It also doesn't matter. It doesn't feel like it, but Win11 released almost 5 years ago (October 5, 2021) and there's already rumors of a Win12 in the near future.
We're way past the "release issues" phase and into the "it's pure incompetence" phase.
Oh wow, I hadn't even paid any attention to that. To me Windows 11 was released on October 1, 2024, when the LTSC version came out, and is roughly when I upgraded my gaming PC to the said LTSC build from the previous Windows 10 LTSC build.
You can block the entire internet and whitelist specific domains. There's multiple ways of doing this, from router parental controls, specific OS tools in iOS/Android, Windows, as well as apps specific to it, and all it takes is for a parent to care enough to make a simple Google or Youtube search and learn if they don't know, and don't even know to know that they should care in the first place.
The failure here is two-sided.
One and the most glaring are the parents who let devices raise their children, this hasn't changed since before home computers were a thing.
Secondly it's a failure of the state for not educating both adults and teenagers on best practices when using online platforms to be safe. If they're interested enough in policing people's web habits, they can spend time and resources on educating the masses. The best time to start doing it was 20 years ago, the second best is now and it could take a decade plus for it to have a meaningful impact.
Also this is important. The UK, like it or not, is a nanny state. They like to use child safety as an excuse to police adult habits, and more important their speech. There's quite a few times they've admitted to this plainly without any ambiguity.
"The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online"
There's also examples of them being asked directly in interviews and they admit to wanting to police adults speech and content they consume online.
Australia is in a similar predicament and honestly most of the world is rolling towards this, just not as fast as the UK.
The UK unfortunately has incarcerated people for simply lifting cardboard signs saying Free Palestine. They've jailed people for innocuous social media posts on Facebook and other platforms.
I'm not proud of the USA for a lot of reasons, especially lately, but one thing that any and all Americans should be proud of is their Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment, it's the most American thing and one of the best aspects of America that other countries should aspire to, and I hope that the jabs Freedom of Speech has taken over the past decade doesn't make it crumble away.
In the UK all mobile phones default to no adult content on the mobile networks, if you want to access adult content you need to request it with the mobile network provider. They could have gone the same route with consumer internet access. Most ISP supplied routers support content blocking, it could have been turned on by default with a simple update pushed by the ISP.
Kids here in the UK get educated about online safety in school, schools have sessions for parents covering this stuff too. My own kids have had age appropriate internet access all their lives, its not been difficult to control it, we have had the tools and knowledge for years.
This stuff really isn't about child safety in my opinion.
Does router setting spply when the child is at school and using data? I do not think so. So you need to have the averager parent setup DNS records and probably pay some subscription to soem people doing the filtering?
It is not easy, if there was just a simple toggle and iOS/Android would ask the parent what kind of religious extremist or prude they are and then do the filtering then sure, but you want a parent to know what a router is, or DNS, or buy some subscriptions for some big tech app?
I agree that parents should do the filtering, but I think big tech should cooperate here, for example I could allow my young child on a PlayStation since Sony did ask the age of the account user and did apply filters in the store and chats.
But what is your objection? Is it really, REALY to much to ask for the Os to ask the birthday of the account user and then the browser to set the appropriate age range flag in the requests? Then the websites can deny the requests instead of the "Are you over 18" popup? Is that too expensive? too dificult? is it too communist?
>The Uk could force the OS to have that toggle instead of censoring the internet
I know, and my point is if Big Tech would have added that toggle (or add it now before even more countries or USA states make more laws with different requierments ), made it easy to setup when you turn on a device for the first time to give it to your child then you could tell the politicians that the solution exists already. Now using the think of the children some governments will implement more invasive laws.
It's not even that big of a leap. We've seen a off-duty ICE agent drunk driving his child, getting stopped by the cops, implied threats to one of the officers for being black with payback, spent the whole time saying "come on man" using his position as a federal officer as a way to get out of trouble, and ends to the point that I wanted to make, complained about his and I quote "bitch ex-wife" for divorcing him.
What is stopping this lowlife from going after his ex-wife, or one of those cops by using databases that they have access to? We know from journalists going through the process that there's no curation or training involved to join ICE specifically.
