vektor's recent activity
-
Comment on Distrohoppers, what's your flavor this week? in ~comp
-
Comment on Distrohoppers, what's your flavor this week? in ~comp
vektor LinkUnchanged for 3-4 years now it's Manjaro and Windows in a multiboot that I kinda despise. I mostly need the Windows for gaming, so any friction is annoying. And boy is there friction. Unchanged...Unchanged for 3-4 years now it's Manjaro and Windows in a multiboot that I kinda despise. I mostly need the Windows for gaming, so any friction is annoying. And boy is there friction.
Unchanged for a year or more, I also wanna spin up nixOS one of these days and see if that is for me. And fix my multiboot to solve a few pain points that I have. I'd like to be able to boot into windows by restarting linux, without interacting with grub in between. Or for Windows to "restart" not into grub but into Windows. Not even sure it's grub that I'm running tbh.
But yeah, nixOS is what I'm leering at. Not sure if I qualify as a distro hopper.
-
Comment on Reddit is going to enforce rate-limiting the API's free tier as well as charging for higher rates in ~tech
vektor Link ParentTime to work on those collaborative moderation mechanisms that Deimos originally envisioned?Time to work on those collaborative moderation mechanisms that Deimos originally envisioned?
-
Comment on IRC for tildes? in ~tildes
vektor Link ParentYeah, that's a fair point. My point was more that if it's public, at least it's transparent. As in, the shadowy "maybe someone is shit-talking my posts on the site right now" can be easily...Yeah, that's a fair point. My point was more that if it's public, at least it's transparent. As in, the shadowy "maybe someone is shit-talking my posts on the site right now" can be easily checked. I accept that doesn't make it harmless, just removes one of multiple negative influences.
I guess what I'm imagining is more of a chat segment that's officially part of the site? Like, one of the main reasons for the discord to even exist is to have an outlet for lower-effort, less serious content. And that's valid, but not if it leads to fracturing. I'm not convinced that's necessarily a good idea as far as I've sketched it out here, but maybe that can be done without causing bigger issues.
-
Comment on IRC for tildes? in ~tildes
vektor Link ParentI'd say a public chat room like IRC, maybe with an up to date log wouldn't hurt the community much. You can still easily link it in as if it was an integral part of the community. Maybe with a bit...Honestly, chat rooms just cause the formation of cliques and fracturing of community.
I'd say a public chat room like IRC, maybe with an up to date log wouldn't hurt the community much. You can still easily link it in as if it was an integral part of the community. Maybe with a bit more technical integration than just "this URL is tildes' IRC; have fun."
But yeah, with how it is right now; an unofficial, non-discoverable discord server, it fractures the community. It can be incredibly harmful to the community if posts on tildes spawn a parallel discussion on discord that only some of the people can see. I could get shat on over here because someone misread my post and shared that misinterpretation on discord, and everyone there went along with it. I can't even clarify that misunderstanding, because I don't even necessarily know that it exists, or any relevant details about the conversation on discord.
Does that actually happen, you might ask. And, well, by the very nature of the problem I couldn't give you a satisfactory answer. But I'm pretty sure it's happened at least once.
I think tildes sits in an awkward spot of its size there, where these parallel communities can easily grow big enough without fully splitting off that they can't just be shrugged off, but at the same time tildes isn't small enough or homogeneous enough for it to just have a monolithic community.
-
Comment on ROT13 + base64 on GPT4 = reliable hallucinations in ~tech
vektor Link ParentConsidering it only got the conversion mostly right, i.e. there were some errors there, that suggests to me it was in fact learned. That is, the algorithm / heuristic is found somewhere in the...Considering it only got the conversion mostly right, i.e. there were some errors there, that suggests to me it was in fact learned. That is, the algorithm / heuristic is found somewhere in the network weights. If it was hard coded, it'd be an exact solution.
The more interesting question is whether it learned this as an ancillary function of its main unsupervised training, or whether fine-tuning data for exactly this problem was supplied. Unfortunately, while more interesting, this one is also much more difficult to answer.
-
Comment on A few final links before signing off for the year in ~talk
vektor Link ParentFWIW, I can't see anything wrong with your post. If that helps.but I can't help but think I screwed up.
