What do you mean by "really old"? My experience with games available on Steam has been fine(barring those big-budget ones), but I've had problems in the past setting up games from CD-ROMs that have DRM on them. Proton and Wine still don't play so well with SafeDisc or SecuROM, and traditional Windows workarounds(when applicable) often don't work on Linux.
My gut feeling is that this would be somewhat useful yes at shielding privacy. But even if you delete cookies every day, at least for me, that's a day of various advertisers tracking my motions across the web. And it also involves the inconvenience of losing the sign in cookies that are greatly convenient for me to have. For my own sake, I'd prefer not accepting unnecessary cookies.
On a macro sense, I also feel like there's a virtue to making it clear to sites that no I don't want their unnecessary cookies. Exercising my right to opt out (actually I'm American I have no such rights in my state) is a clear & direct signal, one that I hope someday perhaps the majority of the world might exercise. At which point there's little value in keeping up this user-hostile practice. Just deleting my cookies does reduce their usefulness, but it's not as clear a sign; it could just as well be someone who doesn't have a secure personal device they can rely on. I'd rather make it clear that no, I'm explicitly rejecting the premise of your cookies.
> My gut feeling is that this would be somewhat useful yes at shielding privacy. But even if you delete cookies every day, at least for me, that's a day of various advertisers tracking my motions across the web.
Browsers mostly block third part cookies by default or have an option to let you do so, so its only site's own cookies that need to be deleted.
> On a macro sense, I also feel like there's a virtue to making it clear to sites that no I don't want their unnecessary cookies.
That gives them an incentive to find ways to track you, such as fingerprinting. Limited data might convince them that tracking data is of low value.
Yes, and even then only for Ultra HD Blu-ray. Regular BDs should still usually work unless they're uncommon enough to not have a title key known to MakeMKV.
“A LibreDrive is a mode of operation of an optical disc drive (DVD, Blu-ray or UHD) when the data on the disc are accessed directly, without any restrictions or transformations enforced by drive firmware. A LibreDrive would never refuse to read the data from the disc or declare itself ‘revoked’. LibreDrive compatible drive is required to read UHD discs.”
Check your drive anyway. Purchased after that date does not necessarily mean manufactured after that date :)
It sucks that firmware updates used to be a thing to look forward to but now are something to be avoided at all cost. I'd rather buy a second drive if I needed some new feature.
MakeMKV will show you all the relevant drive info when you start it up, including LibreDrive status. Here's my BDR-XS07 for example: https://i.imgur.com/10CGsbm.png
With a combination of MakeMKV, DVDfab Passkey, and a LibreDrive-supporting drive I can rip pretty much anything. Passkey is a driver-level thing like AnyDVD HD. Both of them are available perpetually-licensed but AnyDVD is currently being legaled and is unavailable: https://www.dvdfab.cn/passkey.htm
You can try MakeMKV for free using the beta key posted monthly on their subreddit, but I just went ahead and bought it because it's not that expensive and then I don't have to think about it: https://old.reddit.com/r/makemkv/comments/1jolbsq/the_may_ke...
I'm currently going through and backing up my library with Passkey's “Rip to Image”. Due to the way LibreDrive works, it's common for MakeMKV to be able to make MKVs (lol) directly from a BD/UHD disc in the drive but fail to open a protected ISO of the same title. For this reason I uncheck “Keep Protection” in Passkey for anything AACS (BD, UHD, HD-DVD (yes I have an HD-DVD drive)) so I can run the image through MakeMKV later. I do check “Keep Protection” for DVDs however, because CSS is fully broken and I want to do the most untouched rip possible.
I... think so? Whichever one works with Microsoft Realms, which is the $2/month solution I settled on after somewhat-getting a self hosted server to run for a little bit on my desktop.
I figured that I make a six-figure salary as a software developer, I can afford $2/month so that I don't have to fucking become a sysadmin for a game server my child depends on.
There are two editions, Java and Bedrock. Java is the original, available on PC and Mac, and supports programming-like technical play and mods. Bedrock is Microsoft’s reimplementation, available on all devices except Mac, and supports emotes and microtransactions. Other than that they’re largely the same game, and buying either gives you both versions. Realms supports both, but a server is one or the other, not both. There are also other managed hosting providers for Minecraft (both versions), but Realms is probably easier and cheaper for you. Java version has performance problems, but mostly because Microsoft’s code is inefficient, there are a few mods (also written in Java) that everybody uses to fix performance without affecting gameplay.
Hey, if we're already complaining about Microsoft products, can someone explain why the Bedrock and Java versions of Minecraft have not been made cross-compatible in the TEN YEARS since the Mojang acquisition?
(... speaking as another dad just trying to play with my kid.)
I’d imagine mostly due to a lack of incentive on microsoft’s part. Like minecraft is literally the biggest video game to ever exist with, making 2 entirely separate code bases work while keeping all the features the same and preserving compatibility with over a decades worth of mods just so the mostly separate java and bedrock communities can play with each other is just not worth the risk. So many people play minecraft in so many different ways means that making even minor changes in gameplay can be huge sources of controversy, let alone major infrastructure changes.
They still exist separately today because the modding scene is completely different for them. Minecraft Java is the original and has a huge modding community based on decompiling and patching the game. Those mods are all incompatible with Bedrock because Bedrock is a separate reimplementation of the game for performance or whatever.
What does cross compatible mean in this context? They are two different games written in two different languages. I mean, they look like they are the same game, but they are not. Making one compatible with the other is a Herculean task. If not impossible.
I'm talking about network compatibility, so that a Bedrock client can join a Java server and vice versa. It's clearly somewhat possible because GeyserMC[1] exists. It's just ridiculous that it's a third-party addon.
If you enable Autofill > Copy TOTP Automatically, when you use that keybind it'll copy the TOTP to your clipboard so that you can paste it in when prompted for it
My personal solution is to use ReleaseFeed(https://releasefeed.elomatreb.eu/) to get RSS updates for artists I want to listen to, which is great if you already use RSS.
