The Trojan Horse is a Hacker's Friend

FreePete YT ► / @freepete
Twitch ► / thekillpetestrategy
Discord ► / discord
Instagram ► / thekillpetestrategy
TikTok ► / thekillpetestrategy
Patreon ► / thekillpetestrategy
For Business & Sponsorship Inquires Email: [e-mail]
Fan Mail: PO Box 87537 300 John St. Thornhill ON Canada L3T 7R4
I am so grateful for your time, attention, support and kindness!
Donations are never expected and always appreciated. Thank you!
#Risk #RiskStrategy #RiskGlobalDomination #boardgames

[@peterstewart7332]

Pete, think it's hilarious how long it took you to realize that red was cheating (he was doing so basically the entire game for larger and larger amounts each turn). At the end of your first turn (1:25) red had 18 troops. He received +3 and somehow went into his turn with 22 (+4) troops. At 4:59 (the end of your second turn) red had 21 troops. He received +3 and somehow jumped to 27 (+6). At 9:58 (end of your 3rd turn) red had 22 troops. He received +7 and somehow jumped to 33 (+11) troops. At 14:12 (the end of your 4th turn) red had 28 troops. He received +8 and (+4 for a trade in) and somehow jumps to 45 troops (+17). At 18:40 (the end of your 5th turn) red had 37 troops. He received +3 and somehow jumped to 58 troops (+21). At 23:23 (the end of your sixth turn) red had 52 troops. He gained +13 and somehow jumped to 85 troops (+33). At that point, despite cheating for 50 (!) extra troops he is still in an overwhelmingly inferior position to you (sitting with 5 cards and 72 on board, as evidenced by the start of your turn 7 when you had 90 and 2 cards to his 68 and 3 cards). At the end of that 7th turn red has 55 troops. He receives +3 and trades cards for an additional 30 troops for trading in cards and somehow jumps to 137 (+82) troops. At this point he's cheated for 99 free troops and is still in a losing position to Pete. At the end of Pete's 8th turn red has 86 troops. He receives +3 and somehow jumps to 186 (+100). At 30:15 Pete finally realizes, after this guy has cheated for over 100 troops, that red is hacking and leaves. Red was such a piece of shit that he literally had to cheat for 200 bonus troops to win - and still could have lost if Pete focused him down / realized he was cheating earlier.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Why would I waste mental energy counting my opponents troops? Dude I love that! He was so garbage that me playing normally was almost as good as him cheating.

[@isaosauzedde5513]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy This might actually be why white was focusing him so much ! Maybe black realized as well? Personally it bugged me during the whole game, like "how does he have more troops than Pete when he did not get a single bonus and lost so many??"

[@Will-zi6fn]

@@sjmoorezreal ironic 😭😭

[@toastytoast9800]

@@sjmoorez I think it's hilarious you took the time to make this comment and waste your time and ours.

[@sjmoorez]

Your time was only wasted if you were interested in the original comment which was dumb. Not from mine. Good day.

[@samuelhanrahan7177]

The “fuck you naga” play on words after the cancel culture discussion was one of the funniest moments for the Peteman!

[@Jim999]

I give the Peteman the pass. With an 'a' of course 😂 and he is invited to the cookout if he agrees to control the aux and bless us with that angelic voice! Luv ya Pete!

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I am surely speaking of the Naga, a DND race of snake people. OBVIOUSLY 😂😂😂

[@Jim999]

​@@TheKillPeteStrategy I've heard of them! 😂😂

[@xLoneWolf22x]

@@TheKillPeteStrategyI was listening while in my car not paying my full attention. Then I heard you say that and it caught me WAYYY off guard. 😂😂😂

[@ripxdoc]

Lmao a casual +82 troop drop from Red lmaoo yeah real classy there bud

[@denhro]

Seeing this kind of cheating is possible says a lot about the way the game is programmed. No wonder the devs are preoccupied with rewriting a huge portion of the game rather than adding content. The fact that the number of troops you receive is not handled properly and can be infuenced by the player essentailly confirms that the game was created for singleplayer first, with multiplayer as an afterthought. As the developers said in the latest interview.

