I’ve done it a few times. The gaming experience was lacking. I’m not a fan of virtualization and containers everywhere either, or having to enter my admin password every day.
I don’t want to deal with terminal. I don’t want to deal with entering my password. I don’t want to deal with snap. I don’t want to think about what aspects of my nvidia card won’t be supported. Those QOL aspects matter to me a lot.
That’s why I’m waiting for specifically the console version of Steam OS, all usable via gamepad.
Try LTSC in case you haven't already. It's the essence of Windows, without most of this user-facing bullshit. They release it for environments where people expect their things to actually work, "like hospitals or kiosks". But, I can attest that it works for gaming as well.
Activation can work with Massgrave, or by you spinning up your own activation emulator, or by pointing your Windows to the myriad other activation emulators across the web. You download the image from Microsoft, install, a bunch of console commands, and you're good to go. Long support and no bullshit.
Oh interesting, never heard of it. I do a bunch of emulation and gaming that sometimes requires esoteric drivers, does video streaming and ofc the latest nvidia driver. Does that windows let users mess with that part of the stack?
LTSC is basically a trimmed-down version of Windows. Whatever is possible in Home, Pro, Enterprise etc, is possible in the LTSC as well. Most of the LTSC surprise comes from the lack of features. For example, I installed the "LTSC N" version back in the day, and that didn't even had codecs, so when I opened Reddit in Firefox, the videos didn't play. But even that was easily amended by just installing a specific update.
In case you want a community around it as well, Reddit was helpful for me.
Thanks! If you have any extra pointers I’ll definitely explore.
Turns out all the Xbox UI stuff require the latest windows insider. If there’s an LTSC version that covers that, it’d be absolutely perfect for my use case!
https://www.reddit.com/r/WindowsLTSC/ for sure, massgrave.dev for activation (or vlmcsd, which I use, but now I'm reading that it's EOL). Unfortunately I cannot help with the Xbox stuff, but I'm sure there is help on the internet somewhere, people like to tinker with this system. I wish you luck!
I kept waiting for the guy to share some lesson that was learned, and it never came. The self-satisfied writing was less interesting than his complete disinterest in two other humans and the entire event.
What a sad existence he leads. It's as if he's stuck in the 1990s, and proud of it.
And the date wasn't even "stolen" - though smooth guy probably did steal that girl after the exceedingly low bar set by this dude.
He “learned” long ago that if people don’t celebrate you for putting down someone else (or themselves), you can just remind yourself how big of an intellectual you are to give yourself that ego boost, and rationalize everything as you experiencing a more authentic life than others.
Perhaps the saddest part of this extremely sad post was when he was actually validated by the loser who praised him at the end, rather than taking the complete rejection by the entire room as an opportunity to self-reflect.
What joke? You presented this all as a completely factual thing that happened, and that you were the sole guardian of... non-cringe authenticity?... in the place, and that some loser thanked you for your service.
Now you're saying that the whole article was a lie?
Congrats, you're now even more disappointing of a person than originally presented.
Individuals aren't Microsoft's core customer which is why they don't care. It's the same reason Apple never went after the enterprise. Steve Jobs wanted people to choose the product, not have it chosen for them.
For Microsoft, they don't care. Businesses/IT Departments are the ones choosing and shoving it on everyone else. The users don't have to like it.
This is a very informative article about the history of manifolds and their significance. Don’t let the title fool you into this being just a definition.
It’s actually much more well written than the majority or articles we usually come across.
And they have a RSS feed, although it's a bit tricky to figure out, since the relevant header tag for that is set up incorrectly, pointing to a useless empty "comments" feed even from their main page. The actual feed for articles is https://www.quantamagazine.org/feed/
Is that really a good article? I thought it was average. It had some big flaws but was probably still informative for readers with no mathematical knowledge in the domain.
For instance, consider the only concrete example in the article: the space of all possible configurations of a double pendulum is a manifold. The author claims it's useful to see it in a manifold, but why? Precisely, why more as a manifold than as a square [O,2π[²?