But this goes beyond them. We know that cops can be corrupt to, we know politicians can be corrupt to, what is stopping any of these people from using private data to not only go after their spouses, but also business rivals, and people who slight them?
Depends where, I think. Where your neighbors are mostly honorable, it mostly works. There are plenty of nice neighborhoods, and no shortage of bad ones either, sadly.
That assumes that the people who enforce the law want good people to be police officers, and that has never been the case. It is certainly not the case with our current ICE officers.
It doesn't assume anything. It's literally what's happening right now. All of your neighbors don't want to steal all of your stuff. Think about the fact that this is only true in certain places, regardless of what laws exist. Laws have very little effect on criminal behavior. Your peers being cool people are all that really protects your safety and your property.
Sounds like the solution to crime is therefore to mitigate the factors that precipitate it. If people steal in order to meet their basic needs, then providing basic housing and medical care to all should see a reduction in crime.
You can subscribe to our GeForce NOW service to rent a top of the line card through our cloud service for the low low price of 11€$£ or 22€$£ a month with *almost no restrictions.
I just bought a 5070 Ti a week ago and can attest I have used it for maybe 3-4 hours since then. It begs the question maybe I should have rented the compute instead instead of paying 900 eur on spot - that's like 3 years worth of rent.
If the compute is the unit of value under consideration, maybe. But there's more - you have access, freedom from supervision, the capability to modify, upgrade, tweak, adjust anything you want, resell compute under p2p cloud services when idle, etc. And then if the market for these gets hot, you can sell and recoup your initial costs and then some. The freedom and opportunity benefit - as opposed to the dependence and opportunity cost of renting - is where I personally think you come out on top.
The correct calculation is not 900€/36 months but (900€-$resell_value)/36 months. If you sell your GPU for 450€ after three years you saved a good bit of money. If the AI bubble doesn't pop, your resale value might even be a good bit higher than that. I've had a used 1080TI that I used for five years and then sold for nearly the same price, making it effectively free (minus electricity use and opportunity cost)
Even if you don't resell it, at the end of the three years you still have a GPU that you can keep using, or gift, or whatever. After three years of renting, you have nothing.
And what about the extra energy consumption of the RTX 5070 TI vs. a iGPU? If you go GPU cloud then you can save on energy as well in your PC. Less energy means also less noise by the way.
To get an idea, if you go gaming via cloud then fast internet + office PC or Laptop is enough. So you save way more than the GPU only in a proper comparison.
This is why I play consoles only. I can play games for years without ever changing HW and save tons of money compared to my PC gaming times.
Currently after 3 years the price of the GPU if you decide to sell it might be a wash, much like it was after the crypto boom. Granted you have to pay for electricity to run it, but you also have full control over what it runs.
I think that's comparing to 3 years of GeForce Now at ~22EUR/month for the Ultimate plan, for a total of ~800 EUR. For someone using in 3h/week then you might as well go for the free plan and pay nothing. But renting has while owning can only have financial cost, renting has a hidden cost on top of that. It leads to "atrophy" of the ownership right and once you lose that option you'll never get it back. That will have incalculable costs.
They've just recently been able to reverse engineer ASML's EUV machines. They're years and years behind, although the way things are moving forward with hardware prices skyrocketing (RAM, SSD, GPUs...) regular consumer won't have much choice in anything anyway for a while.
So at a rough guess would that be expected to put them on the equivalent of TSMC 7 nm a few years from now?
I wonder if a bunch of consumer electronics will move back to something like 12 nm for a while? Seems like there's a lot of capacity in that range. Zen 2 wasn't so bad, right?
I've got ~5k+ tabs, and I've also seen basically zero crashes in the last decade. I'm on Macos, not very many extensions though one of them is Sidebery (and before that Tree Style Tabs) which seems to slow things down quite a lot.
I likely don't need all the tabs. Some were opened only because they might be useful or interesting. Others get opened because they cover something I want to dig into further later on, but in this case it's the buildup of multiple crash>restore cycles. Eventually I'll get to each tab and close it or save the URL separately until it's back to 0, but even in that process new tabs/windows get opened so it can take time.
