I think people generally mean "state", but in the US-centric HN community that word is ambiguous and will generally be interpreted the wrong way. Maybe "sovereign state" would work?
As someone with a political science degree whose secondary focus was international relations, "Nation-state" has a number of different, definitions, an (despite the fact that dictionaries often don't include it), one of the most commonly encountered for a very long time has been "one of the principle subjects of international law, held to possess what is popularly, but somewhat inaccuratedly, referred to as Westphalian sovereignty" (there is a historical connection between this use and the "state roughly correlating with single nation" sense that relates to the evolution of “Westphalian sovvereignty” as a norm, but that’s really neither here nor there, because the meaning would be the meaning regardless of its connection to the other meaning.)
You almost never see the definition you are referring used except in the context of explicit comparison of different bases and compositions of states, and in practice there is very close to zero ambiguity which sense is meant, and complaining about it is the same kind of misguided prescriptivism as (also popular on HN) complaining about the transitive use of "begs the question" because it has a different sense than the intransitive use.
Not really: nations state level actor: a hacker group funded by a country, not necessarily directly part of that country's government but at the same time kept at arms length for deniability purposes. For instance, hacking groups operating from China, North Korea, Iran and Russia are often doing this with the tacit approval and often funding from the countries they operate in, but are not part of the 'official' government. Obviously the various secret services in so far as they have personnel engaged in targeted hacks are also nation state level actors.
It could be a multinational state actor, but the term nation-state is the most commonly used, regardless of accuracy. You can argue over whether of not the term itself is accurate, but you still understood the meaning.
I wasn't specifically speaking of EA but I guess many people don't necessarily know it for the bad stuff they pull off but rather for Fifa and such? Even though I would never touch them with a 2m stick, I still fondly remember them for "EA sports, it's in the game" era.
Somewhat roundabout, but WEI can make it so you need to have an allowed device-OS-browser combo for important services like banking. The device can then make it impossible to install another OS, and the OS can make it impossible to install another browser. Then the browser (or the OS) just receives blacklists (and possibly eventually whitelists after everything is entirely corporate captured) from Google/Microsoft/Apple.
Revision deviates too much from the original, often not in a good way. I would suggest you to start with GMDX as a mode that strives to very carefully fix and improve the game without introducing random changes for no good reason.
Thanks for the tip. I'll look into it. Revision was a one click install on my handheld from the Steam store, but it looks like I'll have to figure out how to install GMDX by hand into the Proton directory for the game.
Worth it though I think, I prefer to play as true to original as possible with only QoL changes.
I have lutris, but i just installed GMDX by downloading the binary and running it from CLI with WINE and pointing it at the Steam game directory, it was actually really straight forward.
My past experience with trying to get mods on Proton games was much more complicated, but this seems to work fine; a little buggy, but once in gameplay it plays nicely, tested a few minutes of the tutorial on my lunch break and no issues.
As someone who played vanilla Deus Ex several times, I disagree. GMDX introduces a _lot_ of changes, and will not give you the same experience on a first playthrough. It's pretty good, though.
You are being down-voted by people making big claims ("pretty bad for your health and crazy addictive", "nicotine is ridiculously addictive") without any proofs. In fact, I challenge anyone making such claims to reference a scientific study proving either of major addictive potential or significant health concerns of _nicotine patches_ since OP specifically mentioned "not the smokeable kind" of nicotine.
I mean, tobacco smoke is terrible for anyone's health but even nicotine on its own is not exactly good for you. It's definitely a stimulant and can give you the kinds of side effects you might expect from any stimulant, including a raised BP and heart rate.
Wait, you’re just repeating general empty statements. Why isn’t nicotine on its own good for you? A raised heart rate and BP for a period isn’t a bad thing. It’s an expected response from any stimulant.
I mean, sex and exercise also cause the same responses.
> It's definitely a stimulant and can give you the kinds of side effects you might expect from any stimulant, including a raised BP and heart rate.
Sure, but people wouldn't downvote a comment suggesting having couple of cups of coffee per day to improve ADHD symptoms as hard, for example. And for me caffeine withdrawals symptoms have always been more difficult to overcome compared to nicotine.
For average tech worker HN user living a sedentary life-style, having stressful job in polluted city periodic usage of nicotine patches won't make it to their top list of health concerns IMO.
So much of the research and the general understanding is just conflated with cigarettes as the delivery type. They present a bunch of problems: the smoke and other chemicals makes it damaging in a lot of ways. People sometimes swap the terms “nicotine” and “cigarettes”. Cigarettes (and presumably vaping) have one of the highest and fastest nicotine deliveries — this is critical in creating the physical/chemical (dopamine) response that your brain and body use in addiction formation.
We can have two companies release the same code, but the ui/UX of the users interaction with it can make all the difference.
Google always knew the identity of companies whose software it distributed (via Google Play), now it also want to know the identity of software developers it has nothing to do with. Get your facts straight next time before writing a snarky comment!
> Probably because they mostly trust their governments, certainly more than they trust Big Tech.
Then why would they want big-tech employees to look at their nudes flagged by automated dumb scanning and unbeknown to them sent for human verification?
