Well, you know, you can continue to get security updates for Windows 10 for another year. It's not hard.

And if you're still on hardware that doesn't support Windows 11, then you could probably upgrade to a new PC for under $200. If you have a device that old you probably don't require a lot from your PC.

It's possible to get another year of Windows 10 support by either backing up files to OneDrive, redeeming reward points of paying $30. So claiming that Microsoft has pulled support is factually wrong. Sure, extended support isn't automatic, but it's also not that hard.

Thanks for the detailed and interesting reply.

I don't think that Microsoft's TPM decision was arbitrary or benefits them or most of their partners. Forcing a standard is rarely a benefit to large corporations, more like a financial liability. But it's a good way to get the ecosystem to adopt something if it feels beneficial. That said, at this point TPM 2.0 is standard, and I think that Microsoft can relax the requirement. It's kind of like DRM in games: I can see why publishers want it, but once the game is old enough, it remains a liability.

I think it's also worth noting that Microsoft doesn't stop Windows 10 support on October 14. Support will continue for another year, and people can get this support as simply as backing files to OneDrive.

Windows 11 is compatible with CPUs sold in the last 7-8 years (Ryzen 2000 and newer, Core 8000 and newer). Considering business cycles, most businesses should have a Windows 11 compatible PC. For consumers, 7-8 years is also typically longer than the upgrade cycle. I know some people use older PCs, but the 40% figure feels high, and some of the people using older PCs are techies who might already use Linux.

This seems to imply that you have some idea. Can you say it? Because I honestly have no idea why anyone would attack a middling distro. Sure, it's used by Valve, and Steam OS is successful, but an attack like this would have no effect on Steam OS, only on Arch, which by itself is not near the top of distros.

So please clarify who you think might benefit from this.

It mostly does have to do with "automation" vs. "real people". For example, as a protection against scalping, where bots can be used to buy products quickly at release, to be sold at a profit, instead of letting legitimate customers do the buying.

While ChatGPT may be smarter than most slashdot posters (based on the responses here), and probably also knows chess better than most (it's trained on millions of games), but unfortunately it's not geared to show that. I'm too lazy to dig up the results from the person who researched this, but apparently there's a particular version of ChatGPT 3.5 which is decent at chess out of the box, and others require specific prompting to get on the right track.

ChatGPT would likely have still lost to Carlsen even with the right version or the right prompting, but still, it would be interesting to see what kind of game Carlsen would have gotten had he known the right way to get ChatGPT to play.

If people don't follow links, they see fewer ads, and they might also not follow sponsored links. So I'm inclined to believe that this will end up reducing the revenue of Google. Seems to me like Google will have to replace that with "AI ads" or whatever.

Agreed. That's why AI in general is helpful. It can quickly return answers that previously took longer to find. Sure, it's not completely trustworthy, but for simple questions it's most often good enough.

Sure, there are a lot of movies, but I think that's just half the problem. As I mentioned, I feel that the Marvel TV series are more of an issue. These ad many many hours of superhero stuff to watch, and the problem is that movies then reference the series. You can't go to a movie and fully understand it without these references.

Not related to your rant, which I totally disagree with but feel no need to argue, as what I like is simply different than what you like. However, I have to disagree with your sig.

Digital is, by definition, perfect. Digital is order, it's something that is well defined. It's something that tells you precisely what it is. Even its imperfections are well defined.

Analogue is a mess. It's a collection of physical features which produce, by total happenstance (and tweaking) something that might be pleasant. It's something that can't be recreated precisely because it's imprecise by nature.

No, it doesn't depress me. Comparisons between versions of things is something I enjoy. It's like watching a movie of a book. They may be different, but even if they're both not great, noting the differences creates for me something which transcends the originals.

Granted, I know that's not the case for a lot of other people, but when someone tells me "that's Superman, but different in some ways", and these are ways I think I'd like (such as not being dark), this immediately makes me curious.

I agree that there is enough source material out there that people could make movies for years without having to tread over well trodden ground. Does it depress me? No. I can read books. I don't expect movie blockbusters to be terribly original.

What superhero movies are you specifically referring to that were "hammering over the head about societal issues"? I can't think of many, and those that did address social issues (Civil War, X-Men: Days of Future Past) followed well regarded comics about these issues (though haven't necessarily implemented them well).

"Superhero fatigue" actually comes from another direction: there are just so many movies you can watch that are basically the same, and too many tie-in Marvel TV series, which the movies referenced. So something that was originally a fun novelty, and, with the Avengers, built a satisfying story arc, became a chore to watch, with just too much stuff going on. It was initially something that anyone could watch and enjoy, and ended something only satisfying for superfans.

> Remember folks we need those high income white collar workers to employ all those plumbers everybody is so excited about.

That's not really it. We need those high income workers to pay taxes, that can then go support everyone. If you have a serious drop in taxes, the government would have less to spend on everything.

(Although at least in the context of the US, it seems like the current administration wants to reduce taxes anyway, as a way of reducing the deficit. Makes total sense.)

I think we're safe. Watches are normally worn on the left arm. :)