There are no leaders. Every other month a new LLM model comes out and it outperforms the previous ones by a small margin, the benchmarks always look good (probably because the models are trained on the answers) but then in practice they are basically indistinguishable from the previous ones (take GPT4 vs 5). We've been in this loop since around the release of ChatGPT 4 where all the main players started this cycle.
The biggest strides in the last 6-8 months have been in generative AIs, specifically for animation.
Does the USA even have enough money to rescue the tech giants at this point? We could be talking multiple trillion dollars at worst. And the AI only companies like OpenAI and Anthropic would be the most vulnerable in comparison to say Google or Microsoft, because they have no fallback and no sustainability without investor money.
And Nvidia would be left in a weird place where the vast majority of their profits are coming from AI cards and demand would potentially dry up entirely.
There is talk about bailout, but is it first possible. Second how long will it post pone issue. Massive increase in government debt used in bailout likely leads to more inflation, which leads to higher interest rates, making that debt much more expensive. And at some point credibility of that debt and dollar in general will be gone.
Ofc, this does lead to ever increasing paper valuations. So maybe that is the win they are after.
They're all easily disabled in the GUI itself. The article is exaggerating, the closest argument is that it enables itself by default when it first updated which is fair, but they're easy to disable within the menu itself.
> Anything enabled by default without prompting in an update is usually against the user.
I believe that, of browser features released, the overwhelming majority are enabled by default (if they even can be disabled). Including TLS/https warnings, tabs, automatic page unloading, support for new HTML/JS capabilities, and so on.
Those don't generate an outcry--they're usually celebrated, in fact--so either browser updates are "usually" fine, or you have an extremely un-usual threshold for wanting things not to change.
I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy, considering that by the time you reach 70, most people are already in decline (some worse than others), and the drop from 70 to 80 tends to be steep for many. Those who make it past 80 into their 90s or even 100s often aren’t living particularly fulfilling lives, if you can even call it living at that point.
Losing your vision, your hearing, your mobility, and worst of all, your mind, doesn’t sound very appealing to me.
So unless we find a way to both live longer and to decliner slower, I just don't see the point for the majority of people who will unfortunately live lonely worse lives.
My own observation is that a lot of decline happens because people stop living and start coasting to the grave, and that can happen decades earlier than 70.
My great-grandfather was physically very active into his 90s, still running his businesses, working in his orchards, and generally being surprisingly productive. He was mentally sharp too; I remember him teaching me about the physics of vacuum energy at length. Seemed like he could go on indefinitely. Then his wife died and he died less than a year later.
I always have him as my model for what I want to be like when I am old. He was still in the game until he wasn’t.
I think this is a huge misconception and I don't think it works this way. have you heard people say 50 is the new 40, etc.? The same thing would work at older ages. Sure the last 10 years are a decline, but you are pushing those years out not adding more of them.
This. Expecting a "150 years lifespan" to look like "90 years of aging normally and then staying at 90 for another 60 years" is simply unrealistic.
The very reason you're expected to die in your 90s is that your body has decayed into a complete mess where nothing works properly anymore and every single capability reserve is at depletion. You die in old age because if you spend long enough at "one sliver away from the breaking point", statistics make going over it inevitable. Even a flu is a mild inconvenience to the young, but often lethal to the elderly.
To make it to the age of 150, you'd pretty much have to spend a lot more time as a healthy, well functioning adult.
It really depends on how you live your life. My grandfather on my dad's side never drank or smoked, got a ton of exercise, avoided candy etc. he's in his 80s and still lives in a detached house and walks his two very large dogs daily. My grandmother on my mom's side smoked multiple packs of cigarettes a day, drank a ton of sugary soda, rarely got any real exercise, and died in her 50s after a number of very rough years.
Everyone keeps talking about health care but IMO it's really downstream of you attending yourself. It's almost a spiritual thing really. American health is so bad because Americans don't feel like they themselves are worth taking care of. The contrast between the people who disagree here gets extreme as they age.
