Holy shit. Less than 1% of households. This is not normal for the vast vast majority of people.

Get out and get out fast. Get your personal documents together (birth certificate, passport) and leave.

Its going to be hard and scary at first, but the world outside your family home is far safer than the one inside it.

Says a lot about America that she couldn’t just say “she was wrong”. She first had to attack the people she doesn’t agree with. This image encapsulates just how broken the US is.

Out of interest, which aspect don’t you believe? The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.

This seems like a classic windows update issue. In fairness to Microsoft it is difficult to prevent bugs when there is a huge install base, with a huge range of hardware, with a huge range of users on different mixes of updates and updating at their own. I personally think that’s totally believable.

What’s not clear is perhaps the implied overarching story that W11 is worse for this than other versions of Windows. I can’t answer that about windows updates themselves, but I certainly believe W11 is the worst version of Windows I’ve ever used (and I’ve used every version back to 3.11 as a kid). I have to use W11 at work: the UI is absolutely terrible and unfriendly but far worse it constantly and inexplicably slows down, programs become unresponsive repeatedly and I come across errors constantly.

I work in a big organisation and I don’t even bother to report most errors now - we hop between PCs because of the nature of my Job, and I’ve come up across so many I just can’t be bothered opening more tickets. I’d describe it as a mostly large volume of minor issues and inconveniences that cumulatively, on top of the bad design, that make it a shit experience. But I’ve also had numerous major errors since we moved from W10 to W11 on different PCs - they all have the same hardware and software yet the problems are different on each. I’ve given up reporting the problems and just avoid the PCs, and I think a lot of my colleagues are the same.

My organisation (I work in a large Hospital), is already stretched due to high work volume and low staffing and we now have a constantly little drag from Windows 11 on everything we do. It’s like Microsoft sprinkle a little bit of shit onto every computer, every day, all day. The cumulative effect in just my organisation must be massive - I shudder to think how bad it is across the whole economy.

The publicity will have little impact; only the AI bubble popping will make them change course. But the damage is already done - they’ve pivoted their company to AI, forced it into all there products and force their employees to use it. Once the bubble pops that’s going to take time to undo and fix.

AI of course will still be a thing, but at the moment they’re wasting billions on it as everyone wants to be to AI as Google is to search.

Scarcity manufactured by the AI “boom”. When the AI bubble pops, expect a huge slump in hardware prices as companies try to offload huge stockpiles of worthless RAM, CPUs and GPUs.

The headline doesn’t quite reflect the situation, but it is difficult to capture in a headline.

Essentially add “for now”. Many of the issues are fixable but not necessarily by one laptop maker. As the article said by the time the issues were likely resolved the laptop would be obsolete as the version 2 of the chip would release.

Having said that, it’s not clear how fast the issues will resolve as without any devices there won’t be impetus to put fixes in to different parts of the ecosystem to get the full potential of the chipset.

The GPU sounds like the most serious problem and without manufacturer engagement may be the longest to get fixed.

Yes it’s fairly simple to do, essentially the user needs to download an image of a Linux install disc, flash it onto a USB stick (or a Dvd I guess), and then reboot their PC. They may need to press a key at boot to open the boot menu and select the USB (or the bios to change the boot order).

After that, most distros offer a very easy to follow installer which will install the new OS.

Most Linux installs can be done alongside windows (on the same hard drive or it’s own drive) but windows tends to break the boot loader with updates. It’s gernallt better to only dual boot if you’re good at fixing things - otherwise a full Linux install is better.

The most inportant thing is back up all your important data, and only do this if you genuinely want to leave windows. I’d make sure your windows license is digital before doing this too as that allows using windows again if you want to go back.

I’d say anyone can use Linux, it’s user friendly and robust. In terms of installing Linux, I’d only do it if you are sure you know what you’re doing - installing any OS - including windows - can involved trouble shooting problems.

For me it seems to be when you go through to download the windows binary, you get an iframe on the page containing another site. That has ads and serves up the download. So I’m guessing the ads are on the website that provides videolan with hosting for its binaries?

They are old fashioned intrusive ads pretending you need to click then to start your download. But the download starts already.

The key is getting out at the right time, and that is weighed massively against small investors. The big investors and institions control the market and can move quickly while small investors cannot.

Tesla is not doing well - look at its falling sales. It’s a risky stock to hold. The AI companies are also highly risky stocks to hold.

That doesn’t mean don’t hold them - all anyone is saying really is that these are high risk investments, and at some point they are going to probably crash because it’s a bubble.

