Oh yes, I forgot about that. There was another airship game too I think, although it was less “play as a crew” and more “team deathmatch on airships”. I’ll have to look into guns of Icarus again. Is it still active? From the steam reviews it sounds like it may be dead.
For Claymore characters it's usually quite helpful to hit either 3 or 4 times (I don't exactly remember) and then dash to the side to prevent waiting ages for the animation of the final attack to complete, otherwise you wouldn't be able to start attacking again.
> Somewhere between a sluggish super smash bros and dark souls. Something with deep character state management and directional parrying / dodges.
While it doesn't feature jumping and is a Metroidvania with some character customisation (not too deep though), Unworthy [0] is a pretty good fit for the 2D Dark Souls genre. The animations come out a lot quicker than the actual attack but they feel really heavy and powerful. A lot of people complain that it's relatively easy because you can just dodge/roll behind and enemy and smack them but I've found it to be fairly hard (I'm not good at these kinds of games but they're really fun :D).
Maybe not, but you can reduce the list of potential attackers from relatively average Joes to more experienced, specialised and well funded actors (such as the NSA - who would probably just issue a warrant anyway) with better security practises. It isn't ideal - someone might still access your data without your consent - but it is realistic and achievable.
> The problem is that there are great incentives and not enough deterrents.
Again, true, but that doesn't mean that the public should just live with this. It's not unreasonable to ask a company to take the security of their customers seriously and take steps to ensure that their data is secure from an attacker. There are other things that can be done: harsher penalties for companies who don't take issues like this seriously, setting out (and enforcing!) standards for security, incentivising security research, and so on. Are these suggestions achievable? Probably. Are they going to be achieved? Probably not. Are there a better ideas for solving this problem? Definitely, but I'm not smart enough to think of them. But just giving up and labelling this as an "education problem" is defeatist and doesn't help.
This might not apply to all LZ based programs/algorithms but compress (an old Unix utility based on the Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm) fell out of favour after it ran afoul of patent issues (you can read more about it on the compress Wikipedia page [0] and a section of the GIF Wikipedia page [1] which covers more about the enforcement of the patent). From what I can gather though, it enjoyed considerable success and was pretty much the standard utility for compressing data on Unix. I think eventually though it would have been replaced because other algorithms (bzip2, gzip, etc.) have slightly better compression ratios (even if they are more computationally expensive).
This reminds me of a quote from Margin Call: "There's only three ways to succeed in this business: be first, be smart, or cheat." It's not entirely relevant (the context here is art, and given that it's on HN it could also be applied to programming too) but the essence is the same.
While I don't disagree that more and more criminals use encryption to hide their activities, the 'Cloud Act' completely upsets the balance suggested by Ms Patel:
'"Tech companies like Facebook have a responsibility to balance privacy with the safety of the public," Ms Patel said in the open letter, which was also signed by the US Attorney General William P Barr, Acting US Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and the Australian minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton.'
How are you going to ask companies like Facebook to give you faster access to information across international borders and still say 'Hey you should have some privacy too'. It just seems blatantly dystopian. This is part of a growing trend of governments that want back doors to social media in the name of security and justice: Australia, the USA, and now the UK. That being said HN, how do you propose governments deal with online criminal activity? A lot of people here will criticise this and while that criticism is justified I just wonder if there's an alternative solution to this problem.
When you connect to your bank the transmission is encrypted but your bank has the data available in cleartext.
When you use your smartphone to call someone or send a text the transmission is encrypted over the air but your operator has access to the data in cleartext, and there is in fact a system in place to duplicate traffic for police eavesdropping. You have privacy, your bank/operator doesn't abuse data they have, and the police is able to request access within the law.
This has existed for decades, it is accepted, it works.
The issue is that some tech companies (cough Facebook cough, but not only them) have abused the access they have to data and shot their reputation in the process, so now they are trying to salvage the situation by saying "Oh but we now have E2E so you can still use our services"... No-one trusts anyone, and that destroys the established balance between privacy and law enforcement/national security.
