"grisly death" lol what. Put the bias away, guardian.

If this was an american no kings protest, those cop cars would have been swerving to hit the protesters.

The cops would later say that the protesters stepped in front of their car, and would get no punishment.

Specifically, it's that linux doesn't allow someone a gilded-path method to ursurp control of your computer like windows does. The 'switch' in this case is turning off where it tries to, effectively, hack your computer to give control of it to the company installing the anti-cheat. We have a name for that type of program- it's called a rootkit, and it's a major security vulnerability that game companies are trying to rebrand so they can save money on client-side anti-cheat instead of spending money on server-side anti-cheat.

For the record, it's a losing battle- client side anticheat will NEVER be reliable- it literally can't, because at the end of the day you still physically have your computer.

640K ought to be enough for anybody.

He was wrong then, and you're wrong that nobody needs gigabit. Stop handwringing for big corporations. This isn't a difficult thing to do, it just makes companies slightly less money. America has some of the most expensive internet in the world, and some of the worst per mb.

iirc, valve employs people to contribute to wine.

Anticheats work fine on linux, the devs generally just have to check a box enabling linux support in the anticheat.

Beancounters don't like that, because linux doesn't let some random program have deeper access to your computer than you yourself have.

sounds good, thanks for being willing to look!

I literally posted a giant response just under this. Yes, it's a bad research paper. The rest of the sources have not reproduced it at all, the article writers straight up DO NOT UNDERSTAND how allergies work. "Peanut allergy" is literally an umbrella term for, technically, 12ish related allergies. Most 'allergies' are blanket terms.

Stop posting this, please. it's not true. Airborne reactions can and do happen.

Experts do say it's a thing, there are just unfortunately bad articles drawing conclusions from a single bad research paper, and being misinterpreted from other papers because the article writers don't understand what ara 2 means.

There's a lot of misinformation from dipshit allergists that don't understand that 'less risk' for 'the average peanut-allergic person' does not mean 'no risk' for 'all peanut allergic people.'

That article is incredibly bad, and it's citing research that is either bad or misinterpreted.

Simonte, as I said, was a dogshit study with a minuscule sample size of only 29 people, it is in no way a 'landmark' study, it's directly fucking killed people. To put into perspective how goddamn bad the study was, they claimed 'highly allergic' subjects were tested, and those subjects additionally had peanut butter smeared on their arms. Most did not react, meaning they very much were not very allergic in the first place and would have never reacted to the airborne allergens in the first place. Several did react (minimally) to skin contact with the allergen.

Simonte's conclusion DESPITE SEEING REACTIONS was that 'casual contact cannot cause allergic reactions' which is ABSOLUTE FUCKING NONSENSE. Contact-based reactions are VERY well established. His entire study is completely worthless. He tested an incredibly small sample of minimally allergic, and even non-allergic, people to specific aras of allegen that don't go airborne well. I will give some credit- we didn't know at the time that those specific aras didn't go airborne well. To his discredit, we DID know there are more aras.

Perry's test was useful research re: cleaning, but the airborne section wasn't particularly useful because it only focused on testing for ara 1, 2, and 3, which are the heaviest aras. They fall from the air quickly, this is known. You can be allergic to aras 1-9 (and some cross reactivity stuff I won't go into). A lot of allergist researchers ONLY focus on ara 1 and 2, and occasionally 3, because 'most' people with allergies are allergic to those. You want to know how many peanut allergic adults can be identified solely through those? Only a third. (Kansen et al, 2020) And yet you still see stupid shit like Hemming's dumbass research that saying that ara 2 is the only thing you need to check.

Case in point, they immediately quote Jin et al, 2016, which ONLY LOOKS AT ARA 2. Meaning it's useful for fuck all in regards to actual allergic reactions from 70% of the population that's allergic.

tl;dr: You typically end up exposed to less of an allergen in a airborne situation. This is true. You end up exposed to less types of allergen in an airborne situation, this is also true. This does NOT mean that you cannot have a reaction to airborne allergens, or that peanut allergens cannot get airborne. It just means that it is RARER. And indeed, there are documented cases of people reacting to airborne allergens (even ones that they are not aware of, since you can indeed make yourself have the symptoms of an allergic reaction to nothing if you think you SHOULD be having a reaction).

EDIT: I should note- if you actually look at the underlying studies that the article is quoting, most of them are reasonably legit and say up front what they are/are not testing, e.g. Perry's. I'm not saying the research is bad (except for Simonte's PoS), it's the article that's taking VERY SPECIFIC research and generalizing it across all allergens, which just simply not how allergies work.

EDIT2: I just realized the article literally cites Sicherer et al, and claims it says the opposite of what it does. What the fuck?

Don't spread dangerous misinformation that is going to get someone killed.

Airborne allergens are a thing and always have been, and specifically peanut allergy challenges and studies have held up that smelling peanuts can indeed cause an allergic reaction.

Simonte's research is dogshit (who the fuck considers 30 a sample size?) Later research has indeed shown that airborne can cause reactions, the only difference is intensity, which comes down to HOW allergic you are, which has no upper limit.