I think modern day Americans do not understand how bad war is because they’ve been engaged in it for nearly 30 years continuously without directly feeling the consequences.
Loads, the various attempts to overthrow the Weimar Republic for one, but many smaller, like the Impresa di Fiume.
Maybe not “for fun” but largely for justifications that pale in comparison to the suffering they unleashed.
Americans ready to go to war because eggs and gas are too expensive, or their trans teen’s top surgery was delayed, might be making similar mistakes. But Americans are good at making mistakes, perhaps supernaturally gifted.
The presentation notes that this hack currently only works with the first revision of silicon. Later variants have more protections, like some anti-glitching tech that wasn’t quite debugged for the early units being enabled for later runs, and further changes with the security / reset subsystems being split into two separate cores with revised consoles like the the One X. So these would be more of a challenge, even if there’s now an angle of attack to investigate.
The new Xbox is going to be a specialized PC running Windows with full access to third party game stores (Steam, Epic, etc). It won't need to be "hacked" because anyone will already be able to run any software they want on it.
A conversation for another day and I can't wait to have it, but something about this seems seriously doomed, because Steam already owns this lane, owns it well, and these days I think Linux is objectively the better desktop for most personal, PC-style use cases.
Windows stopped feeling like it meant PC a long time ago, and there's a major risk of the whole Xbox identity disappearing into the PC computing. Probably a conversation for another day but when everything is an Xbox, nothing is an Xbox, and when an Xbox is a PC it might as well be fading away Marty McFly style from our plane of existence.
I suppose what would really impress me is a Roku-style omnivore approach that gives a first class console-style experience and interface to Epic, Steam, Itch.io, GOG and of course Xbox.
You can run steam in big picture mode, and there are ways to add links to games from other game stores to steam such as https://github.com/PhilipK/BoilR
I'm aware, but that is indeed a great thing Steam offers. I think it's janky enough that if there's one way to out-steam Steam it might be making the broader PC gaming universe as plug-and-play into a console experience as possible.
Agreed. I have a steam deck and my wife uses big picture mode on a PC. And both are full of jankiness that you don't get with something like the Switch. I actually bought a steam deck expecting a Switch-like experience, and man was I disappointed. Even the streaming is lacking compared to what Sony offers on the PS5.
I do wish Valve would spend some of their infinite money on sanding off the rough edges of Steam.
Every PC I’ve ever tried to repurpose as a gaming console of any sort has had way more jank to it than I’d ever tolerate in a console, in the 25ish years I’ve been hooking computers up to TVs. Even the Bazzite box I’ve got is pretty bad by comparison. Hell, my actual Steam Deck has a lot more undesirable “enthusiast” behavior to it, let’s say, than I’d want out of a Nintendo product for example, even though it’s just about the best I’ve seen (the actual best is Retroarch with a skin mimicking the PS3’s menu, on a dedicated distro that could take it from cold boot to interactive in like three seconds flat even on an rpi2… but that won’t play actual modern PC games, just emulated consoles and such, so it’s not a fair comparison)
A common failure is the controllers. It’s hard to get a combo of OS stack, Bluetooth chip, and controller that Just Works like they do on consoles. Something always needs fiddling-with.
Video or audio out are also often a problem. Glitched audio or audio mode-switching, trouble switching video modes, screwed-up HDR, all kinds of stuff. Maybe fine on your monitor with headphones. Not fine on a TV or projector with 5.1+ audio receiver.
The UIs also bug out or crash more often, and usually aren’t that great at being a TV UI in the first place (even Steam IMO is worse than most consoles, as far as the Big Picture UI)
It also gives devs a stable target with a known market, which is nice for both the devs and the owners of the devices.
There's something to be said for having a standard, known SKU, both as something for developers to target if enough people own it, and for users to troubleshoot if they're e.g. having an issue running X game.
This kind of already exists with the "Deck Verified" label on Steam games.
That said, this sounds similar to Valve's upcoming Steam Machine and I'd much prefer that to be the standard console/PC hybrid to keep the Linux gaming momentum going, and perhaps one day I can ditch Windows for good.