Exactly. I'm the youngest in my family many aunts and uncles are already dead. those who still live are in a huge decline or completely lonely (sometimes both). Mom is in her late 70s and is in good shape, but she complains a lot about loneliness (even though I and my brothers visit her almost daily for a coffee or lunch). I think the joy of living ends with people around you dying.
We still don't have any 80+ year olds who have been striving for longevity since their 20s. Nutrition labels and ingredient lists on food didn't even exist the 90s. An 80 year old was born into a world of nonstop cigarettes, drinking while pregnant, etc.
So our current obsession with longevity through fitness and nutrition is new and we can't really tell what someone like Bryan Johnson will be like at 80. If he is significantly declined in 20 years despite his rigorous longevity routine then we will know.
I don’t care at all about the pope; they’re meaningless entities.
The President, however, especially when Congress is forced to toe their line, is. No president should be permitted to be more than 20 years older than the median age of the general population when they’re done leading the country. In this case, they shouldn’t be more than 58y old when their 8y term is up. This way, they and their progeny need to live with the decisions made for at least ~20y after they’re out of office.
There’s a reason there is forced retirement in some industries and government groups. Why the fuck we don’t enforce similar rules on the president I’ll never know.
> There’s a reason there is forced retirement in some industries and government groups. Why the fuck we don’t enforce similar rules on the president I’ll never know.
Yep, I am not a big fan of our military policy, but I have a friend who recently retired as an Army LTC.
At his level there are standard procedures - at each rank you have a timeframe, and the rule is "promote or retire". Precisely to ensure you don't break the assembly line.
Even in software. "We don't hire mid level/junior/associate engineers, only senior/staff". No pipeline can hurt. Yeah, you can hire for all that, but there's value of having junior staff within, when you promote those staff level folks to EMs and Directors.
Politics & World Leaders
• Nelson Mandela (1918–2013) – Former President of South Africa, died at 95.
• George H. W. Bush (1924–2018) – 41st U.S. President, died at 94.
• Jimmy Carter (1924– ) – 39th U.S. President, currently 100 (as of 2024).
• Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (1900–2002) – Died at 101.
• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021) – Died at 99.
Arts & Entertainment
• Kirk Douglas (1916–2020) – Actor, died at 103.
• Olivia de Havilland (1916–2020) – Actress, died at 104.
• Betty White (1922–2021) – Actress/comedian, died at 99.
• Norman Lear (1922–2023) – Television writer/producer, died at 101.
• Tony Bennett (1926–2023) – Singer, died at 96.
Science & Literature
• Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) – Philosopher, died at 97.
• Rita Levi-Montalcini (1909–2012) – Nobel Prize–winning neurologist, died at 103.
• Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959) – Architect, lived to 91.
• Maya Angelou (1928–2014) – Poet and author, died at 86 (not 90s, but close).
• Isaac Asimov (1920–1992) – Science fiction author, died at 72 (not 90s).
Business & Other Notables
• David Rockefeller (1915–2017) – Banker/philanthropist, died at 101.
• John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937) – Oil magnate, died at 97.
• Iris Apfel (1921–2024) – Fashion icon, died at 102.
People thought the President had died just yesterday because of how rapidly his health has declined since taking office in January. Bernie Sanders, for example, has had multiple health emergencies over the past few years.
Using a few famous people as examples is hardly a reliable metric. My aunt is still alive at 103 and will likely make it to 104 if nothing changes. She has fewer health problems than other family members in their 60s if you discount the fact that she’s basically blind, can't hear well, is stuck in a bed 24/7, and has severe dementia that prevents her from recalling things seconds after being told, aside from some specific memories from her youth. Meanwhile, almost all of her children died under very poor health conditions in their 70s and 80s. Her oldest daughter looked like she was a corpse at 80.
Some people just get lucky with their genes, and it doesn’t always pass on to their children or grand-children.
PS: For reference, she had 11 children, almost all dead now while she's alive and can't recall their names or ever having children.
We're way past the "release issues" phase and into the "it's pure incompetence" phase.
reply