Yeah that should be completely fine then. Try dual boot, if you don’t have any issues you can always go 100% Linux at some point in the future and in the meantime the old Windows partition can provide some amount of reassurance if something does go wrong.
Is it a newer Nvidia GPU? If so I believe it pretty much works the same these days. It was mostly the older Nvidia GPUs that seemed to have a lot of problems.
Cachyos seems like the general recommendation. Haven’t used it myself, but I’ve used its kernel so I guess that counts for something.
They don’t even know how to use a gamepad nevermind a keyboard and mouse. If it doesn’t have a touchscreen and big shiny icons it’s too complicated for them. One step closer to Idiocracy.
Yes, but it’s also 20 years old now and has been discontinued for almost a decade. Likewise the Wii had a PowerPC CPU in it. None of the current consoles use PowerPC, They’re either x86 (Xbox One and PlayStation 5) or ARM (Switch 2).
Amiga is owned by another company.
Kind of. Apparently the rights are a mess and owned by 3 different companies, one of which is Commodore, although it seems like the current version of AmigaOS is owned by a different company.
The most recent version of AmigaOS is 4.1 which was released in 2014, and requires a PowerPC CPU. It’s kind of hard to argue that’s a modern OS, although apparently a 4.2 release is in the works. The dependency on PowerPC is kind of a problem at this point as their CPUs have stagnated and it’s hard to find any modern ones that aren’t custom CPUs for game consoles (and even then mostly old game consoles).
Additionally there’s the problem of software availability. The new Commodore OS is just a tweaked Linux install so it gets all the Linux software essentially for free. AmigaOS on the other hand is legitimately its own OS and therefore only runs Amiga software.
Really I had two issues with the interview.
First about half of it is spent talking about AI garbage that’s irrelevant to pretty much everything. Their argument is essentially “the current off the shelf AI setups are built with ARM chips as their general purpose compute tying together the specialized accelerators doing the actual work” which might be true but doesn’t explain why that should continue to be the case. Sort of a correlation does not equal causation type thing.
Secondly, for like 99% of the companies out there doing cloud deployments this is all utterly irrelevant. Most businesses aren’t hyper focused on shaving clock cycles to the point where they’re obsessing about microarchitecture decisions impacting performance. The reality is for 99% of services I/O is going to be your bottleneck and no amount of twiddling with the CPU architecture is going to improve that in a meaningful fashion, and for the overwhelming majority of customers it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Sure your Amazons and Googles and maybe the fintech sector might care, but for your Walmarts and Bass Pro Shops it’s utterly irrelevant except maybe to shave some cost off a slightly cheaper AWS deployment.
As for the consumer market this is even more irrelevant. If you’re not in the market for an EPYC server currently none of this matters to you, which is a shame because the success of Apple with their ARM CPUs provides an opportunity to have a potentially interesting discussion about the relative technical merits of X86 vs. ARM and maybe even RISC-V. Technical merits this interview doesn’t really touch on either, it’s almost entirely a market focused piece with very little in terms of concrete “ARM beats x86 in this way” outside of a vague hand wavy “it has a more consistent micro architecture”.
Seems like a lot of the early LTT crew were chaffing a bit under the LTT contract for a variety of reasons and opted to leave and start their own channels. I hope most of them succeed because honestly I always liked the other hosts on LTT far more than Linus who usually came off as more comic relief than actual tech news. As the old technical crew left I’ve found myself watching Linus Drop Tips very rarely.
Fully expecting chip makers to just manufacture a bunch of cheap garbage here that eventually ends up in a landfill in order to avoid the tariffs on their expensive chips. With a 100% tariff and prices per-chip in the $300+ range if they can make a chip for less than $300 even if they immediately chuck it in the garbage they’re saving money. Imagine a whole tray of cheap 500nm chips that are full of defects because they were made with wafers that failed QA. They manufacture them, document that they exist, dump them in a bin in a warehouse, then just throw the bin away in a year as unsold inventory and write it off as a business loss.
Reported view counts are also important for sponsorships as sponsored video payouts are often tied to hitting specific view counts, and even getting sponsorships and their rates are also typically conditional on view counts. So yes, even though it doesn’t directly impact ad revenue it still directly impacts total channel revenue for anyone that accepts sponsorships.
All that said, Google caused this entire mess by bundling their view counting in with their telemetry. If they just reported the raw download stats for the streams instead of trying to determine every last detail of who is watching the video (for all that juicy advertising data) this problem wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Basically Youtube instead of counting views via actual requests for the videos instead uses a separate call that essentially says “hey, someone watched this video”. All the ad blockers rather than use a hard coded list of URLs to block which would quickly go stale instead use one of a couple different 3rd party lists the most popular of which is EasyList. EasyList decided to block the URL that youtube uses to register views on the principal that it was a privacy violation because it not only registers “hey someone watched this” but also captures exactly who watched it which allows Google to track your viewing habits.
Literally the only reason old school gamers play on CRTs is because old games were designed for the blurry low resolution displays they provided and so look kind of bad on modern crisp displays. You could just smear vasoline on a modern LCD and get roughly the same effect, but using a CRT is less messy.
It’s also utter garbage. We abandoned CRTs because they sucked. They’re heavy, waste tons of space, guzzle power, and have terrible resolution. Even the best CRT ever made is absolutely destroyed by the worst of modern LCDs. The only advantage you could possibly come up with is that in an emergency you could beat someone to death with a CRT. Well, that and the resolution was so garbage they had a natural form of antialiasing, but that’s a really optimistic way of saying they were blurry as shit.
This is such a strange concept. Like fundamentally a subscription is just a mechanism to allow a viewer to easily keep track of new content on a channel. By viewing the channels contents you’re engaging in 100% of the interaction you should be expected to have with a subscribed channel. If Google really wanted to address the problem of old subscriptions people are ignoring they should just prompt people to unsubscribe to channels that they haven’t watched any videos from in a long time. Instead they’re fucking with view counts because that saves them money. The whole thing is fishy, but Google has always treated being inscrutable and capricious as if those were virtues.
Same, but it depends on the goal. If the goal is to have an excuse not to pay creators while still cashing paychecks from advertisers it seems like a pretty smart move. A dick move certainly, but seems to be working exactly as intended.
The problem is that there aren’t any really viable alternatives. YouTube has three major advantages and all three are necessary. First and most critically it has a viable business model (that is it has a way to earn money to pay creators). It’s a shitty business model, but it is viable which already puts it ahead of most services that are coasting on VC funds and hoping they’ll trip over a business model before they go bankrupt. Second it has the infrastructure and capital to actually serve content. Running a video streaming service is the single largest bandwidth consumer you could possibly come up with and that means considerable network infrastructure costs, to say nothing of the storage demands. Third it has network effect going for it. Nobody is going to watch videos on your platform if there’s only a couple dozen of them total. The sheer size and scope of YouTube means no matter what you’re looking for you can find something to watch. It’s a one stop shop for AV content.
Every single competitor to YouTube has failed on one of those points, usually the first one, rarely the second. The last service I saw come close to hitting all three was Vimeo, but it flamed out not even a decade after it launched. Twitch.tv is struggling to make their accounting work and isn’t even a direct competitor because they’re pushing hard for live streams as opposed to pre-recorded videos. Alternatives like PeerTube have no business model and will never attract creators or a mainstream audience. Paid hosting platforms like Floatplane are replacements for traditional video streaming services like Amazon Video or Netflix not really platforms where just anybody can set up a channel and start posting videos.
To paraphrase a famous saying, YouTube is the worst public video streaming service except for every other one. Until someone comes along and figures out how to make enough money to reliably pay creators and has enough capital to actually serve that content reliably and in high quality YouTube isn’t going anywhere.
It seems like YouTube is doing something where they don’t consider views to be actual “views” anymore. I saw one creator reporting that you only get credit as a view if you also leave a comment on the video because I guess Google thinks this will somehow hamper bots? Sounds like a bunch of bullshit no matter how you look at it. Personally I think Google is just trying to avoid paying creators so they’re only crediting them for a fraction of the views they get, but you just know they’re charging those advertisers for every single view whether they’re paying the creators or not.
He’s a CEO that’s practically the job description under late stage capitalism. That and being an amoral piece of shit that would happily grind up children if there were no consequences and it would earn them 1% more profit.
When I bought my 9070 XT I specifically opted for one of the models without a 12VHPWR connector. It’s a shame any of the AMD partner cards even opted to go with one. It’s basically a crap shoot on if any given card is going to end up catching on fire because of these things and frankly I’m amazed the potential liability alone hasn’t killed the connector.
It’s very popular to the point where multiple other distros are starting to offer its patched kernel on their distro. It’s very focused on gaming performance, particularly around Steam and Proton.