That doesn’t necessarily mean “don’t invest”. It does certainly mean be prepared to get out fast and also only use money you can afford to lose when investing with such high risk stocks.

It’s about short term vs long term costs, and AWS has priced itself to make it cheaper short term but a bit more expensive long term.

Companies are more focused on the short term - even if something like AWS is more expensive long term, if it saves money in the short term that money can be used for something else.

Also many companies don’t have the money upfront to build out their own infrastructure quickly in the short term, but can afford longer term gradual costs. The hope would be even though it’s more expensive, they reach a scale faster where they make bigger profits and it was worth the extra expense to AWS.

This is how a lot of outsourcing works. And it’s exacerbated by many companies being very short term and stock price focused. Companies could invest in their own infrastructure for long term gain, but they often favour short term profit boosts and cost reduction to boost their share price or pay out to share holders.

Companies frequently so things not in their long term interests for this reason. For example, companies that own their own land and buildings sell them off and rent them back. Short term it gives them a financial boost, long term it’s a permanent cost and loss of assets.

In Signals case it’s less of a choice; it’s funded by donations and just doesn’t have the money to build out it’s own data centre network. Donations will support ongoing gradual and scaling costs, but it’s unlikely they’d ever get a huge tranch of cash to be able to build data centres world wide. They should still be using multiple providers and they should also look to buildup some Infrastructure of their own for resilience and lower long term costs.

It does make sense for Signal as this is a free app that does not make money from advertising. It makes money from donations.

So every single message, every single user, is a cost without any ongoing revenue to pay for it. You’re right about the long run but you’d need the cash up front to build out that infrastructure in the short term.

AWS is cheap in the sense that instead of an initial outlay for hardware, you largely only pay for actual use and can scale up and down easily as a result. The cost per user is probably going to be higher than if you were to completely self host long term, but that does then mean finding many millions to build and maintain data centres all around the world. Not attractive for an organisation living hand to mouth.

However what does not make sense is being so reliant on AWS. Using other providers to add more resilience to the network would make sense.

Unfortunately this comes back to the real issue - AWS is an example of a big tech company trying to dominate a market with cheap services now for a potential benefits of a long term monopoly and raised prices in the future. They have 30% market share and already an outage by Amazon is highly disruptive. Even at 30% we’re at the point of end users feeling locked in.

Rust or mold, it doesn’t really matter. As other have said it’s on the outer part of the circle - the bit contacting the outer glass thread. The inner circle is the plug that contacts the contents and is clear.

If it feels scratch with a finger nail its rust, if it’s soft and scrapes off its mold. But as I said it’s not in contact with the contents so it doesn’t matter.

Also the contents of the jar are pickled. That means brine or vinegar, which is highly acidic and is what keeps the food fresh/prevents mould and bacteria. So if the pickles themselves look fine then they’ll be fine to eat. If the pickling had failed the contents would be mouldy.

Rust would make sense as the content of the jar is acidic and acids accelerate rust. There could be small pockets of air left at that location when you seal the jar and some fluid inevitably gets forced out as it is sealed; air plus acid is perfect for rust. But the jars internally themselves were otherwise well sealed as there is no rust in the inner bit of the circle, suggesting it plugged the jar contacting the fluid directly and no gas was left.

This likely reflects the jar lids are not quite perfect for the jar or possibly not screwed on to their perfect max tightness leaving air behind at those locations. But they were screwed on well enough to seal the content.

It makes some sense to look at aid as so much of it has been ineffective over the past decades. Much has been lost to corruption and terrible projects.

But this is not the right approach. This seems to be about taking aid from effective programs that actually deliver directly and moving it to the “political influence” type projects that are ultimately just wasteful and corrupting.

But like - use Linux?

This is spam and should be deleted. It’s custom spam code running on perchance.org (a genuine coding and AI site). The site itself warns users about the custom code on reaching it.

Regardless of all other considerations, Israel should be removed given the highly suspicious voting that got Israel to first place. In the public vote and second place overall. Israel’s song was mediocre and barely registered during the contest, got mediocre scores from the professional judges, and it was not a commercial success before or after the contest, and yet somehow it won the popular vote.

If Israel had won it would have done permanent damage to the Eirovision song contest as there is strong suspicion the vote was rigged. People can vote up to 20 times so it is feasible to manipulate the vote at relatively low cost if focused in a few countries.

Open Office? It hasn’t been touched in a decade. LibreOffice is the true continuation of Open Office, which was forked off after Oracle bought Sun and OO had been left with poor governance and slow updates.

