[…] Might be an older issue?

For reference, the source that I cited was a report from last month ^[1]. Also, I personally verified that, in Hollow Knight, controller rumble worked with Proton enabled, and didn’t work with it disabled.

I never had an issue on hollow knight. Both on PC Linux and steamdeck. […]

I’m not sure what the exact replication bounds are for the bug; maybe your configuration simply doesn’t experience the issue? Or perhaps you inadvertently configured Steam to force proton somewhere?

Despite that, the game has been extremely stable for me so far. I currently have about 8 hours of playtime, and this controller thing has been pretty much the only bug/issue that I’ve encountered.

Thanks […] Thanks for quality reply.

You’re welcome 😊

I modified the post’s title to try to account for comments like yours 😜:

PSA: If [you are experiencing no][your] controller rumble [isn’t working] in Silksong, then try forcing Proton in the game’s properties on Steam

IIRC, I did try that, but it caused my controller to cease functioning at all. Take that statement with a grain of salt though — I’d need to test again to verify.

[…] I really want to use native builds when available. […]

Out of curiosity, how come?

[…] Is there any hope for a fix, even if unofficial?

Maybe, but, given that the same issue exists in Hollow Knight ^[1], I think it’s possible that it may remain, at least for a while.

Thanks for the info. […]

You’re welcome 😊

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I enabled proton 9.0-4 (steamdeck btw), and loaded up my save and let myself take damage a couple times, still no rumble. […] Taking damage triggers it right?

I tested it just now, and yeah there’s rumble on taking damage. There’s also rumble when hitting an enemy, when striking environmental objects, and binding (for clarity, that is not necessarily an exhaustive list; it’s just what I can recall at the moment).

Maybe Silksong unfortunately just has poor support for the Steamdeck at the moment. I found this which seems to support that theory:

^[1]

I’m not sure if it’s possible on the Steamdeck, but have you tried enabling Steam Input?

I’m currently waiting for them to release a patch for it; my controller is a little fucked: The controller vibration seems to have stopped working. Also, it bugs out for me if I disconnect the controller when the game is running and reconnect: some of the buttons stop working.

UPDATE (2025-09-05T06:54Z): It turns out that the lack of controller rumble is fixable by forcing the use of Proton instead of running the native build ^[1].

Hm, I’ve come across a number of statements that the GPL isn’t well suited to hardware ^[1][2][3], but I’m not well enough versed in IP law to be confident in my understanding or the soundness of their rationale. Directly from the GNU Operating System:

Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can’t exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. ^[4]

I’m not really sure.

I feel we may be going around in circles with this; I think I’m not describing my interpretation well enough, but I think I understand what you are meaning when you say that journalism is full time — it’s not exactly how I would use the term, but I understand what you are saying. I completely agree with you that the work of a journalist is non-trivial. I also agree with you that a professional journalist deals with large volumes of information, and, to be able to process those large volumes of information, it would generally require one to work full time.

[…] That’s the point of the entire “it’s a real job” argument. Journalists are doing a lot of legwork once and we’re all relying on that job to acquire a lot of our information instead of all of us doing the same legwork again. The two problems we’re facing are 1) that this trust opens us up to propaganda from activist or opinionated journalism, and 2) that we’re no longer just getting neatly processed info that has gone through a journalistic process, we’re also getting a firehose of misinformation from many individual content generators over the Internet.

Those are both hard problems to manage.

I agree that they may be hard problems to manage perfectly, but I don’t agree that citing sources won’t put a dent in the issue. Take your first problem:

that this trust opens us up to propaganda from activist or opinionated journalism […]

Say you have an article that says “A young man stole a car.”. Just as a very basic example, language like “young” is an opinion — it’s not an exact definition of age and is left to the reader for how they interpret it. Such interpretations open the door for emotional bias. I think it would be a different story if the article actually cited the age, or simply stated the age with a citation for where they know it from.

If a journalist phones a couple of sources, hears from them the same thing they are seeing somewhere and publishes that information, then the fact-checking has been done once and reaches thousands or millions of people.

If the way the information is disseminated requires those thousands or millions to do the fact-check themselves using the same process, then that is entirely impractical, which was my original point. Crowdsourced fact-checking is always going to be less reliable and exponentially more work than properly verified broadcast news sources. Even if many of them share their fact check, we have plenty of data to suggest the reach of that correction will be much smaller and it will still require a lot of private effort to correct the original info.

Sure, but would it not be better if they had also just cited the transcript of their contact with those sources? I understand that the news outlet can just fabricate a source, but at least a source will give readers an official starting point for investigation rather than just blind continuous skepticism. I’m of the opinion that a sketchy source is better than no source at all.

Removed by mod

[…] I’m not concerned with who is doing the work, I’m concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.

The only impracticality that I can currently see is the example that you gave earlier ^[1]

[…] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]

But just because it may not be practical for an average person to verify a source in all cases doesn’t feel like a valid argument for why sources (that the news outlet has already verified) shouldn’t be provided. Say a news article is reporting on a claim that an interviewee made in an interview that they conducted. Say that the interview interview footage is posted on its own. If the news article is commenting on a claim being made by the interviewee, is there any reason why the interview shouldn’t simply be directly cited? It would remove a lot of burden from the reader if all they have to do is click on the link to the video and scrub to the timestamp to hear the claim for themselves. Yes it would be impractical for each reader to contact the interviewee for themselves to verify that the interviewee did actually say that; however, I think that it sometimes is less about a skepticism of reality, but more a skepticism of reporting bias.

[…] This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we’re breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.

It’s a wip 😜 I think it’s still a good idea, but it depends on how it’s done. I agree that I may be fragmenting a bit too much. I need to work on maintaining context. I think it’s also important to never fork the conversation if one branch depends on the other branch. That’s the issue that’s happened here, I think.