

I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.


I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.


You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.


The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.


you just get loans against your static wealth at incredibly favorable interest rates.
It’s more than that, because the wealth of those who utilize loans this way typically isn’t static. It’s not about just getting a good rate, it’s that the assets they use as collateral appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation and the interest rate combined, so in practice, the interest rate is literally negative. The price of having access to these loans is that their net worth just grows a bit more slowly as a result.
Of course, this only works as long as said assets continue to appreciate at that rate.


This would be funnier if it wasn’t so aggravatingly accurate, lol.
Am I the only one who always subconsciously mentally replaces “baby” in song titles/lyrics with “infant” to see how funny the result is?
power wasting lights.
To be fair, it’s all LEDs now, which consume very little power.


That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Yeah, that’s not definitely not on YouTube, the final ‘star score’ was effectively indicative only of the ratio of the 5-stars to the 1-stars. The infinitesimal minority that would actually thoughtfully rate 2, 3, or 4 stars made no difference at all.


Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.


The vast majority of the increase, is what I said. In other words, I’m saying it wouldn’t be nearly at the 3% mark without those users, and with over a quarter of all Linux users coming from the Steam Deck userbase, that is, in fact, true.


Just boot the computer, choose which DE you want to install
Yeah, that’s not at all accessible to the average consumer; they don’t know what a “DE” even is, much less why they should choose any over any other.
Very, very few people want to deal with something other than a ‘just works’ situation.


I think it will continue to rise. People are updating their rigs all the time. Whenever they update their rig they’ll have to ask themselves whether they want to continue with Windows on their new rig, or try with something new.
The vast majority of this increase is from people playing on Steam Decks, which run on Linux, not from people switching to Linux on their PCs.
If it continues to rise, this is the reason. The general public is less and less into using a desktop at all as time goes on, much less running, and much less changing to, an extremely niche operating system on one.
EDIT: The previous sentence is actually more of the reason, upon further reflection. The total number of people playing on desktops period is falling, and the vast majority of desktops are Windows, so non-Windows OSes will comparatively gain ‘market share’ as that happens, even if their numbers don’t change at all.


Yeah, no way an omnipotent God could do anything about the lack of Y chromosomes. He can create a new life in the womb of a virgin woman, but put a Y in the kid? Nope, His hands are tied, apparently.
Come on, lol.
It’s not “capitalism alone”, but it’s clear that capitalism was a massive catalyst in accelerating that success, hence my emphasis on “how far we came in such a short period of time”.
In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%. However, the largest and fastest decline occurred between 1981 (44.3%) and 2015 (9.6%).
Greed isn’t just wanting good for yourself, it’s wanting more than what is reasonable.
“What is reasonable” is the furthest thing from an objective measure, no matter how much you believe your definition of it is the definition of it.
You’re the one believing a myth—world history already contains plenty of information to back up what I just wrote. Check global poverty rates a century ago, compared to today, for one. It’s almost miraculous just how far we came in such a short period of time! And no, it wasn’t just because of China.
I think we can do better than that
Maybe we can. But of everything that’s been tried so far, capitalism has by far worked the best.
So if there is a better way, it’s got to be a brand-new idea.
There is no other system immune to the potential negatives within capitalism, while no other system has shown to have as many positives as capitalism has had, over its history.
Don’t be surprised if those negatives magically persist within a different system. The grass is always greener—you’re better off addressing the negatives directly (e.g. sensible legal regulations within the system), instead of naively assuming that changing the system will magically eliminate or even lessen them.
That’s adorable :)