[@dturtle9057]

Yes, it really emphasizes how different the architecture of a game has to be in order to be viable as a multiplayer game instead of a single player game.

[@hughgeorgechannel]

I was blown away when the devs said most people who play the game play single player. I can hardly fathom why so many people would enjoy single player. Also who even hacks in risk?!

[@andrewsmith6607]

Look what they have to do to mimic a fraction of Pete's power!

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Lol. That is very funny

[@davidchazanas5096]

Imagine the damage pete or any gm could do with a simple free +1 for the first few turns...this guy drops +80 and would still loose

[@antisocialbob968]

Having spotted something was up on reds 2nd turn (when you said he would have a 5v2 and he in fact had 7!) your whole anonymity online discussion was quite amusing!

[@skitzo23]

Red also got 4 troops in turn 1, despite the battle log showing only three. It's weird that Pete didn't notice for so long, tbh. Edit: especially on turn 5, when red got like 20 troops without any bonus and 11 territories. They even put them basically down next to him and Pete was laughing about them attacking white...

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I'm not in the habit of assuming my opponents are cheating such that I would need to count their troops lol

[@skitzo23]

​@@TheKillPeteStrategyThat's fascinating. If it was red after me in turn order, I would pay close attention to where they put their troops, and how many. That makes me calculate faster, if I eventually go for that kill. Are you more worried about lines and worry less about troops? You mentioned before that you are more of an intuitive player. Is it that, what you were talking about, then?

[@QuangPham-ge6xn]

@@skitzo23trash

[@bartstanley9678]

He got 6 on turn 2. A +1 and a +5.

[@joxbox1940]

Unfortunate getting a hacker, you had that game in the bag. GG Pete!

[@amtkjohn]

Holy shit! I’ve never seen that before 😮

[@cristianandrei5462]

lol white was trying to stop the hacker, or at least slow him down, he was the only one to notice.

[@PeterCooperUK]

I think purple and black had too, hence their skipping and refusing to play. Probably wanted higher placement by staying quiet.

[@CheddahSlammer]

This is the reason why I left playing Risk Global Domination. I loved Risk the board game, so when this game came out and I played. However the amount of Hackers I got was crazy that I just couldn't play it anymore.

[@the_rover1]

Relatable. I've got about 50 games total by now (intermediate) and never experienced a hacker conciously. There may have been sketchy situations, however I never thought of a hacker. I gullibly assumed a game mechanic I wasn't familiar yet or something. What red pulled in this game with pete was completely new to me. I sat there wondering wtf just happened where come the 100 troops from at 1 card.

[@DaTimmeh]

​@@the_rover1over 100 hours here, haven't seen anything like this before. Theres a good amount of teaming (same person on 2 accounts) and other unfair play, but not much hacking.

[@TheHrb1234]

wow that was interesting to see, I hope they IP ban the person.

[@bodigames]

Usually They have VPN’s

[@connorskudlarek8598]

@@bodigames fun fact, VPNs don't protect against modern IP bans. :) Almost all VPN traffic can be traced back these days. It's just a matter of how willing the company is to ban them.

[@avishjha4030]

IP bans are not a good idea and they don't work in most of the world as multiple people share the same IP, under a NAT.

[@avishjha4030]

@@connorskudlarek8598 Any good VPN like Proton / Mullvad on WireGuard won't let that happen. It just depends on how knowledgeable the person is and their OpSec skills.

[@davidstears7037]

*Red starts with 3 troops* *Red deploys 6 troops* *Pete didn't notice* WTF just happened O.O Red you cheater!

[@Voltar78]

I got the same once and it was a bug not hacking.

