Data resilience and data security are, at least to me, two different things. Resilience is how safe data is from being irretrievable. Data security is how safe data is from being read by those who shouldn't be reading it. Security goes down the moment its shared to the cloud, but resilience goes up. I don't need cloud resilience - got my own backup strategies.

Came pre installed with Windows 11. I'm going to dual boot. I had to uninstall One Drive three times. Once straight away. Again after installing Microsoft Office. And again after some big Windows Update. I then had to rescue my Desktop, Pictures and Documents folders from the remnants of it by hacking the registry to remove the last traces and make my folders all local again. I swear the enshittification of Windows is real, and OneDrive is a trojan they force down your throat multiple times. Fucking terrible experience.

Affordable housing might come back.

Because immigrants don't wash, thus saving water. Oh wait... Poms don't wash either. They're doomed.

I really think intel needs to be taken to with a big meat cleaver, and chopped into two distinct parts - one for chip design, and one for fabs. The poor sod chip designers were held back for years, being tied to intel's inferior process nodes (when compared to the likes of TSMC), whereas AMD were free to get on the cutting edge. Also, if I was Lisa Su from AMD, would I take my advanced CPU designs to TSMC for production, or to a direct competitor like Intel - even if both TSMC and Intel could offer the exact same thing for the same price? I'd go with TSMC, and not give away IP and profit to a direct competitor. Even if I wasn't in direct competition with Intel, you still wouldn't want to use Intel fabs as you'd imagine that Intel would give top billing tog Intel's own chips, and any fab customer would play second-fiddle. If there were fab delays, then they are more likely to prioritise their own chips and bump others, to keep their retail arm happy.

So both sides of the business hold each other back. It's a terrible model. The so-called "synergies" don't outweigh the costs. The rest of the industry has basically proven that.

This is a bad move by Softbank. They are just delaying the inevitable. What needs to happen is for intel to fully crash and burn into the ground like a Boeing jumbo jet. Then from the ashes, after liquidation they can split into a dedicated small and nimble design team, where real innovation is rewarded, and also a separate fab team, who are outwardly focussed on winning contracts across the whole Industry. The design team wouldn't be tied to x86 either - they can also embrace Arm and RISC-V.

Can't we just train AI on Linus' most salty posts and then have a deepfake Linus who can flame bad code contributors forever?!

Is getting real

Not gonna lie - the game looks ass (bad). I would never play it as it hurts my eyes. Then again, I say the same thing about MineCraft, and that's insanely popular. I think there must be a fair bit of overlap between the demographics of this gardening game, and MineCraft enthusiasts. Definitely not one for boomers.

My favorite thing to ask AI is, "What is the world record for shoving marshmallows up one nostril?" Any true fan of The Young Ones knows that it is "604, Toxteth O'Grady, USA" (courtesy of The Daily Mirror Book of Facts).
I was pleasantly surprised to see that ChatGPT-4 answered with the Young Ones answer. I was equally disappointed to see that ChatGPT-5 didn't. I tried with Microsoft CoPilot, and it warned me that nostrils aren't designed for marshmallow storage. I think that this is one thing that humans will always have over AI - a sense of humor.

When I was young, teenagers were only concerned about growing weed

"Drive it to Burning Man, and be true space royalty". You mean like Katy Perry?

My gaming PC motherboard is on version 4, and I didn't buy that all that long ago.

In my view, the buck needs to stop with the code submitter. When they submit - they take full responsibility. If they use AI to generate code they don't understand - if that proves to be faulty, then they get banned. At the end of the day - bad code is bad code, no matter who wrote it.

Bespoke fiber is the very definition of vendor lock-in, and should be banned. The last mile should be government-run, and then the telcos attach to standard points of interconnect, and compete together on a level playing field with equal access. This is what they do in Australia, and it has vastly improved telco competition, and eliminated unnecessary and expensive last-mile fibre runs.

Nigers With Attitude?