FWIW, I can't see anything wrong with your post. If that helps.
-
Comment on What's your p(doom)? in ~talk
vektor Link ParentBoth intentional and unintentional. Though I consider intentional to be a relatively controllable risk, as I don't think common criminals can get a leg up using AI. Wanna hack a bank and let GPT...By “human made” do you mean intentional?
Both intentional and unintentional. Though I consider intentional to be a relatively controllable risk, as I don't think common criminals can get a leg up using AI. Wanna hack a bank and let GPT find a vulnerability? Well, you're betting that the bank didn't have GPT pentest its security first.
But let's also focus on the point of this argument: p(doom). We're talking existential risks. The kind of stuff I had in mind there was "maybe massive use of AI will turn the next global conflict massively deadly". Or you could consider climate change, killer asteroids, or an even worse pandemic. I'm not really counting these risks here, because I think that's kind of beside the point. All kinds of technologies affect the probabilities of the existential risks that humanity has exposed itself to already. Because these are pre-existing conditions, I don't care much.
Making an AI that’s too smart to cause an accident if it’s given dangerous capabilities is pretty hard, as we’ve seen from many years of work on driverless cars. If ordinary people were building driverless cars on their own, I’d be pretty worried, given all the dumb stuff they do with cars already.
Again, existential risks. A knucklehead building an accidental suicide/homicide machine is hardly anything new. People fuck around with toxic crap, explosives and even radioactive material all the time. Unless that garage-built self-driving car has skynet aspirations or otherwise brings about the end of society as we know it, it's not really p(doom), it's p(humans are stupid), which is 1.
Most accidents aren’t like a sorcerer’s apprentice scenario, but there was the Morris worm and there are other computer viruses that got out accidentally. The only reason computer viruses aren’t more common is that there are more defenses nowadays.
As for an accidental release of a superintelligent virus, I can only reiterate that change will be evolutionary, and ITSec research is already looking into using LLMs to detect and patch security vulnerabilities. The chance that such a vulnerability can be found by accident, when institutional actors are working against that with the same basic tools (or better ones) defies probability. Even an intentional actor would have a hard time pulling that off, and while the probability of a security breach of important systems is more likely then, the probability of that propagating into an existential risk is lower.
So the question isn’t whether accidents will happen but how big can they get? Can we put bounds on that?
I’m pretty confident that making something like a computer worm that can grab control of dangerous capabilities will be much easier than making it smart enough to use them safely.
So long as we're shooting for accidents, this is the crux. Most systems that an AI could compromise/that you could compromise with the help of an AI simply aren't big enough. Most systems that even come close are quite decentralized. Many different countries with their own infrastructure, many different companies each with their own tools. You'd need to compromise a lot of them simultaneously to have a noticeable effect, which kind of looks a lot like the "AI as a super-hacker" thing I've discussed above.
I guess the exceptions in my argument are if a lot of AI development happens siloed off from the rest of the world, e.g. in a intelligence agency. But frankly, at this point I doubt the capability of such agencies to be faster than the public research community.
Another risk that's just crept up on me is the risk of global trade. Personally, I'm quite convinced that our current economies are intensely vulnerable to a collapse of supply chains. If overseas trade stops, many of the systems that we rely on to get things done stop working. No more energy, no more fuel, no more transportation, no more spare parts, no more food, that kinda thing. Remove from that list what your country can produce indigenously, now add it again if you rely on something you can't do indigenously to make it happen. Once you threaten the food safety of all developed nations, things start looking very grim very quickly. Sure, humanity will survive. There's still subsistence farmers that use technology barely more complicated than iron-age. But.... how can we conjure this up, without ending back up in the superhacker-AI scenario anyway?
Maybe I should also clarify: I don't believe that p(doom) is literally impossible. The probability is close enough to zero that I'm not really worried about it at all. Climate change is a massive existential risk. If I had to guess, 10% chance of a eradicating societies as we know them and kicking the few survivors back into a dystopian solarpunky iron age. 80% chance of fucking us up massively, with 100s of millions or billions dead, but societies ultimately continuing to exist for the most part. 10% chance of some miracle technology that saves our asses without too much further harm. Nuclear war is a much less likely risk, though the distribution is much more pointy in that I think there's a high chance everyone lives unimpeded and a very narrow chance of near-complete destruction. AI-based apocalypse is orders of magnitude more unlikely still imo. Interestingly, in an unlikely event within an unlikely event, I do consider it possible that AI actually extinguishes humanity completely; something that I think neither climate change nor nuclear war can do.