[@davidstears7037]

@@Voltar78 Congrats! You were either hacking, or unable to count. Lol

[@Voltar78]

@@davidstears7037 😂

[@davids8345]

How bad a player do you need to be to hack and STILL almost lose... SMG, hello, anyone home? You are at risk of losing a community over this stupidity...

[@connorskudlarek8598]

I want to agree with you in a vacuum on "let them speak, let them show how foolish they are". But in the real world, people tend to believe fools. How do we contend with the fact that fools will follow fools, and they do it in droves. This is where "cancel culture" comes in. Identifying someone's dangerous ideas as dangerous, cancelling them before they have a platform to be dangerous with. Everyone always loses the argument when they bring up Hitler. But Hitler's ideas, in a vacuum, are garbage dogwater trash-tier terrible. Yet he had a following. And it was dangerous. If "cancel culture" (whatever that means to you) existed in his time, perhaps he would never have achieved a position of power from which to commit evil. Happy to be wrong on this. But I'm seeing big flaws from my limited human experience in "let the man cook" being a valid statement at all times.

[@connorskudlarek8598]

I do agree that ideas, when taken in good faith, can't really be truly evil. Because in good faith, the philosopher holding the idea is simply trying to their best limited ability as a human to achieve enlightenment, and to expose truth. Such a person necessarily must be capable of having their mind changed in the face of evidence and argument. So no matter what evil view they hold, be it murder is good or pineapple belongs on pizza, they aren't bad. They're just wrong. And if they truly believe X, and they believe it for Y and Z, then they should be heard. They should argue... But most of the time it seems that people just believe X because they irrationally hate [insert group/idea]. Whatever it is, they simply hate. They don't want truth, they don't want to understand, they don't want to know. They hate for no rational reason. They believe what they believe regardless of evidence. Cancel culture in the sense of "whatever doesn't fit the majority should be silenced" is certainly bad. But cancel culture in the sense of "whatever refuses the preponderance of evidence should be shown as the fools they are and shunned if their irrational ideas present serious danger to others"... I have a hard time thinking that is an inaccurate way to live.

[@connorskudlarek8598]

I also agree that we need to have the same idea of what "cancel culture" means to have any serious critiques of the subject. As always, well spoken Pete.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

My concern with this take is that you're willing to advocate against groupthink of the sort you dislike/disagree with for the opposite. Rather than attempting to understand, integrate and build unity. It's not only let them cook, it's equal parts let them dig their own grave. Ideas should be able to stand on their own merits of fall. I'm personally a lot less concerned about whose ideas they are.

[@avengemybreath3084]

You must be young

[@connorskudlarek8598]

@@avengemybreath3084 I don't see how my age or Pete's age matters to the discussion at hand. We're both old enough to engage in conversation and debate ideas.

[@PhartBawks]

Step hoouuusssee what are you dooooiinngggg

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Lolll

[@kristijan933]

Poor white, he saw through red and he died for justice yet he was killed for annoyingness 😅😂

[@Jordan-pf9ws]

"Cancel culture" is not about silencing a person it's about withdrawing support. So if I buy from a company and find out they financially support polical csuse that hurts me or I don't agree with than it's not weak of me to stop buying their goods. Also if a public person says things that i disagree with or don't like for any reason, it is not weak of me to stop supporting them by not following their social media, not paying to see their movies, buy their books or buy their music. I don't have to support anyone financially or other wise and my past support does not obligate me to continue in the future.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I agree with all that. I'm getting the sense that the term is defined very differently for different people.

