saves a copy of every web site I visit so I can reach for the archived copy in my history window. Does anything like that exist?
Actually, discovered that site after building this! lol It did seem to be a good resource. However, there are certainly differences between Clippings and it. One big one being that Clippings is more narrowly focused on classifieds and not the web in general.
From a data persistence perspective, it’s good just that there are more archives so I wouldn’t worry too much about differentiation. Hopefully this tool is used alongside others.
Literally. I'm sure the purpose of all these regulations (including the EU banning petrol cars) is that in a few decades poor people won't allowed to drive their own cars.
Your comment makes it sound like volunteers have a great degree of freedom and that's not the case because, obviously, in these organisations you will be shown the door if you don't do what others tell you to do.
User: Hey guys I get error 2389042 when using Windows Update.
Pradeep Chadurniyaad: Hello, I'm am independent advisor and I would like to help you today. Have you tried to format Windows? If this answer was helpful, please mark it as the solution.
