hyperhopper

I want an actual real time strategy game. All popular RTSs are actually just about tactics and micro. I mean every SC2 guide will tell you that up to a very high level of play, if you're just doing more you'll be more efficient and win regardless of strategy. Why can't you just set a standing order of "make unit x" or "make unit x while we have gas until we get to 50 of them"? That's strategy. Having to tab back to a building and manually queue a couple of units every several seconds is just creating busywork for players, but thats what's necessary and optimal for playing SC2 and most RTS games well

Why should this be at the editor level? There should be a linter that applies all these stylistic formatting changes to all files automatically. If the developer's own editing tools or personal workflow have a chance to introduce non-standard styles to the codebase, you have a deeper problem.

I listed two examples of things right in my post.

The problem is, in Linux once you know how things work, most things are pretty easy. In Windows, even when you know how things work, if you want to change your system at all you're fighting the OS the whole way.

For example, in Linux it's trivial to set up my notifications to be in the bottom middle, except when I'm coding to have them in the top right, with various hotkeys to manage them. Or to have custom window layouts. Or to do anything, every part of the stack is easy to change. On Windows you just get a blob and it assumes everybody wants it to work the same way.

Humans can be cheaper than robots if properly exploited!

It's not. Wait till you find out how they made movies before CGI!

A MAC is symmetric and can thus only be verified by you or somebody who you trust to not misuse or leak the key.

You sign them against a known public key, so anybody can verify them.

Regular digital signatures is what's needed here You can still use such a signing circuit but treat it as an attestation by the camera's owner, not as independent proof of authenticity.

If it's just the cameras owner attesting, then just have them sign it. No need for expensive complicated circuits and regulations forcing these into existence.

I think you are misunderstanding things or don't know shit about cryptography. Why the fuck are y even talking about publicly unlockable encryption, this is a use case for verification like a MAC signature, not any kind of encryption.

And no, your process is wild. The actual answer is just replace the sensor input to the same encryption circuits. That is trivial if you own and have control over your own device. For your scheme to work, personal ownership rights would have to be severely hampered.

All of this could be done without blockchain. Once they sign a signature with their private key they can't unsign it later. Once you attest something you cannot un-attest it.

Just make the public key known and sign things. Please stop shoehorning blockchain where it doesn't belong, especially when you aren't even giving any examples of things that blockchain is doing for you with 100000x the cost and complexity, that normal crypto from the 80s/90s cant do better.

Just because you're writing this on the fediverse doesn't mean it's the answer to everything. It's certainly not the answer to this.

If you've been saying this for a long time please stop. This will solve nothing. It will be trivial to bypass for malicious actors and just hampers normal consumers.