I was just about to query the context to see if this was in any way a “logical” answer and if so, to what extent the bot was baited as you put it, but yeah that doesn’t look great…

Slava!

This actually genius!

Worth a scroll for the video.

Microsoft needs to sell its software (including OS) and they’ve always done so through manufacturers.

The average user, in their mind, doesn’t care about/want/have a choice for Windows, they just went to a shop to buy a computer, Windows was just on it. So for Microsoft, a public company who’s graphs need to keep going up forever, “increasing revenue from Windows” equates to “making people buy more computers” - this, in my opinion, is why they went down the TPM route (which consumers didn’t care about), and now, the “Copilot compatible” PC (whixh users don’t care about) routes. For the shareholders, you need a new computer, not an update to your existing one.

So this is where it gets interesting - a catch 22 for Microsoft - the average user doesn’t want a new computer (the internet works fine right), but Microsoft need their graphs to go up and they don’t want to work for free… BUT they can’t afford to have “Windows” become synonymous with “viruses” again (they bothered to make Windows defender for free for this reason), so if people don’t pay up, there could be millions of virus ridden computers and everyone will look for a new laptop “but not windows again” because of the viruses…

Mac instead? Maybe, but most laptops are sold for €300, not €1000+…

Current known, “safe consumer choice” brands (OEMs) and big box retailers are and will continue to be influenced/controlled/blackmailed by Microsoft’s license pricing and legal teams to maintain the status quo on the shelves and we’ll see what plays out.

This subscription talk then is big news, not just because of the controversy surround subscriptions generally, but because this could change the shape of supply and demand in the PC market significantly.

As always there won’t be one answer for everyone, but these are some ways it could play out.

• Microsoft forgets the idea
• Microsoft offers a free version supported by ads
• Consumers pay up, even if it takes a generation
• Consumers move to Apple
• Major PC manufacturers and retailers spite Microsoft terms, and offer alternative OS’s
• Smaller/new PC manufacturers rise, and offer alternative OS’s

Will people pay up? Will Chromebooks take over?

Or…

(Removes sunglasses)

…will 2025 be the year of the Linux desktop?

James Acaster probably my fav standup comedian.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Kinda cool though tbf. Wrappable tech would be an awesome next step, like a watch that’s all screen that you can completely wrap around your wrist.

Author: “write me a 4000 word article on why microplastics are bad

ChatGPT: generates 4000 words of text explaining what micro means, what plastic means, and paraphrasing the “controversy” section of the Wikipedia page on microplastics

Reader: “Summarise this article”

GhatGPT: “Microplastics are bad”

My new oven is so energy efficient it takes 20 mins to warm up before cooking a pizza for ten minutes.

PHP should stand for “Pre Hypertext Processor”.

Instead of being a recursive acronym for “PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor”.

Russia releases the compromat

How does the image scanning compare to docker scout? (Or whatever the docket desktop one is called).

Outsmarted. Technically a board game but with an app.

It’s actually not the gimmick I thought it would be! Cast that bad boy to the tv and you’ve got a game show in the family room!

For those also wondering (and I’m quoting a comment on Ars so may stand corrected…):

Isn’t this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

Only if used to deliberately target infantry. The videoed operations so far seem to have been intended to burn away protective cover (trees/brush), which is a permitted use even if there’s a risk of inflicting casualties as a side effect of the application of incendiaries.

Okay so we’ll need a new boiler in a couple of years and to be honest the idea of pumping gas through a pipe into my house seems kinda archaic. Like oil lamp kind of technology.

I really want a eco friendly alternative and modern, cost efficient technology instead.

However heat pumps just don’t seem to make any sense, and the more marketing materials I read critically, the less convinced I am of their practicality, nor the integrity of the vendors - if they work similarly to air conditioning units or refrigerators why do they cost 20x as much as those devices?

Anecdotally, an electrician I know has been involved with decommissioning more than one heat pump in new builds so that the owners could replace them with gas combi boilers because the heat pumps were so slow - taking a day or so to heat the house up after eg children leaving windows open, or forgetting to close doors when bringing in shopping etc. Never mind running out of hot water.

There are some very insightful comments in this thread from people who are clearly more clued up than me, so I wondering if anyone could change my perception - which I will be the first to concede is likely ignorant.

So…. Thinking about the UK implementation where one is supposed to swap out a gas boiler and replace it with a heat pump…

My understanding - as an admittedly ignorant layman - is that:

• They are cheaper to run in an ideal environment - a super insulated building, that is often a very high bar even for a relatively modern (less than 30 year old building say) with all the insulation one can achieve. For the sake of argument let’s say this is doable for the individual and they have achieved a C level EPC rating, the most you can get before your house begins to generate its own energy eg with solar panels.

• They cost 4x the price of a gas boiler (approx 3k vs 12k). A few hundred quid a year off the gas bill doesn’t justify that difference.

• They take incredibly long (by comparison) to heat a home from perceivably “cold” to “warm”. Eg 24 hours to go from 14 degrees C to 21 degrees C, vs an hour with a gas boiler.

• Hot water on demand is impossible, so you’re back to the olden days of having to plan life around a hot water tank, and praying no one takes a slightly longer shower than usual, or guests don’t want a bath

So then, what is the upside for a rational (ie selfishly motivated) consumer? A pay off after 26 years assuming a failure rate of 0? How long are they expected/guaranteed to work for? If the anticipated lifespan is less than that then it doesn’t make sense from a financial point of view no? And if they are expected to last longer, how much longer? Is that a good investment vs savings? And during/beyond that time are people expected to not value the loss of a superior experience in terms of heating time when temps drop unintentionally?

Reading my post back I appreciate it sounds very critical and full of FUD but I’m genuinely not trolling - just looking for sense where I don’t see it, but really want to!

Hyped for this.

Appreciate it’s not the same thing, but still feel like it will scratch the same itch that fallout does, without having to suffer that janky Bethesda engine (even its latest incarnation for starfield was annoying!).

Plus a nice looking colourful environment for a change instead of the standard post apocalyptic browngrey.

I can’t decide if this move is designed to overwhelm (or at least increase the workload of) the Wine team so that they can’t do as good a job reducing people’s dependence on Windows with their core product, or whether this is part of my prediction playing out - MS abandoning kernel/OS development in favour of a skinned Linux on which they can still harvest data and sell subscriptions.

In any case charity from a corporation is never truly charitable!

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

Please look that good on a steam deck Please look that good on a steam deck Please look that good on a steam deck

Super interesting!

I wonder how far this could go in time.

10/10