While I don't have stick drift or very little after 2 years with a dual sense :
The triggers are both very mushy after extended use in rocket league.
Tetsuo
joined 1 year ago
I don't share the positive feedback. The directional pad was especially terrible from the get go.
Franchement je vois mal comment quelqu'un pourrait faire croire que ce décret a été initialement fait pour le biens des français.
C'est clair que c'est du copinage, un cadeau pour des amis dans l'immobilier...
Parce que pour trouver des nouveaux logements ya une technique ancestrale qui consiste a en construire de nouveaux.
Ils ne seront pas "atypiques" mais au moins ça rendrait service a ceux qui en ont besoin... Pas les acheteurs en quête de biens atypiques...
Thanks ! That's exactly how I think it could be implemented but that confirms that this is certainly not something you can find commonly where I live.
That confirms the fact that if you use the same wifi and everyone has entered the same encryption key then there is no real client isolation...
It's cool that wifi keeps evolving. It comes a long way from the WEP beginnings.
Do you have any documentation on how this work ? Is there a name to this special protocol? Is it a recent addition to the wifi standard ?
Again a wifi AP doesn't send data to a specific client. So how does an AP can enforce that one client can't read a frame for someone else that is properly authenticated? How would an AP prevent someone spoofing mac addresses from receiving that data ?
I'm really confused by this feature I never heard of even when I was playing with aircrack and so on. Yes sometimes your mac address can get filtered but even that is not really difficult to avoid.
Sorry I have so many questions but I honestly did quite some "tinkering" with wifi years ago and none of this sounds familiar.
I like turtles.
Thank you for understanding.
I have no idea what this client separation is.
As far as I know there isn't really any client separation on wifi. It's a shared medium.
At least I don't see anything preventing you from reading someone else traffic. So anything unencrypted on a wifi is also accessible to any other clients.
I had tools more than 10 years ago that could automatically hijack session cookies on wifi for anybody connected and not using https.
If you setup the personal hotspot correctly with a good key IMHO it's safer.
On a public hotspot the owner or anybody that has access to this hotspot could get some of your cookies and hijack your accounts assuming they are not on https.
Basically, if you use a public hotspot you are at the mercy of the owner.
If you use your hotspot and do tethering then only your ISP could spy on you.
I do think a VPN is good if you absolutely need to download it on a public hotspot. It should encrypt all traffic making it difficult to snoop on by the hospot owner.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer but there is probably a difference getting caught downloading on someone else's network (public hotspot) or your Network (personal hotspot).
In either hotspot I think your IP is just as exposed so it doesn't make much difference. If you want to hide the IP then it's a VPN you need irrelevant to the use of a hotspot.
In some case your IP might be dynamic on your 5G connection so that means your IP could change regularly making it also a bit more private. But also operators usually see very well when someone download on their mobile connection/data plan. And I assume they don't like people downloading because they would much prefer to set you up with a 4/5G modem and a dedicated subscription for that rather than sneakily using your mobile connection to download.
IMHO everyone is entirely missing the point pointing their finger at Boeing.
The main issue is the FAA and how it failed to control Boeing. It's obvious a business will try to sacrifice safety for money. But there should be check and balances. Someone making sure a business doesn't do that.
The FAA let Boeing supervise itself.
Just to be clear some of the higher up at Boeing are criminals but so is the cop that told him he could police himself.
* in 360p.
The problem was solved by Nvidia, then AMD made it cheap and accessible and not requiring a dedicated hardware module.
For years and years Nvidia increased artificially by up to 150 euros many Gsync screens and for no legitimate reason. Initially there was NO compatibility with free sync at all.
Nvidia wasn't kindly solving a gamers problem at least to after the first year of release of that tech. They were forcibly selling expensive hardware modules nobody needed or wanted. And long after freesync showed you could do it just as well without this expensive requirements.
This hardware module they insisted on selling wasn't solving a technical problem but a money one.
I don't even think anyone was ever able to differentiate between the different qualities of "sync techs".
Also people regularly spend more than they can afford.
When you think about it the fact that you can quite easily borrow money you clearly will not reimburse which is kind of an infinite money Glitch for capitalism.