Story notes that number changes massively every month and it went 3,5 > 2,5 > 5,3 across January, February and March this year.

This obviously isn't changes in user base, but changes in tracking combined with very low sample size, meaning it's wildly inaccurate.

Props to writer in that he didn't engage in mainstream media clickbait method of "we clickbait headline and then we spin a narrative for the entire story. And then we destroy our narrative by telling what actually happened in last two paragraphs". This is explained in three opening paragraph, and literally first sentence is "if figures are accurate" proceeding to explain why they almost certainly aren't:

Quoting the story's opening below:

"If Valve's latest Steam Survey monthly figures are accurate, Steam on Linux enjoyed a very wild month of March. Steam on Linux is now above the 5% threshold and more than twice the size of the Steam on macOS marketshare.

Steam on Linux ended 2025 at around a 3.5% marketshare, dipped a bit in January, and fell to 2.23% in February. That's still much better than several years ago in the pre-Steam-Deck days when Steam on Linux was at around 1%. In absolute terms with the continued growth of the Steam user base, 2~3% was rather healthy considering all of its bumps over the past decade.

But Valve just published the Steam Survey results for March 2026 and they have never been so incredible for Linux... 5.33%! Steam on Linux was never above 5% and easily an all-time high for the Linux gaming marketshare, especially in absolute numbers. It was a massive 3.1% spike in March"

I.e. this growth is more than total supposed user base last month. This is obviously a massive statistical inaccuracy just hitting the limits of the error margin, as these numbers were tracked for many years, so we know what approximate number is. Error rate for these sorts of studies is usually 2-5% depending on sample size and methodology, so we're seeing the error rate manifest itself on massive differential reported.

It would really help if people took any decent class on statistics.

You can just watch the videos. It's made very clear where they sourced the information on the fraudsters.

This is why quite a few people followed in his footsteps and did the same thing. Went onto the relevant government website, pulled the data, and went to places. It's not like Shirley is the only one. He's just the one who started the trend.

They do. That's why that Mormon guy could just grab a list of those organisations from the relevant government website and went to each location to show they're fake and exactly how much money they are defrauding the government on camera

Fun part? US government is actually pretty good at governing compared to alternatives.

Consider something like it's primary competitor of PRC, where bureaucracy is so hilariously bad that leadership has no idea what going on in the nation, and has to rely on things like electricity consumption numbers when they try to determine how much economic activity has taken place.

Unlikely, as this is a budgetary item. Managers can go to prison for fraud and be liable for damages if they failed to have the person working this role if it is indeed required to be filled for this task. It's a key part in how bureaucracy diffuses responsibility for mistakes, and one thing that bureaucrats tend to follow with religious fervor.

Far more likely scenario is one I list above.

This is the low IQ take. It requires not understanding the following:

1. How error rate works.
2. How error mitigation works.
3. How error correction works.
4. Who is at fault when #3 fails.

It's literally in the OP. It's not the AI that is at fault, it's the person who's job it was to sanity check to output. That person didn't do it.

"The disclaimer also noted that all generated content was verified by an officer and that generative AI was not used to make or recommend a decision."

But the "humans are better at this, AI sucks" crowd can't even read the OP. Imagine you hire someone like this to make complex decisions like one needed in the OP, by the tens of thousands.

The error rate would be hilarious.

Main problem with AI in these cases is that it is so good, that people stop checking it.

Even when they're explicitly employed to do so as is the case here. "It's been great last ten thousand cases I checked, it's right here too".

Issue here is far more than any single detail such as "lighting engine". Various forms of temporal anti aliasing for example has nothing to do with it, and yet if you turn it off in quite a few modern games, you will notice a lot of really nasty shortcuts that were taken, because developers expected everything being smoothed over with temporal anti aliasing hiding the problems.

So your choice today is ghosting artifacts and everything smoothed over, or image with flickering, weird edges of things and so on. This is why a lot of games don't even let you turn temporal anti aliasing off any more, and instead merely offer you various different temporal solutions at least one of which must be on.

On the other hand, it saves quite a lot of time if you can just trust all minor issues to be smoothed over anyway, so it's an efficiency tool.

On the bright side, since a lot of people believe that VA monitors are suitable for gaming, they won't even notice the smoothed out image, because their monitor will smooth everything in motion out anyway. It's hilarious when you get someone with a VA "gaming" monitor to sit at a good OLED, and they are shocked you can read text on things in motion.

I'll add the "doesn't matter what height something flies at, it's all the same in terms of energy" to the list of "no more winters below -20C in nothern europe due to global warming", "germany can control wind" and other angelospherims.

Honestly, I thought you peaked at those two. You proved me wrong.

P.S. Top tier reading comprehension as usual on your part.

I will once again reiterate my previous answer, as you doubled down on "you must be thinking this if you understand this".

The answer to your last question is "I have empathy". Top 5 percentile of population in it, measured back during my university days. I am very good at reading people's emotional state and intent and expressing it in a way that they would agree with if I want to.

Since nerds tend to suffer from the opposite, exceedingly low empathy "I don't understand how these people could act like this", as you just demonstrated above, I often get the reaction you demonstrate. Fundamentally, one of the main strategies people with low empathy deploy to understand the world is "people are exactly what they say".

It's why modern Maoism/grievance studies enjoy such massive popularity among the nerds compared to general populace. They fundamentally require this assumption.

Meanwhile I am able to explain opinions of others to people who want clarifications, without holding those opinions, or even when holding opposite opinion, as I have in this case. Think of it as emulating a completely different operating system within another operating system.

They lost this competition to Grok Imagine and ByteDance SeeDance in quality.

Those generate better video.

At the same time, video generation is exceptionally computationally expensive, so if you're not a front runner here, efforts to catch up are way more expensive than in pretty much all other forms of genAI.

As usual, you're wrong on everything.

Long range cruise missiles fly high to conserve energy most of the flight, and only go low once they get close enough to were they can afford to lose energy flying in much denser atmosphere.

Exocets are short range cruise missiles. They're utterly unsuitable for Iran to attack anything in the Med. They're barely suitable for working in the Gulf from Iran's perspective, as even there, they wouldn't be able to reach many places without exposing the launcher.

Almost all long range anti-shipping missiles of the kind that Iran could use to attack shipping in the med are ballistic.

It actually bodes really well for DLSS5 that so many people don't remember 2010s, when nvidia started making driver level changes to rendering pipeline to simplify frames in a way that gave them more performance advantage.

It was a pretty big brouhaha, similar to one we're having here. And now... no one is even aware of it. Or the fact that AMD joined them very quickly, leading to quite a decent discrepancy in how image is rendered.

Intel has their own variation on this as well.

"I can't tell the difference".

That's ok. Most people can't tell the difference between AI images and real ones either.

Meanwhile everyone with even cursory interest in gaming knows that we had a massive event back in 2010s when Nvidia started to optimize things on driver level so that they would omit certain details from the image to generate more performance. At first, people had the same reaction as they're having to AI now. "Oh my god, you're making image worse, and muh artistic something something".

Today, many are apparently not even aware of it.

This bodes well for tech like DLSS5. It means that after it goes mainstream, in a few years people like you won't even know about it not being "artistic intent" and whatnot.