Microsoft are in a tough spot (as far as Xbox hardware goes at least). PlayStation is selling much better on the console side, and Valve with the Steam install base has a good shot at making a non-Windows OS a serious platform for gaming.
Their hand was forced in the end. They have to consolidate PC and Xbox users to compete.
The idea of a machine with a locked down mode that can boot legacy Xbox titles and probably run competitive games with very little chance for cheating is interesting. But given Microsoft's track record with consumer devices I await to be convinced.
Valve should be worried if they do turn out something good, maybe this will mean the Steam machines are pushed more aggressively price wise. We can hope...
The main goal is money, an Xbox branded windows PC has potential to drive sales.
Microsoft can also hopefully target a smoother user experience than a typical windows PC provides. They want this to be a valid console competitor, but just slapping xbox brand on a windows PC isn't enough to do that.
Having a first party hardware device to target for PC games can also help devs with having a clear performance target for PCs, similar to how the Steam Deck is currently a minimum spec performance target for a lot of games.
If this is true then the reason that a console would be better than a custom PC is that it would also be designed to work better for that purpose. Turning on the device when the controller turns on and sending CEC commands are two huge things that aren't well supported outside of the console space. Also it would likely run a trimmed down version of Windows and would be set up to "just work" in a way that a system that can have any arbitrary set of hardware will never be able to do.
But the really nice thing about the concept of treating a PC and console as the same platform is that you don't have to worry about why people might prefer to go the route of buying the console. You can go with a regular gaming PC if that's what you prefer and your library will have all the same options.
It's a device with a fixed, known-good set of hardware for developers to target, which is all that any of the major consoles is. Your question applies just as much to the Steam Deck and upcoming Steam Machine.
I mean, at that point it is a pre-configured gaming PC. Hardware that's uniform across millions of units provides advantages, both for developers and users. IMO that's a big part of why the Steam Deck outsells more powerful competitors: there are so many of them that it gets targeted by developers, so more people buy them, in a virtuous cycle.
1. Console-like living room ready experience. It's surprisingly hard to get a PC made with off-the-shelf parts to integrate cleanly with a home theater system (think features like HDMI CEC, One Touch Play, etc). A custom SoC can solve this, something we are seeing Valve also do with the Steam Machine.
2. As the target hardware for basically all Xbox games, end-users who don't want to fret over system specs can easily just buy this and know they are getting the intended experience.
Whether that's enough to move units remains to be seen.
You can make analogies to the current, active antiwork movement.
I think it is pretty clear that all of society is poorer for the existence of these people. Perhaps China’s ability to keep a lid on it is one small part of their relative economic competitiveness.
"Poorer for the existence of these people," is quite a statement... hard to define too, at least in a value-less way.
I'm skeptical. I feel like there's an instinctive lunge from "these people irritate me" to "this is detrimental to society." In any case, you'd be writing off a fringe that has yielded quite a lot of stuff that I do like... like rock n roll. There is a definite connection there to the old "tune in drop out" mentality. The Beatles were some friends basically rejecting the rat race of their time and day, punk rock and hence most of modern pop, etc. Artists have always been receptive to subversive, diogenes-like ideas.
A lot of hackers from the early microcomputer days were rat race rejectors too.
As you close in on examples, it gets harder to generalize. Dude might be comparing himself to Diogenes, but I'd wager their motivations and ways are pretty different.
Everyone row in the same direction is a bad analogy, IMO, for large societies. We need contrarians.
Does going on tour and spending long hours hacking computer systems count as lying flat? I’d say they were just contrarians who worked differently, and we’ve got lots of those, working hard, in all parts of society. Entrepreneurs also reject the usual rat race but they do it so they can work harder and have even more responsibility.
I would estimate that they themselves would probably identify with some of these tangping people.
Spending long hours hacking computer systems, dressed in ripped jeans listening to Pink Floyd only looks like work in retrospect. ATT, much of it probably looked like an overindulgent hobby. Same for hanging out and playing guitar.
Diogenes himself left quite a legacy. Pretty direct line from him to stoicism, for example.
Most bummy subcultures don't become the Homebrew Computer Club, Beatles or whatnot. Some do.