I also expected more talk about atlases. In simple cases, it's easy to think of a surface as a deformation of a flat shape, so a natural idea is to think of having a map from the plan to the surface. But, even for a simple sphere, most surfaces can't map to a single flat part of the plan, and you need several maps. But how do you handle the parts where the maps overlap? What Riemmann did was defining properties on this relationship between manifold points and maps (which can be countless).
BTW, I know just enough about relativity to deny that "space-time [is] a four-dimensional manifold", at least a Riemmannian manifold. IIRC, the usual term is Minkowski-spacetime.
> Precisely, why more as a manifold than as a square
In a double pendulum, each arm can freely rotate (there is no stopping point). This means 0 degrees and 360 degrees are the same point, so the edges of the square are actually joined. If you join the left and right edges to each other, then join the top and bottom edges to each other, you end up with a torus.
Minkowski spacetime is the term in special relativity, i.e. the flat case, or zero curvature. In general relativity, spacetime is a pseudo Riemannian manifold, like the sibling comment says. Unlike Minkowski spacetime, it can be curved.
Spacetime is a four-dimensional manifold (at least theoretically - who knows what it is in reality). Technically it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold since the metric is not positive definite: it can be negative or zero for non-zero vectors. A Riemannian manifold proper has a positive definite metric, but in popularizations like this I wouldn't really expect them to get into these kinds of distinctions.
I'm always surprised more people don't know about Quanta. Seems like it's currently the best science journalism out there, and IMO a very strong candidate for the single best place on the internet that's not crowd-sourced. The mixture of original art and technical diagrams is outstanding. Podcast is pretty good too, but I do wish they'd expand it to have someone with a good voice reading all the articles.
Besides not treating readers like idiots, they take themselves seriously, hire smart people, tell good stories but aren't afraid to stay technical, and simply skip all the clickbait garbage. Right now from the Scientific American front page: "Type 1 Diabetes science is having a moment". Or from Nature: "'Biotech Barbie' says ..". Granted I cherry-picked these offensive headlines pandering to facebook/twitter from many other options that might be legitimately interesting reads, but on Quanta there's also no paywalls, no cookie pop-ups, no thinly-veiled political rage-baiting either
Quanta is amazing because it doesn't have to worry about money. It's a publication run by the Simons Foundation, funded with the proceeds of the wildly successful RenTec hedge fund. So they get pretty much full editorial control.
For other publications they are beholden to people who haven't figured out ad-block, and your bar needs to be pretty low to capture that revenue.
Quanta’s greatest strength is that it doesn’t pretend to be clever. Many tech publications write as if they’re showing off, and you just end up feeling tired after reading them.
> Many tech publications write as if they’re showing off, and you just end up feeling tired after reading them.
I like this honestly because this shows that I learned something intelligent. On the other hand, if I don't feel exhausted after reading, it is a strong sign that the article was below my intellectual capacity, i.e. I would have loved it if I could have learned more.
Often, if the concept is presented in a more complex way the reason is that the author wants to emphasize and explain how the concept relates in a non-trivial way to some other deep concept; thus you learn a lot more than when the author explains things in the most simple (and shallow) way.
Also speaks to a lack of understanding on the author's part; people who truly understand some subject are generally much more adept at explaining it in simpler terms – ie without adding complexity beyond the subject's essential complexity
It's because of their Simons Foundation support, but not only because of that. I mean, I invite anyone to name another billionaire pet project of comparable quality.
Good game and a hard question, especially if you make "comparable" more explicit. I'd add "noncommercial, open-access", and "modern" in the sense that it happened under the current norms with respect to legacy and the social contract.
I agree. I find their articles very enjoyable. And even though they stay technical, they don’t descend into becoming a technical journal. The content is still accessible to a non-expert like me.
Agreed. I'm not a mathematician - and to me a manifold is more familar in the context of engines. But I found both the text and the diagrams very useful.
Side note: this makes me wish the windows handhelds had a phone form factor and 5g
reply