Open Office finally ended up under the Apache foundation but hasn’t been maintained since 2014.

LibreOffice has had continual development with both bug fixes and new features, and the Open Document Foundation gives it good governance and independence as an open source project…

Honestly, switch to Libre Office.

I’ve always loved the Denver Airport conspiracy theory - that it is actually the secret headquarters of the illuminati or other organisations. It was $2bn over budget and has tunnels under it, which have led people to claim there are also secret bunkers under the airport. It also has a few bizarre pieces of art within it.

I think it’s just an airport with ugly aesthetic choices but I love that people think of all the places a global secret society would base itself, they’d pick Denver Airport.

Apparently there are 6 underground levels at the airport - but they’re used to run an airport. And the tunnels were for a failed automated baggage transport system. The art is just art.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/denver-airport-conspiracy

For me it sort of stimulated my brain and got it going again.

I had a bad bout of depression in my early 20s, and the first time I took antidepressants I remember noticing how vibrant all the colours were, how much sound there was. It was like everything had been dulled and a veil had been lifted.

However it was not an instant cure - the first effects just showed how bad my depression was. It took weeks and months for things to gradually improve.

The next thing I actually noticed changing was my motivation to do things started lifting. For me it was a positive, if slow process. But it can be a negative thing ironically - people can be motivated to commit suicide and it’s why it’s one of the ironic risks of antidepressants at first. Take antidepressants under close medical supervision.

But eventually my mood did lift. It was very gradual. And I didn’t really notice it until moments of laughter came back or I found joy in my hobbies and interests again.

I would say antidepressants don’t just lift mood in one go. I’d think it move of mood swinging up and down around a centre. When you’re depressed your mood is centred at very low, and swings around very low and a bit less low. What antidepressants do is gradually move that centre up back toward normal. So at first you swing between very low and a bit less low, then between quite low and low, then a low and a little low, then a little low and normal and eventually you’re centre hits normal. Then you swing between a little low and a little high.

The antidepressants keep you at that level - they don’t make you endlessly happy, they just return your centre to where it should be. (For.some people they can tip into mania and over but that’s uncommon).

I stayed on antidepressant for nearly 2 years and finally came off. That’s when things got better - the antidepressants did the lifting but I also learnt the warning signs of depression and could be vigilant in the future. Coming off antidepressant when I was ready, the centre of my mood was in a good place but swings up and down were bigger/back to normal so I could have really good times again, but also some bad times. The difference with the bad times was they didn’t last, plus they were “appropriate” to life’s events and struggles. I didn’t need the antidepressants to.maintian that. But that is just for me - I know some people stay on antidepressants for life to achieve the same outcome.

I also knew when to ask to go back on antidepressants. I needed short courses of 3 months or so a couple of times. I actually had a terrible episode of depression again for over a year after a traumatic life event and the doctor denied me the medication saying I was just “grieving”. I had a terrible bout of depression lasting nearly 2 years and nearly killed myself. That depression thankfully finally lifted itself but it really damaged my trust in the medical profession (and I’m a doctor myself)

For me antidepressants work. They’re not a magic wand and they’re not the whole solution however. Sadly people don’t get access to other useful parts of the solution like CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) - I didn’t for example. But you can learn strategies to cope, prevent your mood dropping so low, and recognising when your mood drops. For me a the antidepressanrs were a tool to get me back to a normal centre ground/baseline while I learnt how to manage things. And they were and are a tool I’m prepared to go back to should things ever go bad again.

When I lived in London I didn’t need a car because the transport network is so good. Now I live in Manchester I do need a car because the transport network isn’t anywhere near as good.

For me I work in the NHS and work at different sites. One site is about an hour walk from home (or 30mins bus) and I often walk to work. But the other sites just aren’t reachable in a timely manner even though by car it’s only 25mins away. I’d have to get a bus and 2 trams.

Unfortunately many workplaces outside the city centre are not directly accessible by public transport, so ars become a necessity. Meanwhile in London there is essentially a mesh of rail and buses making commuting on public transport more feasible.

The ultimate solution for me at least is expanding public transport but that’s politically broken in the UK. HS2s main benefit was actually freeing up capcity on the existing rail network - in Manchester that would have unclogged lines that could have become commuter railway lines with trains every 10mins. I have a station 10mins from my house by its useless for getting about as the line is mainly west coast trains heading into the city centre. Local trains that stop at my station are 1-2 an hour at most.

So electric cars will have to fill the gap.