Fair enough, you’ve been very convincing and I think you’ve identified a blind spot of mine. I’ll need to take some time to develop a better understanding of these sub cultural movements. Thank you.
When I spend too much time on TikTok (about an hour I think), it slips in a video of a relatable young person saying something like “hold on! You’ve been scrolling for way too long now!…” or alternatively, “I understand it’s easy to keep watching videos, and trust me I’ve been there before, but those videos will still be there tomorrow. So go get some extra sleep, turn your phone off, do yourself that favor and have a great night”.
The experience is probably the digital equivalent of hitting rock bottom, but it does shame me into stopping and is probably good for my mental health overall.
I can’t imagine a western company doing that for their customers. Can you imagine Facebook actively trying to get you to spend less time on their platform? The closest is Netflix “are you still there?” but they’re just trying to save bandwidth.
This is why there is support for this law in China. The law places the responsibility to not provide online gaming service to minors between 10pm and 8 am. The law doesn't criminalizes the actual consumer of the content. It doesn't ask Tencent to catch minors playing games on behalf of law enforcement. That would be a police state. 1) Capital always seeks more profits. And companies like Tencent are controlled by capital. So they will always use the most effective way to earn more money. That includes making content more addictive. 2) Hence, this law is seen as a leash on the companies themselves to not cause more online gaming addiction. 3) the nature of this law is more like alcohol and cigar ban on minors. Where the companies and sellers of alcohol and cigar is held liable for selling to minors. 4) In this specific use case, privacy is not necessary sacrificed. All the system needs to do is make sure the current user is the user who says they are. Basically, its a IPhone Face ID style system. You can store all the biometric data on device. It doesn't need to go to some server.
It's like putting a warning about gambling addiction on the wall of a casino. It doesn't accomplish anything, and it's just there to make the company look better and foist responsibility onto their victims.
Sometimes I wonder if a lot of depression and anxiety in western society (I say western because I don’t know enough about others) is due to life just being too comfortable.
Almost all direct threats (animals, attacks, wars, etc) have been eliminated and if you don’t live in a high crime area, you probably don’t even have a good reason to lock your doors. If you don’t have anything to survive and you don’t really have anything to worry about, more trivial things take on more importance.
I was attacked/chased by a mentally ill person trying to run me down earlier this year. It was the first time in my life getting a full dose of ‘fight or flight’. In the moment it was obviously unpleasant, but I found it was powerful in contextualizing things and bringing perspective. Having my complete sense of safety removed reminded me of how lucky I am to have that 99.999% of the time. It also made me recognize my own capabilities; I was very impressed with my ability to evade danger and survive a dangerous encounter I was completely unprepared for. I’ve never done sport or anything like that so I kind of thought I would be useless if ever attacked, but it turns out I can run and use obstacles in my environment pretty well.
Life is still a struggle between chaos/danger and structure/safety, but the modern world is so well-run that most people don’t really experience that; any one person can drop the ball/give up and it doesn’t matter, which I suspect makes it harder for people to find meaning.
Fortunately, we have many tools at our disposal to get a simulation of fight-or-flight in our daily lives without actually enduring physical assault. I really like horror films and some Googling suggests others find it helpful as well. I also find music is a good tool for regulating emotional state.
I encourage you to read more about depression and how to support depressed people. It'll give you a better insight into how depression operates than a single event you experienced.
> It also made me recognize my own capabilities; I was very impressed with my ability to evade danger and survive a dangerous encounter I was completely unprepared for. I’ve never done sport or anything like that so I kind of thought I would be useless if ever attacked, but it turns out I can run and use obstacles in my environment pretty well.
Unfortunately these kind of events don't compare well with bouts of depression. They really are not the same thing.
Sometimes depression and/or anxiety is like having a hundred of events like that a day and not time to get back up.
With that being said.
> Sometimes I wonder if a lot of depression and anxiety in western society (I say western because I don’t know enough about others) is due to life just being too comfortable.
This a confusion between immediate physical dangers (disease, aggression, security in your home) and the stress of our current way of life (competition for work and at work essentially, culture with a heavy accent on individuality, etc.).