-
Comment on What's your p(doom)? in ~talk
vektor Link ParentLet me one up that. My p(doom) is zero, as long as you exclude AI being used as a tool to bring about a human-made doom event. AI-driven drones cause massive devastation in a war? Tool used by...Let me one up that. My p(doom) is zero, as long as you exclude AI being used as a tool to bring about a human-made doom event. AI-driven drones cause massive devastation in a war? Tool used by humans. AI being used by rich people or rich corporations to further aggregate wealth while making 99% of the population functionally unemployable, causing mass poverty and either unrest or a humanitarian crisis? Tool used by humans. These are problems and potential crises that already exist before AI is around, they can be exacerbated by AI though.
What does that leave? Alignment problems. SkyNet, paperclip maximizers, that kinda thing. Progress is evolutionary, even if ChatGPT maybe feels revolutionary. For those of us paying attention to AI before ChatGPT, it's nothing new. It's incrementally better and more impressive. By a decent margin compared to other stuff we had beforehand, but nothing too crazy. AI development will always be lots of evolutionary steps. You might come across a revolutionary new way of doing things, but that'll again require evolutionary development to catch up with the state of the art, because you basically just reinvented the wheel. That phase of evolutionary development is where humans have a lot of time to figure out that they have a problem on their hands, and turn the damn thing off. If we ever even get to the point of having an alignment problem. Seems a bit naive to assume that a superintelligence is stupid enough to not realize that its optimization goal is messed up and misaligned with the creator's intent.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
vektor Link ParentI've actually gotten a decent bit of use out of them, if only for pre-production of small-scale production units. If I notice I'm lacking material X, I'll use the factory planner to figure out...I've actually gotten a decent bit of use out of them, if only for pre-production of small-scale production units. If I notice I'm lacking material X, I'll use the factory planner to figure out which inputs are viable. You'll often not have all intermediates on your bus/city block, so figuring out how to produce intermediates and which recipes to use is not always nontrivial, as is balancing the ratios. So I'll often work on multiple plans for the same process, tweaking which recipe I use and which modules to use until I have something I'm comfortable with. Then I'll implement that, ideally on a rectangular footprint. The resulting block can then be copy-pasted.
The result is that I have 10s of factory plans archived, and their numbers won't always line up. I might have a base that consumes 5 belts of iron, but my production block produces 2 belts, and I just replicate that as long as that particular item is in demand.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
vektor Link ParentThere's plenty of in-game calculators, if you don't insist on using a web app. Most notably factory planner and helmod. There's also recipe book which I would consider essential for larger modpacks.There's plenty of in-game calculators, if you don't insist on using a web app. Most notably factory planner and helmod. There's also recipe book which I would consider essential for larger modpacks.
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor Link ParentAll good. This is big enough that it deserves the thread bump. Good news. More where that came from, please.Apologies for the double reply,
All good. This is big enough that it deserves the thread bump. Good news. More where that came from, please.
-
Comment on The little-known unintended consequence of recycling plastics in ~enviro
vektor Link ParentAFAICT, the authors of the study are well aware of the limitations. Their main conclusion is similar to mine, "we don't nearly know enough about this". The WaPo though... well, let's just say...but they didn't notice some pretty big problems with it that vektor pointed out.
AFAICT, the authors of the study are well aware of the limitations. Their main conclusion is similar to mine, "we don't nearly know enough about this".
The WaPo though... well, let's just say their business model is to optimize for readership, not truth.
-
Comment on The little-known unintended consequence of recycling plastics in ~enviro
vektor (edited )Link ParentIt should be noted, that if I'm reading the article right, this is a misinterpretation. So in the facility, they have some filtration in place. That's the two different ranges we see (96 – 2933...A recent peer-reviewed study that focused on a recycling facility in the United Kingdom suggests that anywhere between 6 to 13 percent of the plastic processed could end up being released into water or the air as microplastics — ubiquitous tiny particles smaller than five millimeters that have been found everywhere from Antarctic snow to inside human bodies.
