Because the player's computer needs to know where the enemy is in order to render them on the screen, create footstep sounds, calculate shadows, etc. As long as the player has ultimate (root, admin, etc) access on that computer, it will always be possible for a program running with elevated privileges to read that enemy position data from the game's memory and make the required mouse movements to point at it and left-click.
The only way to prevent this is to remove elevated access from the player's computer. This has been done with varying levels of success on consoles, but even then it's only a matter of time.
I think Steam actually primarily catches cheaters by it seeing the other running software rather than looking at the input patterns. I'm not sure whether it would detect a cheat implemented via a camera and custom mouse hardware that sends usb events you didn't do.
But I also think a lot of the hackers in both GTA and CS are cheating in ways that no regular user input could trigger, they're compromising the software at a lower level than that.
From what I know, VAC (Valve Anti Cheat) just looks for processes running on the system and detects injections into CSs memory. Then, for CS:GO specifically there's Overwatch, in which players look at other reported players' gameplay to determine whether they were cheating, and VacNET which is a machine learning system trained on the data from Overwatch to detect aimbots that way. There's a really good talk that someone from valve gave about 3 years ago[0].
The bigger problem is that even with input recognition, one of the biggest problems are wallhacks, meaning you can see other players through walls which is an advantage that's almost as large as aimbotting in tactical shooters like CS.
The comment above was specifically about aimbots, i.e. cheats that mimic a person. Such cheats can be hidden from the system well enough for it to not know there is a program controlling the input. I'm not saying all kinds of cheats can stay 100% undetected and functional with enough effort on the hackers' side, that's obviously false.
As opposed to the current presidential liar? Or his former boss who was also a presidential liar? Or Clinton, a notable presidential liar who by sheet coincidence was married to a wannabe presidential liar?
Just trying to narrow down which presidential liars are acceptable and which ones we throw down the memory hole.
When you wake up you will find that the current president is not bullying twitter or making racist remarks thereupon whereas McTrumpie and S Cohen are looking to take down twitter. But you knew that.
The character "Major Major" has a surname of Major, and a double given name of Major Major, and also was promoted to the rank of Major at one point, so his full title and name is "Major Major Major Major", which is the title of the chapter about him. Catch-22 is deliberately silly in places, but is also clearly referring to some real things.
1. FYI, on Hacker News it's impossible to downvote a direct reply to one's comment. 2. I hope you realize that Catch-22 was published 55 years before Trump was elected. 3. I think the "paying people not to grow food" policies Catch-22 mentions came from Roosevelt's New Deal, and seem like the kind of thing Trump would likely oppose.