[@SafSamed]

Love the question from Unbalanced, to be fair I love every question Pete gets asked and love each answer he gives! I am able to listen to Pete talks 24/7

[@the_rover1]

I've gotten about 50 games total by now (intermediate) and never experienced a hacker conciously. There may have been sketchy situations, however I never thought of a hacker. I gullibly assumed a game mechanic I wasn't familiar yet or something. What red pulled in this game with pete was completely new to me. I sat there wondering wtf just happened where come the 100 troops from at 1 card.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I've shot 1000s of vids for yt now and it's never happened to me either

[@Dragon_Fyre]

I would have to disagree with what Pete was saying on the philosophy question of the day in that he is assuming that the strength of an argument today has anything to do with the merit or logic of it. More often than not today, facts are irrelevant. Most people act based on emotion over reason. You need simply repeat something a sufficient enough # of times for people to believe it, no matter how weak an argument it is, as long as it is not opposed to their own values. I would estimate that less than 15% of the population are capable of actively applying reason in an argument, that is to say they distort facts to match their desired world view rather than basing their view of the world on facts.

[@AaAa-uq5tp]

The botting has ben off the charts lately. I can't remember the last game I played without someone botting out

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

It's always been like that

[@hughgeorgechannel]

I host fixed world dom and I never have bots strangely. Even when people leave my games they just surrender.

[@zacharygrouwinkel1534]

After turn 1, Pete- Yeah I love that dbag play from white. After turn 2, Pete- White seems like an annoying player.

[@davepalmer9265]

Super cool map of u.s. rendition of even better divide of boundaries represented in bonus how the states could have been.

[@001niwrad]

Edit: just rewound the video saw you were game host. In this case SMG still can more easily counter this more sophisticated level hacking when they move calculations server side, and there are more protections against man in the middle attacks as well I don’t worry think you mentioned this, but was red the host of this lobby? If so then it permits red to cheat as we learned from your recent SMG QnA that game calculations are processed by the host’s device. When SMG does their ‘major multiplayer’ update so calculations are processed by SMG servers this will eliminate this kind of cheating.

[@denhro]

No only can, but the fact that it is not is a major oversight. I think they said in the QnA that the game was created for singleplayer first and multiplayer second. Which explains a lot. This is equivalent to a banking app letting you change your balance locally. And you being able to use that money. Unexcusable.

[@charlessapp1835]

The new Viking maps look promising, as the two smallest maps in the pack are classic size and the other two are bigger. Can't wait to see you review them! I have a question. I have made a couple of risk maps and was wondering if SMG takes map suggestions. I made a map based on the South Dakota counties. South Dakota has 66 counties so it is a large map. The second is a map based on the 12 tribes of Israel. I think there are 52 territories if I am remembering right. It is definitely a bonus map as there are 13 bonuses. (The tribe of Manasseh was divided into two sections. The majority on the west side of the Jordan with the smaller half on the east side with Gad and Reuben). The only problem I see with this map is because of all of the controversy right now with modern Israel. Even though modern Israel is totally different from ancient Israel.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I think you can get involved in the map competitions on the main discord for that sort of thing. I don't think SMG takes audience design suggestions.

[@charlessapp1835]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy Thanks! After all of your videos I have watched, I have been thinking about how to get more good maps in the game.

[@Tathanic]

at 19min in is when it became very obvious lmao

[@Tathanic]

and then 28in red gets 30 places 80 hmmmmmmmmm

[@Tathanic]

lmao the +100

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

For whatever reason I wasn't counting his troops

[@ripno2672]

So thats why white was insistent on throwing their game away and just clobbering red.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

yeah! I realized too late

[@duncan1544]

I agree with comments who have pointed out (in response to your answer regarding cancel culture) that in the real world there are power structures which make the formal equality of ideas more or less irrelevant. Take for example your own views Pete. Clearly, your having access to a public platform is what has made them relevant in a small way, whereas when you were clearing snow they would have had no impact. So the perspective that good ideas rise and fall on their own merits is wrong. If we understand that the ideas of society are formed not by rational enquiry but by the power structures of that society, saying "group think is bad" is also wrong. Group think is not necessarily good or bad. I think there are many popular beliefs that are good, and there are many that are bad. I agree with you that people should think critically, investigate ideas, consider the arguments. But that is not how the world works because ideas are not presented equally. So attempting to challenge power structures is also necessary for people who are in favour of social change, or to put it another way, unpopular ideas. In my view the problem with cancel culture is not that people want to shut people down, that is not anything new. In fact most of the "cancelling" complained about is public awareness campaign stuff, like for instance in regards to JK Rowling for her transphobia which is probably one of the biggest examples. The term has connotations with community efforts to ostracise people rather than the term censorship, which connotes authorities limiting speech in certain ways. "Cancel Culture" is problematic when it actually aligns with authoritarian power structures that oppress people. Oppression being the structural holding down of a particular group. If you want an example of that, take how Palestine as an issue in western countries is talked about by people who want to smear people opposed to genocide, as being about anti-semitism. This is an example of a failure to address the actual argument (war) with an emotive red herring that serves to ostracise people who support Palestine. In many countries this has been justification for police violence, actual bans on demonstrations, arrests and dismissals from one's work and universities. I do agree with you that emotion and invective often replaces reasoned argument in online spaces and real world spaces. People need to critically investigate the actual arguments behind positions and not take up knee jerk responses without thinking of the ramifications. The internet has clearly provided not just new platforms for particular points of view, but also amplified the capacity for moral panics and "outrage." Even instances of "cancelling" people that don't align with oppressive power structures doesn't mean I agree with all of them. So I would say ultimately it is not right to be "for" or "against" cancel culture, just as a reasonable person is not "for" or "against" any kind of free speech in an absolute sense. I would also just point out to you, that the presence of emotion does not indicate the truth of an argument or perspective, but nor does it actually prove that the argument is wrong. In the case of arguments with your partner. I think it is important to investigate the sources of people's emotions in order to understand why they feel that way. Dismissing people's feelings is a classic way to go precisely no where in any dialogue - as you know from Risk! Sorry for this long post on a month long vid, appreciate you putting yourself out there and that I'm coming at you with a big comment when I'm just a name on the internet!

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

It's fascinating to me that you and I would use the same example: me having 'access to a public platform' as an argument for opposite conclusions. I would suppose that at least part of the reason I have access to this platform is that the quality of my ideas meets a minimum standard. Some kind of merit, imperfect to be sure but I don't think I randomly got lucky either. I'm sorry I'm not able to go into greater detail in a yt comment but that's exactly what I built my philosophy forums for on the discord. And I'd love to chat with you more over there about this.

[@duncan1544]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy ok I did it :-) been a long time since I've been in an internet discussion forum

[@ares_thefox6362]

When I lived in NYC, I was the sole loosely-right-wing person around (at least, the only one who would admit it). Everyone around me was some shade of leftist - a few even straight-up Marxists. I was frequently called Nazi, RW-rap1st, Fascist, all for having...mainstream RW/Christian opinions. It's only gotten worse. In a society where I can be debanked, banned from all social media, lose my job, put on a no-fly list, and falsely labeled a "white supremacist" for Noticing or for criticizing Israel (cf Nick Fuentes; Ye; David Duke), I will never surrender my online anonymity. The only reason for people to want to know my identity is to destroy my life because I have, in their view, the wrong opinions.

[@Jim999]

Wow what a dingleberry. Dude is out here hacking not even with blizzards on. Sometimes this is the problem with free to play games. At least he will have to play some games before being allowed back into ranked.

[@davidchazanas5096]

There were videos on yt demoing tools like the one the hacker uses. SMG def needs to fix that if it hasn't yet, but imho it's usually an easy report and ban, unless the hacker is really sneaky and uses fog

[@chrisdierking5108]

This map is definitely a severed foot, right? When I saw the thumbnail, I thought they had released a human body map pack... which would be cool actually.

[@vaigue1841]

Man took you too long to notice 😂

[@theThirdDukeboy16]

Hey Pete, kind of a long comment but bear (bare?) with me. I have only been watching your videos for a short period of time but I very much enjoy them. I haven't ever played Risk before but i find myself drawn to your ability to keep me engaged with not only your strategic ability but your intelligent commentary. I find myself agreeing with you on a lot of things and, even when i disagree, I find myself wanting to have a conversation with you. I'm not sure as to how things work within the "KZbinr/fan" dynamic as i never comment, but I would love to chat with you at some point. Would you be down?

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

The best way to chat is on discord. I use my discord all the time so feel free to get in touch in either the philosophy forums, q and a thread, or general chat ❤️

[@PhartBawks]

Im a very passionate debater i often win but when someone just ignores facts i tend to get loud ive improved tho

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Passion is fine. But logic is what I find effective

[@curly5246]

obviosuly this hacking was very blatant. kinda crazy to think what a “good” hacker could do in a fog of war game. maybe could go undetected for a long time.

[@xriskynoob]

I'm feeling actual disgust

[@alexwilliams8131]

I played the other day with someone who could attack a territory then only send 1 and keep his stack instead of normally having to split at least 3. Cheaters are the scum of the earth

[@klextyapex1660]

You can send only one if u role a 1 dice and win even if u have like a 50 stack

[@coco29102]

That's not hacking you just gotta do a one dice roll

[@benrund-scott1598]

Def legal

[@alexwilliams8131]

Ok sorry about that. Had no idea. Had never seen it in like 400 games so I thought it was something off. Thanks for letting me know

[@benrund-scott1598]

@@alexwilliams8131 yeah, it's one of those really niche things that never really happens, so I get the confusion

[@domalash]

wow .. i had a feeling that players were being used as servers when i saw messages that the server has left the game so the game was cancelled.. i guess that's why the data is not on a secured risk server somewhere.. i didn't think it would be a problem but I guess it leaves it open to hacking.. maybe they should have each client verify the data at least.. automatically report issues if they don't match up

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I don't know much about computer stuff but I assume they're working on it.

[@RickofUniverseC-137]

17:44 GOD DEYUUMMM

[@mjmal3741]

This guy, hacking the whole game and still losing big lol! He must have given himself over 100 extra troops before he put down that 100 stack, and pete still had him by the throat almost haha

[@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102]

Lies cause real harm. Michael Jackson was harmed both emotionally and financially by the accusations. Of course I don't know if the accusations are real any more than you do and if they were real then the people involved deserve the right to speak about it. Free speech is a tricky subject, to say the least.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

I fear a world where lawyers attempt to quantify emotional harm. Fully agree on the complexity of the problem!

[@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102]

@@TheKillPeteStrategy If you can't trust lawyers, who can ya trust? 🤣🤣

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

@@thesolarfutureenthusiast1102 lolll making the world a better place everyday!

[@Maou3]

23:40 mysterious +20

[@Maou3]

OH ITS GETS SO MUCH WORSE LOL

[@LithmusEarth]

30:10 89 ->186 on 8 Territories and 1 card which didn't move. Holy shit, that was just cheating. Wow. I also just found the pinned comment discussing the math the whole game, I didn't catch on until now though. 31:53 Yeah I hope you get to do a redo of this map at some point, also if you just move some stuff around every row could be even right now. With a perfect 10 per row, 6 Rows a perfect 60, oh you killing me.

[@dmajor9982]

Fun money earning idea Pete. Make a joke account and have it so people can gift a certain amount of subs to force a punishment. Like skip a card for 10 subs.

[@robertbowen6610]

One of the reasons I deleted the game

[@joeh5315]

I need my question answered. How does the Peteman, look so smooth every stream?

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Eyy. We try sir

[@neilvitis8142]

What if the person you are trying to "cancel" (horrible name) is a person with entirely bad opinions? For example, if the person argues for fascism, should one not attempt to make him lose his audience?

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Who gets to decide what's an entirely bad opinion?

[@neilvitis8142]

An opinion that intends to harm a person or population in exchange for personal profit or percieved personal profit for the individual or group that holds said opinion. Maybe? I'm not that smart, you tell me

[@harrisaxer2651]

Or in other words opinions of people with no moral compass or ethical values. That was an easy one!

[@ScottLafray-dd2fp]

I agree with Pete. If you feel you need to completely silence a person or ideology, you're strengthening their position. Now, after you've attempted to silence them, they can point out that it's 'obvious' that their position has merit otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to silence them. Then human nature kicks in and people start to listen to them even more. Look at old Adolf back in the '20s and '30s. They put him in jail and did their best to silence him. He came out of jail more popular than ever. That's history and we need to learn from it. I sure as hell don't want what happened back then to happen again. Take a page from Ben Shapiro (love him or hate him, you can still learn from him) and research the hell out of the subject and then destroy this person with facts. Shake the persons audience with that and maybe they'll be swayed away from that person or groups flawed ideology.

[@Baghl761]

​@@neilvitis8142 the best way to handle somebody with a bad idea is let them speak. A large enough amount of people pulling out the stupid things to say in public opinion will turn against them. By attacking them, for sending yourself on a path for failure. This is 101 of debate

[@davidstears7037]

Wait wait wait wait wait... When Pete WAS paying attention, he set for 30, and puts down 80 TROOPS and that didn't set him off?! Edit: OK, I'm glad Pete noticed the obvious cheat, reported then quit the game. Lol

[@philippebakker9836]

Just here to vent, i went into a game i placed my cap as usual this time in noob corner france to gb tile the game firstly glitched out so i did not get any troops major disadvantage already, next i tried to get the noob corner but had too little troops same turn btw, fine. Next turn i fail a 3-1 and out of that tile i just failed to take 89% probability btw came another player who already got 2 bonuses in 2 turns and all but killed me

[@Gusmil89]

Suprised you with your wast knowledge didnt notice him hacking earlier than you did, i understand that you didn't pay attention during your dialog. 😁 😂

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Yeah man I'm certainly not trying to waste energy looking out for this type of cheat

[@Gusmil89]

I bet you would noticed faster if fog was on. You're quite skilled in picking up what people are holding in that setting. 😁 😂 Great show by the way, you truly showed the skill gap between you (he sure had to crank up his cheats to just keep up).

[@atom7264]

I just want to clear my name and say this guy simply has the same name as me 😂

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

🤣👍

[@frankrolfe5612]

What does it mean when someone is a "hacker?"

[@connorskudlarek8598]

They cheated, using exploits, bugs, or code to get an unfair advantage by breaking the game to win. In this case, red used a "free set" cheat. Where they got a set without having cards to do so.

[@frankrolfe5612]

@@connorskudlarek8598 WTF! There's a cheat that you can get a free set? How does that work?

[@AnarchaArchive]

Hi -- I enjoy your channel, and enjoy the philosophy commentary that goes along with it...but I have to disagree with your statement that untrue positions fail on their own merit. This ignores the history of propaganda and what the courts have tended to call "bad speech." The basic idea is that the way to fight against bad speech (e.g., people lying publicly about receiving military honors) is not with legislation to prevent lies or deception, but with "counterspeech." This is the argument that was made by the 6-3 majority Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Alvarez, and in that case "counterspeech" was described as online shaming campaigns to root out politicians' lies. In short, then, what gets called "cancel culture" sometimes serves a critical function that checks "bad speech," and thereby enables courts to shy away from creating additional curbs on speech. To be clear, if you counter a lie with another lie, I would agree with you completely, but that's not always the case...and bottom line, it will sometimes be the case that bad actors defend their bad actions by accusing those who are checking their bad actions by crying "cancel culture."

[@AdmiralAdam]

MMM Day 6 of asking for Dino Canyon.

[@jakes5841]

The petemeeoonn!

[@Maou3]

I agree with your discussion on internet speech up until bigoted speech (speech that attacks a marginalized group). Even then, I still agree. I think bigots make fools of themselves (e.g. Musk), and I believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, bigoted ideas are unlikely to precipitate because they are generally objectionable. But I come to this opinion being a person from a demographic slice that is unlikely to be marginalized in my life. It's nice to think that public debate should be nice and logical, but when you've faced harassment during the day and you come home to unwind and you see that people online are discussing whether or not you should be allowed to exist, it's entirely unreasonable to expect that person to dispassionately and respectfully and logically argue the contrary, especially when the bigotry is unfounded in logic. Again, I'd like to think it's unlikely for our forums to precipitate bigoted ideas, but think about the EV analysis for someone on the other end of the bigotry: E[idea] = p*(-inf) + (1-p)*(0) = -inf when p≠0, 0 when p=0 From this perspective, I can understand how their next course of action would be to deplatform the idea so much that the chance of it precipitating becomes 0. Again, I agree with you that attempting deplatforming is not useful (especially since it can cause the Streisand effect), but I can see why people would want to deplatform.

[@josephcook-williams2657]

This is what I wanted to say, but you said it so well. I'd love to see Pete's response.

[@elimcneely7118]

The question is where is the line? If this tactic is seen as valid for a certain type of situations, people will try to enlarge the umbrella of said type to justify this tactic for every argument. It has already happened in recent years. What you describe was the origination of cancel culture, but the boundaries are always pushed further.

[@connorskudlarek8598]

My issue against the idea of "don't deplatform, let them cook [their final meal]" is that Hitler had literally terrible ideas that people ate up. In a less extreme example, most US presidents have cooked up terrible ideas that people ate up. At some point, it has to be reasonable to deplatform someone. Perhaps the range has been to sensitive in modern times. But as far as we know, deplatforming has stopped the 2nd Hitler. We can't dismiss the idea of deplatforming simply because having a platform to speak is (generally) a good thing for society.

[@davidalves236]

17:44 fuck who???

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

Fukunaga of course

[@hustler3of4culture3]

44 then 58😮 😂😂😂😂

[@hustler3of4culture3]

65 no 85

[@ticlestonthedon6561]

lovely

[@TreeCamper]

First Good evening Pete

[@jp27whodey31]

Love ya Pete...you know that by now, but putting a hacker on KZbin is only going to encourage it more. Also feel like my time watching was wasted as well.

[@HiltownJoe]

I fundamentally disagree on the cancel culture argument. "Canceling" someone usually is not just about limiting speech, there is happening much more. Speech is not the only thing that holds power, it is money that amplifies that speech, it is political power that amplifies that speech. Take JKR, or she who must not be named, as an example. You could say you should seperate her art form her awful speech against trans people, but you can't really do that. She spends money on causes that directly harm trans people, she donates to organizantions who through speech and action aim to harm trans people, she uses her fame and influence as a tool to amplify her speech. As the author of a beloved childrens book she is automatically given credit when it comes to "protecting the children". So not canceling would leave her with a much more powerful and effective voice than yours. Also the very act of cancelling is also speech in of it self. It is me saying she is doing these harmful things, so you should not support her. If you want to protect free speech, you have to protect cancel culture. I am allowed to say you are bad, and no one should listen to you. Also, most of the times, people who complain about cancel culture are the ones who can not defend themselves on the merits.

[@TheKillPeteStrategy]

People will always say things you don't like. If the position you hold is truly stronger than the position you don't, then allow the false argument to be made and refute it. 'If you want to protect free speech you have to protect cancel culture' is not a coherent position.

[@benhicks9481]

some would argus JKR isn't directly harming trans community, its indirect while directly trying to protect the female community. Arguments both sides, but the trans community do a lot of the time ignore some clear factual arguments hence making their argument have false elements, so its hard to back them up.

[@HiltownJoe]

@@benhicks9481 How is JKR protecting the female community?

[@thisisMeDM]

Imagine cheating and losing the whole game LMAO, it's like a goofy cartoon villain