It should be noted, that if I'm reading the article right, this is a misinterpretation.
This equates to 96 – 2933 tonnes per annum of MP discharged in pre-filtration water and 4 – 1366 tonnes per annum of MP in post-filtration water. Given 22680 tonnes of plastic waste are brought the PRF for processing per year, the MP released relative to the tonnage imported to the plant is up to 0.06 tonne/tonne for post-filtration discharge. This equates to approximately 6% of the mass of plastic waste brought to the PRF for recycling (0.004-0.13 tonne/tonne), but rises to up to 13% if no filtration is provided to the wash water.
So in the facility, they have some filtration in place. That's the two different ranges we see (96 – 2933 tonnes unfiltered and 4 – 1366 filtered) in Section 3.3. I haven't found yet where those ranges come from, but given what I've read about the methodology, it's probably to account for the fact that their sampling procedure has quite large margins of error, considering they sample from the top layer of a tank of stagnant waste water, making assumptions about the distribution of MP particles (Second paragraph of section 3.1). The 6% and 13% figures are the upper end of the estimates for filtered and unfiltered discharge (i.e. 1366 and 2933 tonnes). The more proper way to compute the potential range as reported by the article ("anywhere between 6 to 13 percent of the plastic processed could end up being released into water or the air as microplastics") is to take the lower end of the filtered figure. Which would give you 0.017%. In short, WP reports the worst estimate of the filtered waste water and the worst estimate of the unfiltered waste water as the total range. They completely ignore that the best cases are several orders of magnitude better.
Now I'm not saying recycling is as good as we like to tell ourselves. But to have an error margin of three orders of magnitude just screams "we need to study this a hell of a lot more". And to be quite frank, I'm not buying the upper end of the range here at all. Losing 13% of the processed plastics to waste water seems a bit extreme.
There's about 22680 tonnes worth of further experiments that could be done here. Sample MP pollution upstream and downstream of the discharge point. Sample the discharge water itself, not this weird tank nonsense. Try to figure out how much tonnes of plastics leave the facility as solid waste and as recycled pellets to work out how much is lost. Sample different facilities. Some of which I'm sure is infeasible, but there's got to be a way to get that error margin down.
My main take-away from this is about how poorly the problem is understood, not about how bad the problem is.
Edit: On second thought, the higher end of the range doesn't pass the sniff test. They report number of particles, but once you convert that into an actual concentration, as they do in the graphical abstract... well, let's just say I don't find "1% of the discharge water is plastic" (10^4mg/l) to be particularly convincing. Maybe my intuition is off here, but that seems like a comically large amount.
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor Link ParentIt certainly isn't for everyone. It is however a surprisingly good place to find the latest news, as far as defense topics go. Considering it's a shitposting sub, you'll not learn what the news...It certainly isn't for everyone. It is however a surprisingly good place to find the latest news, as far as defense topics go. Considering it's a shitposting sub, you'll not learn what the news is, just that there is news. Doesn't mean it's a good place to get your news, but the fact that it works at all is interesting.
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor (edited )LinkFor anyone who's been napping and not really following things too closely: Something is happening - I'm not exactly sure what, and the signal/noise ratio is bad right now. It could be mostly...For anyone who's been napping and not really following things too closely:
Something is happening - I'm not exactly sure what, and the signal/noise ratio is bad right now. It could be mostly psyop, but it seems like something is going on at the least. Ukraine-aligned Russian partisans/deserters are occupying Russian territory near the border, it seems?
This is, as far as I can see right now, a very minor development as far as the hard facts go. It could be a Ukrainian-sanctioned incursion into Russia, which is something we haven't really seen before in such an overt way. But beyond that: it's very local, and unlikely to affect the situation all too much. It might develop into something bigger, or these guys might disappear into the woodwork and wreak havoc on Russia behind the front lines. Who knows, at this point.
If there's one thing I can say for certain, it's that /r/noncredibledefense is having a blast right now.
