Even in the pretty generic realm of military fps trailers, this one lacked the tiniest ambition of standing out. It almost dips into the realm of satire in it’s choice of themes and presentation which are all so obviously just lame rehashes of things we’ve all seen dozens of times before.
Ross Scott is an absolute treasure, and I’m kinda sad that he has never made more than €63k euros in a given year. He deserves more for all the work he has put in.
I’m not European, so if you are, please do what you can to encourage your reps to support this.
If this trailer references some plot point from the actual game, I’d be interested in learning why she reached out for the ancient puzzlebox in the middle of couple’s bathing.
A youtuber/streamer I really like who plays a lot of Vintage Story and has created themselves and shown off a lot of other Vintage Story builders work is Ashantin.
What I like about Ashantin is the vibe, they really understand the game but are super relaxed and chill in their playstyle. As in… Ashantin gives off the moment to moment vibes of a very casual player but they understand the game really well at the same time and it is a really pleasant combination that makes good background watching.
If you are curious about Vintage Story it is also a great way to get an idea of what the gameplay is like (I HIGHLY recommend Vintage Story!!!).
Makes me sad. I login through my account (through the app) and do a search and can’t find it. This isn’t the first time their search has failed me (even if the game clearly exists).
The good news is that they are scared. First, they ignored it. Next they tried to debate, well lie, their way out of it.
No one is buying their story or is feeling sorry for those greedy bastards. So they take the other route, attack the opponent and question their intentions/ credibility.
Maybe. All I read is that he was QA. That can mean anything from game tester to someone who tests internal tooling. I haven’t seen an actual description of his role.
I honestly don’t know, but since he ended up in cyber security, I’m guessing it wasn’t games testing, but probably internal tooling. Orgs like Blizzard have a lot of non-gaming related tech, like websites, databases, etc.
I haven’t seen any disclosure about what his role was, just that he started as QA and ended up doing cyber security, both of which likely didn’t involve any coding.
He did technically end up in cybersecurity, but basically yeah, a role that involves almost zero actual technical skill.
He did social engineering, aka, worming his way into people’s emails and texts and social circles, sending fake ‘your account has been comprimised, send me your user name and password to fix’ type shit.
Ironically, social engineering is quite a fitting uh, subclass, for a low technical skill, high charisma narcissist to slot into.
He thought hacking and DEFCON was the coolest convention to go to, so him and some buddies… won the scavenger hunt badge, I believe thats more or less running around the Con with your network analyzer open on your phone, to find wifi/bluetooth enabled hidden scavenger hunt items, maybe with a couple extra steps.
Its literally a gimmick badge, its not really anything to do with actual pentesting, nothing like developing a totally novel exploit.
EDIT: Like, I am reasonably confident I know more about ethical hacking than he does, just having futzed around with tryhackme and some other free online sort of, ‘basics of hacking’ tutorials with simulated demonstrations on VMs, for a few years in my spare time.
Ask him what SYN, SYN-ACK and ACK are, and why they are important, and I’m guessing he would have to look it up, whilst making it look like he is not looking it up.
It’s also probably the most common type of breach. It’s way easier to compromise tech support than find a vulnerability, so it makes a ton of sense for a company like Blizzard to have an auditing team to test the various attack vectors.
A lot of roles like QA and cyber security sound glamorous, but that’s because people like glamorous titles. If you’ve spent even a tiny amount of time working in a relevant industry (in this case, anything touching computers), you should be able to read between the lines. That “sanitation engineer” is probably just a janitor or garbage truck driver, not the person in charge of the city water filtration services or something.
scavenger hunt badge
I haven’t been, but yeah, that sounds likely. Things like that are to get people new to the industry excited, not to actually challenge hardcore hackers.
I’ve attended and even spoken at some tech conferences, and they’re like 90% entry level stuff with a handful of interesting events and talks that actually break some new ground. I’m in senior level position now, and conferences are something I’d send my juniors to for networking and to get an idea of how they want to grow their career, but I don’t really attend anymore. I imagine cyber security conferences are similar.
Ask him what SYN, SYN-ACK and ACK are
Lol, that’s basic TCP stack stuff, I doubt he would’ve gone that low level at a company like Blizzard. You get to that level when you’re looking for amplification attacks at a place like Cloudflare or the military.
At Blizzard, they most likely want to make sure they’re up to date on security patches, their tech support is following the proper scripts, and IT isn’t getting lazy reviewing reports and whatnot. Basically, liability coverage in case there’s a real breach so their insurance can cover any losses.
But yeah, streamers like to appear like they know their stuff because that’s what gets people to watch.
It’s also probably the most common type of breach. It’s way easier to compromise tech support than find a vulnerability, so it makes a ton of sense for a company like Blizzard to have an auditing team to test the various attack vectors.
Yep, absolutely.
The uh, funniest one that sticks in my memory was the hack of basically an early build of GTA 6.
Somebody social engineered their way into someone at Rockstar who had some level of admin acces, I think via fake / intercepted and reformed 2FA auths to the target’s phone, along with some spear phishing.
Then, they were proficient enough to exploit thier way throughout the intranet… but not smart enough to cover all their tracks.
A lot of roles like QA and cyber security sound glamorous, but that’s because people like glamorous titles. If you’ve spent even a tiny amount of time working in a relevant industry (in this case, anything touching computers), you should be able to read between the lines.
