Oh no, there is no victory. Your summary is pretty good here. But the idea that Linux is provably less secure because old bugs were found is flatly wrong. They were found late, but they were indeed found. How many ancient bugs are lurking in proprietary software that nobody has found for positive reasons and made full disclosures of so affected parties know they need to mitigate? Nobody knows!

Server OSes are more likely to have older versions of software and then backport fixes. Desktop OSes are more likely to default to doing automatic updates, or at least hassling the user to do them.

The only difference is that servers are more likely to have more outdated software.

Love of convenience, I guess. I often find it astonishing myself. The software might do 100 times more but it takes 1000 times as much memory...

Still, you got it wrong, because the curve around 100 is flat, and given that the IQ is rounded to a whole number, a significant part of the population has an IQ of 100 (or 99.5 to 100.5). Thatâs what the curve vs. triangle was aimed at. Add to the fact that individual results can vary a lot, depending on the exact Series and the current State of mind of the one tested, results between 95 and 105 are well within the IQ-100 group.

Linux underpins the internet. It's the primary server OS on the planet. High-value data is held on Linux systems. The idea that it's not profitable to attack those targets is silly. They're harder to attack. People still do it. That's why there are still ssh port scans for example.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

It is, but IME a lot of software needs architectural changes to work on it, similar to when you're trying to build software for Windows in cygwin. That's one reason I decided it wasn't worth the hassle back when I was running it.

When it comes to being allowed to do what you want with your computer, it's a lot more like Windows than it is like Linux. And it's been getting worse.

Now tell us how many similar bugs are in Windows, and will be found even without the obscurity of closed source. You don't know, because you depend on Microsoft to tell you when they fuck up, but you're declaring this a victory for Microsoft anyway? Do fucking tell.

No, 2MB was never enough for a Linux desktop. I had 8MB on my 386 and it was only just sufficient.

At no point in the link you provided is any such claim made (that it is one of the most popular choices among players.) Would you like to play again?

It said your choice was "unusual", not "poor". I would wager that AI has a better idea what actual choices most players make playing that particular online game than you do by basing your belief on the idea that your choice is the usual one.

The problem isn't the tools; it is the people. When AI is better human critical thinking and deductive reasoning capabilities will decline further, not magically return to a higher measure.

This, exactly. People are assuming that correlation equals causation here. IQ and critical thinking skills, as well as reading comprehension ability, have been on the decline for quite some time. AI is actually much better at getting things right than the average person who uses google to feed their confirmation bias and find echo chambers in which they can bask. I'm not going to post a bunch of links, because anyone can use the prompt "studies showing IQ and critical thinking in decline" in your "favorite" agentic AI. A hammer, the internet, and AI are three tools equally capable of constructive and destructive uses, and this study just shows that the same trend that started with technology in the hands of the incompetent is merely continuing as expected.

Thatâs not an independent thinker. Thatâ(TM)s someone who routinely doubts everything. But as Henri Poincaré already observed more than 100 years ago: To doubt everything and to believe everything are considered two equally convenient strategies, both of which relieve us of the necessity of thinking or reflection. (And I know, a witty saying proves nothing.)