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor LinkI'd like to leave two twitter threads here, because I find they highlight a perspective on the whole F-16 debate that I haven't seen expressed as clearly and credibly elsewhere....I'd like to leave two twitter threads here, because I find they highlight a perspective on the whole F-16 debate that I haven't seen expressed as clearly and credibly elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1660261077026762753
https://twitter.com/TJOSInt/status/1659757656997871619
TL;DR: F-16s are difficult to maintain, and they're designed to be maintained on the front lines by highly skilled technicians. It's also likely that Ukraine will get maintenance-heavy older aircraft with lesser capabilities. They're not suitable to be operated on ad-hoc airfields, like e.g. Mig-29s are. They require an immaculate airfield, which means Russia will have an easier time identifying their location and disrupting operations. It is also a pipe-dream to think that Ukraine could seriously contest russian air superiority. There won't be a Desert Storm style air campaign; there probably won't even be denial of Russian airspace to Russian aircraft. With clever use of data link, F-16s can still be dangerous in an air-to-air role, but mostly the advantage is in enabling the (better) use of air-launched cruise missiles and HARM. This isn't to say we shouldn't send them, but that we should temper our expectations for when they will have an impact, and how large that impact will be.
Personal thoughts: I'm more and more confident there should've been some Saab Gripens in there as well, at least if air-to-air missions are important. More capable of using improvised airfields, higher-range missiles (MBDA Meteor) and a more modern, presumably higher-performance radar. Having merely the threat of a Gripen in the air would force Russia to fly a lot more cautiously, as they might just be the outranged ones now.[*] For ground strikes, I think nothing beats compatibility with the US arsenal, so F-16 is a decent choice there. Assuming NATO/EU make rational decisions in close coordination with Ukraine, I can only assume that Ukraine isn't particularly interested in air-to-air; or that Gripen training is underway secretly. If we don't assume rational decisions (or assume that the relevant governments know more than me, I guess :D), the fighter coalition could be betting too much money on the wrong horse.
I'm leaning towards the assumption that Ukraine doesn't care that much for air-to-air; their air defenses are solid enough and improving steadily, and actually contesting Russia's air space would entail suppression of Russian air defense, which is just not reasonable. There isn't much to be gained by air-to-air missions that you can't do from the ground. Hence, air-to-ground missions. And hence F-16. I suppose if they had their way, Ukraine would love a plane that maintains and operates like a Gripen and has the weapons compatibility list of an F-16.
Also credit to the reddit user who posted them on a german sub.
[*] To illustrate this, imagine flying a Mig-31 on your regular combat air patrol a good bit behind Russian lines. You're pretty much waiting for a chance target to pop up behind Ukrainian lines. You'd then lob a missile at it without ever being in danger yourself. During these patrols, your radar warning receiver is constantly alerting you to the fact there's a Patriot or IRIS-T or other western SAM system in Ukraine, and it can probably see you. But that's ok, you're far out of range of their missiles. You know where the missiles are, you know their range, you're safe. Now if you have to assume that there might be a gripen in the air, you're in deep shit. The Gripen could keep its radar off, sneak up on you as close as reasonably possible without being detected by your own radar or that of your own SAMs. The Gripen knows where you are, because it's data linked to the Patriot site. Once in range, it'll lob a missile your way. That missile goes marching all the way across the front line, 100, 150km or so. All the while, to you, esteemed Mig-31 driver, it all seems fairly routine. Sure, there's a Patriot site somewhere in the distance, looking for stuff, but it's far enough away. Once the Meteor is close enough to you that you can't reasonably escape anymore, it turns on its own radar to home in on you. Your radar warning receiver screams what can only be summed up as "we're all going to die!". There's seconds left until impact, and no maneuver you do could possibly prevent that. That hypothetical, that threat is why Russia would have to push back its own air activity if Ukraine had Meteor missiles.
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor Link ParentSorry for the german source on a matter of US politics... Apparently, the US is joining the "fighter coalition". Current partners: UK, NL, DK, FR, US. No one has volunteered fighters yet, as far...Sorry for the german source on a matter of US politics...
