What's ironic is saying that I don't know about the subject while proceeding to show how you don't actually understand what you're talking about.
this is exactly why the fallacy happens in the first place they trust the person regardless of right or wrong. once the person gains the trust they can say whatever they want and people will follow in line. thats why its a fallacy
The point is : not necessarily. It's really not that hard to get honestly.
and yet Argumentum Ad Verecundiam/argument of authority/appeal to authority exists for people just like you. this person said this so it must be true without a doubt
Blindly following is different from trusting some people more than others. Everybody trust somebody for somethings. If SciresM say there is no bug I would assume that it is highly unlikely that a bug can be found. Whether I seek a second opinion would depends on what are the stakes. There is not much reason for me to not just take his word for it.
No, I have never said that because somebody says and is an authority, he must be right. I actually said the opposite even, I've said that being an authority isn't enough. But hey : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
?
)
reading your posts give me an aneurysm. "source" is never used as anything but a way to put somebody down simple as that. even when a source is given they use appeal to authority to attempt to discredit it and avoid admitting they are wrong. on top of that not everything needs a "source" and can be processed with this crazy rare thing called logic which for something like this is the case but again "source" is just an attempt to discredit. anybody who says its unhackable is just straight up stupid and disregards history. no its not hackable NOW but it will inevitably be eventually. I just absolutely can't stand any fucker that goes "source?"?
But that's not what happened tho. It was about somebody saying it was unhackable, and someone else asking for the reasoning behind that, so the guy claiming it was unhackable would have to provide an explanation, a source. Which is absolutely fair, and you've been saying that's a fallacy, which is why I ask you what's wrong with that and you haven't answered to that question so now I'll just assume you're arguing in bad faith. Next time you're arguing online just try to have something else than just « argument by authority » in mind especially if you don't know how to use it.
But I guess that's on me ? Maybe I should have known that when you're called « deathblade » you aren't meant to be taken seriously, I'm trying to give everyone a chance tho (I've made a logical fallacy just for you, find it
There is nothing else.
You are putting yourself forward as an authority. You have no evidence, only guess work.
anybody that says its unhackable are the same pests that infest every sngle console hack scene. they are ALWAYS proven wrong every single time. as stated before the ONLY way a device could be unhackable is for it to be a perfectly coded which is literally impossible to do. I've seen this same "its unhackable" shit time and time again it needs to end already. this is literally the same bullshit I saw for the vita at the 5 year point.
If you dont like the Switch library you have better hardware/options than Switch for android+emulators if thats your main goal.
Because reasons.
Well don't forget the Pegasus exploit that got quickly patchedBecause reasons.
On one hand we have people who have taken a deep dive into Nintendo's software and said that it is highly unlikely to softmod.
On the other hand there are the people who insist that nothing is perfect and an exploit is just out there waiting to be found. (Though the Switch software has never been exploited, even the V1 softmod is an exploit of Nvidia's code, not Nintendo's.)
The rest of us are simply enjoying the popcorn and watching the show or stirring the pot.
I'd recommend looking at Horizon's design a bit. It was completely written from scratch by nintendo with them having learned off their past mistakes. Almost everything is split off into its own userspace process with none of those userspace processes having enough privileges to get you full CFW if taken over. Then only the bare minimum necessary runs at a more privileged level in el1 or el3, with their el3/trustzone firmware binary (the mariko one specifically) being a mere 56KiB (with about 32KiB actually containing any data), and their el1/kernel firmware binary being ~561KiB. These are tiny, and particularly with the trustzone firmware, once you get down to these kinds of sizes there's only so much you can do and it quickly becomes a if question rather than a where/when question in terms if any vulns exist.
K3Nv2
DinohScene
Veho
@
Xdqwerty:
