> Well, yes. I did say something to that effect. Blaming BSODs on invasive anti-cheat out of principle is a political position, not a scientific one.

When there are actual valid concerns about the anti-cheat, these will be ignored because of people that assigned blame to it when unwarranted. This is why making statements based on your ideology can be problematic.

> I understand what you're saying here, but anyone who does a substantial amount of systems programming could tell you that hardware-dependent behavior is evidence for a hardware problem, but does not necessarily rule out a software bug that only manifests on certain hardware. For example, newer hardware could expose a data race because one path is much faster. Alternatively, a subroutine implemented with new instructions could be incorrect.

People were claiming it was causing hardware damage which is extremely unlikely since both Intel, AMD and most hardware manufacturers have mechanisms which prevent this. This isn't some sort of opaque race condition.

> RI would presume the culprit is kernel anti-cheat until presented strong evidence to the contrary.

You should know that if you making assumptions without evidence that will often lead you astray.

I don't like kernel anti-cheat and would prefer for it not to exist, but making stupid statements based on ideology instead of evidence just makes you look silly.