Apparently, the US is joining the "fighter
mafiacoalition". Current partners: UK, NL, DK, FR, US. No one has volunteered fighters yet, as far as I can tell. But even if any partner is willing to send their fighters, I doubt we'd hear about it, if the pilots aren't even trained yet. Once the pilots are ready, I don't think the problem is going to be that we can't find a few planes.On the topic of german participation, our MoD has said that Germany can't help all that much, as both Tornado and Eurofighter aren't really what Ukraine needs right now. The tornado because it's aging (at this point it's apparently a maintenance nightmare. 20 years ago, it required 80 man-hours of maintenance per hour of flight. I've heard the number of 300h thrown around for these days, but can't confirm.) and the Eurofighter because it just isn't what Ukraine needs. (I assume that's because the Eurofighter is predominantly an A-A platform, not A-G.) Quote: "We are experts in armor and air defence - and it'll stay that way."
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 18 in ~news
vektor (edited )Link ParentWaaaait, if I'm not mistaken, everyone was talking about that back when we were comparing aid contributions to Ukraine. In the discussion of how (not) to compare dollar values of aid, and whether...The military services inadvertently used a higher value for at least some of the weaponry the Pentagon sent to Ukraine, using valuations for new equipment instead of the older gear pulled out of U.S. stockpiles, the people said.
Waaaait, if I'm not mistaken, everyone was talking about that back when we were comparing aid contributions to Ukraine. In the discussion of how (not) to compare dollar values of aid, and whether and how to attribute EU aid to the constituent nations and what all other silliness was going on, I distinctly remember that US aid dollar values were overinflated because they price their used equipment as if it was new. [If I had to hunt for a citation, I'd look first into Perun's videos on the topic.] We knew this for months.
I guess that accounting "error" got inconvenient when they tried to squeeze more aid into an existing budget, huh?
-
Comment on Weekly megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 11 in ~news
vektor Link ParentAgreed. I was hinting at it in my post, but let me spell it out: we gave up a not insignificant part of our tank and PzH2000 fleets. Not a "crippling the army" part, but "if we end up actually...Agreed. I was hinting at it in my post, but let me spell it out: we gave up a not insignificant part of our tank and PzH2000 fleets. Not a "crippling the army" part, but "if we end up actually needing all of the army, we'll sorely feel it". So it's been done before, in a way.
The difference is: this time it's aircraft. As the items Ukraine needs get more and more expensive per unit, the number of units in inventory get smaller and smaller, and if you send a similar fraction of the inventory, you run into that awkward spot where nations either buy a larger fleet or don't bother at all. Looking around in the equipment lists of the smaller NATO economies, you'll see inventories of combat aircraft hardly drop below 12. If you can't afford 12 combat aircraft, you don't have an air force; your army just decided to organizationally group the air defense missiles with the president's flying limo service.
And if you pull 12 airframe from any currently flying type, you're already looking at a quite deep pit in the inventory.
And to be clear, "on the docket to be replaced" means the replacement airframes are available in many many years. Using the F-35 as an example, in the last 12 years, 890 were built. There's orders for 3400. The US, buying most of them, expects to complete its inventory by ~2030. Germany expects first deliveries by 2028.
All of this to say: This isn't exactly a trivial gap in capabilities.
Personally: Because the aircraft sent will be keeping Germany's most likely adversary in an "all hands on deck" kind of defense situation very busy indeed, I'd be entirely on board with sending a bunch of Tornados. I also understand that that's not the capability that Ukraine needs. So older Eurofighters then? Also fine by me. But I also believe that this is the kind of situation where a coalition makes a lot of sense. If you can get all/most EuFi project partners (GB, DE, IT, ES) to give up a part of their older aircraft, I think you have a decent chance that no one country's capabilities are hit too badly, while also scrounging together enough aircraft to make the whole thing worthwhile.
Another thing to keep in mind: Aircraft are fucking complex. You can teach the skills required to operate and maintain a tank very quickly in comparison to doing the same for an aircraft. I really hope the decision of what aircraft is possible to send has already been made, and Ukrainian crews are getting the training already. Otherwise the Ukrainian Army will have kicked the invaders back over the Kerch strait by the time new aircraft become useful.
It's not only multiplayer. Some things just don't really work with proton. Or at least I can't get them to work, even looking at protondb. And some games aren't on steam. Unfortunately the multiboot is not really negotiable for now, but I do most of my gaming on linux.