In developer settings, under debugging "Linux development environment (Experimental) Run Linux terminal on Android"

No such option. Apparently it needs to be allowed by the vendor (Samsung)?

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/3226/

> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.

That is unmistakably an insult, even if you say it's not.

Easy anti cheat works on linux, if the game developers permit it.

It's not the same as EasyAntiCheat and doesn't support the same features. It's like saying Excel works on iPad, but you can't even use VBA on that.

Or a game example: I have Minecraft (Bedrock) on my phone so therefore I should be able to do the same things as Minecraft (Java) on Windows. The problem is they're the same names for different software with similar, but not the same, functionality.

So you're saying that easy anti cheat on linux is different from on windows? I am aware it is not as effective as detecting cheating on linux, but does this affect gameplay itself? Or do game developers not want reduced efficacy of detecting cheaters, and so they don't support linux at all?

I don't play those games myself but the word is that the EAC on linux lacks the same kernel hooks that are available on Windows. I personally consider that a plus but if you're a developer obsessed with strong anti-cheat you probably do not.

Linux kernel provides ways to observe from user space. The problem is that there’s nothing to stop someone running a kernel which neuters anticheat tools ability to observe using that functionality. As far as I’m aware the only way to mitigate that is via measured boot attestation and having signed kernel etc.

Ah, I was under the mistaken impression EAC operated in userspace.

It does on Linux. That's the problem for developers. Unless you're talking about Windows.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1808/

Other people seem to have different experiences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582372

> This also suggests there aren't actually that many authors in this collection

There are 200 according to the website.

Of course, it gets more complicated when you also consider susceptibility to mutations.

Because accounts are free, and could still be used to abuse as a free endpoint, with a little trickiness.

You don't need a phone number to create a google account. (Though the account creation flow is inconsistent in this, in sone situations it will require a phone number, in some it won't.)

It's not a title algorithm, it's a character limit.

Full title, "...than ever": 64 characters

Another title currently on the front page has 74 characters: "The Many Roots of Our Suffering: Reflections on Robert Trivers (1943–2026)"

I stand corrected.

There isn't a technical reason why titles have to be that short, memory isn't in that short supply despite the RAM shortages. A function, therefore an algorithm, is deciding to truncate the title for some reason.

Which you find to be the reasonable explanation over just OP editorializing the title with their own hands because...?

Because the edited title is incoherent and grammatically incorrect.

Until recently that would have marked it as likely done by simplistic automation. These days, it's hard to tell, because humans seem more likely to make simple errors of grammar.

no, as I indicated the full title is within the character limit, to test it I opened up a submit form and it did not say the title was too long.