You would think this, but everywhere I have worked in the industry… most people cannot infact read between the lines.
I’ve attended and even spoken at some tech conferences, and they’re like 90% entry level stuff with a handful of interesting events and talks that actually break some new ground.
Impressive!
I’ve been to some, never spoken though… also, not DEFCON though.
I imagine cyber security conferences are similar. (mostly exist for networking)
I agree.
But yeah, streamers like to appear like they know their stuff because that’s what gets people to watch.
Yeah, but Thor takes it to an uncommon point of basically being a conman, with his so much of his reputation built, by himself, on vastly overstated credentials.
Its like getting a 2 year nursing assistant degrer and then acting as if you can safely perform a brain surgery.
ve been to some, never spoken though… also, not DEFCON though.
Yeah, I’ve spoken at local JS and Go confs with several hundred to a couple thousand attendees (my sessions were small, like 30 people), and attended a couple others.
DEFCON is much larger, but looking at the schedule, it seems pretty similar, a mix of relatively entry level stuff and more advanced topics. So someone attending doesn’t say much other than that they’re interested in cyber security.
Its like getting a 2 year nursing assistant degrer and then acting as if you can safely perform a brain surgery.
Interesting. I haven’t watched enough of his stuff to know what claims he’s made.
Interesting. I haven’t watched enough of his stuff to know what claims he’s made.
As you seem to be an actual serious person who generally values their time:
Probably don’t bother lol, unless you want to just watch multiple hours of youtubers going through his … literal decades long history of hyping himself up, lying or manipulating the context of what he says and does.
I can best summarize it all as: He is a malignant narcissist sociopath, akin to a cult leader in terms of how charismatically skilled he is and how intricate his fabrications are.
Specifically as it refers to his coding abilities, now, a number of other coders on youtube have done exhaustive breakdowns of his sloppy code, and also shown that he often acts like a seasoned expert in specific technical concepts that he is at best only vaguely familiar with at the level of a sky high overview.
I was looking forward to some conversation regarding this subject in the comments, instead all we’ve got is people talking about text vs video, and drawing any attention away from actually discussing the video.
I think it’s interesting that people have to attach their names and prove they’re real to sign this, but serious complaints can be filed anonymously. I’m not European, so does this mean anyone random can file complaints? Or it’s done somehow officially, just shows up anonymously?
I’m asking to understand how this works because this could not be the industry entirely.
tl;dr: it’s far from perfect, but it is a decent compromise.
what you’re talking about are government applications, which can take many different forms.
some can be filled out anonymously (often things like complaints, sometimes even lawsuits, etc.), and some need to have a verifiable identity attached (for example petitions, like SKG).
the reason the latter needs proof of identity is to prevent spam and unlawful influence campaign: if there was no verification, how could you know that it is actually citizens filing these requests, and not bad and/or foreign actors?
what if you had a European Citizens Initiative called “let’s join the russian federation” that got to 50 Million signatures overnight?
obviously seems fishy…so how would you verify wether it was actually supported by your own citizens?
this is why you need verification: it’s simply not an option to have this sort of thing filed anonymously.
there are some ideas on how to do this digitally, mostly focused on pseudonymization, which would be mostly great, but the current system is pretty decent.
there’s a tradeoff happening, and it’s one that has to be extremely carefully considered:
on the one hand, you’d want citizens to be free to support whatever campaigns they want without fear of repercussions, social or otherwise.
on the other hand, it’s also a good thing when people can’t hide behind anonymity when voicing their support. with the recent rise of nazis, that’s certainly a prudent state of affairs.
both ways of doing things have advantages and disadvantages.
the current system of public support tends to favor quite conservative (as in traditionalistic and broadly accepted socially, not as in the “conservative politics”) initiatives over more reformative ones, but it also suppresses utterly unhinged Initiatives of the right wing factions.
as much as i understand that many groups would prefer a more anonymous approach, i honestly think the current approach, under the current state of affairs, offers much needed protection against nazi influence campaigns.
i think people underestimate how much more comfortable nazis get, when they can hide behind anonymity.
they are cowards be default, and anonymity helps them find a whole lot more acceptance than having their names out in the open…
as for why complaints can be filed anonymously… probably the same reasoning, but in reverse:
protecting people from repercussions is more important when it is about reporting current misgivings, than it is when petitioning for change.
think whistleblowers: they NEED anonymity.
without anonymity, a lot remains unreported, because many people tend to shoot the messenger first, ask questions later or never…so protections are required, mostly in form of anonymity, otherwise no one ever finds out about things going wrong…
The anonymous complaint system aids whistleblowers.
But it also means that the complaints can come from less than reputable sources.
The upshot of this is that the complaint doesn’t get as much traction and is vetted more closely.
This complaint amounts to the condiment on a nothingburger.
Trying to stop the petition based on a technicality that someone is working too hard seems a bit unhinged. Anyone that stands to be hurt enough by the movement would have had lawyers on retainer to handle things like this.
It’s also possible that someone supporting the movement used it as a false flag to get more attention, but there’s 1.4+ million eyes on it. I don’t see that being an advantageous path either.
Either way, the complaint is bunk and will end up being ignored with a moment’s scrutiny.
youtube.com
Gorące