Another approach could be: why is there so much depression and anxiety in spite of the comfort level of western society. (maybe western society isn't that comfortable ? or we should work on the definition of comfortable ?).
My thesis, perhaps not well stated: depression and anxiety are linked to a flight/fight, motivation system that isn’t well tuned to a world completely free of any actual risk.
Thesis handily answers your last questions and others.
> Sometimes depression and/or anxiety is like having a hundred of events like that a day and not time to get back up.
Yes, because in the absence of actual struggle in life, things like getting up start to look hard. Without seeing actual hardship, non-hardships look difficult.
This is conceptually related to the concept of hedonic adaptation. If you were to take someone who is actually struggling and put them in the shoes of a depressed, privileged westerner, they would be overjoyed. Someone who has never known struggle or threat may not realize how happy they should be. Gratitude journaling is another strategy that is very successful.
> Yes, because in the absence of actual struggle in life, things like getting up start to look hard. Without seeing actual hardship, non-hardships look difficult.
That's an overly broad statement ignoring a lot of what research has found about causes of depression.
> This is conceptually related to the concept of hedonic adaptation. If you were to take someone who is actually struggling and put them in the shoes of a depressed, privileged westerner, they would be overjoyed.
No, they wouldn't. They would suffer from depression and stop being able to feel joy. That's what depression does to your mind at some point. Put that person in the shoes of someone with cancer, that cancer is not going away.
> Someone who has never known struggle or threat may not realize how happy they should be.
This is another broad statement for which there is no support.
Depression will eat your self-esteem and energy, it doesn't care if have been hit by hardships before or not.
What's you angle ? Depressed people are spoiled brats ? Depression is not a real struggle ? Only bored people get depression ? Just say so and stop sugar-coating what you think.
You seem to think depression is only in the head and try to rationalize it.
If you ever meet someone who admits their depression to you, please keep your thesis to yourself.
edit:
> Yes, because in the absence of actual struggle in life, things like getting up start to look hard. Without seeing actual hardship, non-hardships look difficult.
Learned helplessness seems pretty closely related to depression and I’m glad you brought it up.
The depression in animals comes from learning that they can’t influence their torment. I just read the book “Grit” and that had good treatment of the matter. The flip side of the coin is that you can learn that you actually can influence your life.
Torment without ability to influence the outcome is obviously going to lead to depression.
I think in humans, there is learned helplessness in that people know that, e.g. going for a run, getting out of bed, taking a shower will make them feel better, but they have somehow learned to believe that it won’t. I suspect for many people, depression starts out mild but becomes worse over time as they learn to not even try to be happy. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/learned-helplessne... I’ve seen it with other interventions - e.g. “why even go on antidepressants, nothing will change”.
Of course there are other causes for depression - abuse, neglect, etc. I’m specifically more interested in the depression that comes from having a comfortable life that looks great on paper, yet still results in people saying it is a struggle to wake up and get out of bed every day.
> Of course there are other causes for depression - abuse, neglect, etc. I’m specifically more interested in the depression that comes from having a comfortable life that looks great on paper, yet still results in people saying it is a struggle to wake up and get out of bed every day.
This is in direct contradiction with how you started this thread:
> Sometimes I wonder if a lot of depression and anxiety in western society (I say western because I don’t know enough about others) is due to life just being too comfortable.
It is now my belief you are not arguing in good faith.
- “Sometimes I wonder” => this is an explanation/story I’ve thought about; it is one of many models of the world and I have doubts about how applicable it is
- “a lot of” => an amount that is more than negligible but likely less than most (in other words, less than half)
- “in western society” => proposed model/story applies only to a limited western context; implies that this is describing cultural and environmental phenomenon rather than personal failing
- “(I say western because I don’t know enough about others)” => acknowledgment of blind spots and limitations in knowledge generally
- “is due to life just being too comfortable” => core assertion of (theorized) mechanism.
I don’t think there’s any mystery why abuse and trauma create depression; I’m more interested in why people without those problems (like people I know with depression) end up depressed.
I’m not the only one asking these questions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330161/ Of course that study points to a more direct relationship with sedentary lifestyle and isolation, which isn’t an exact fit for the “comfortable western lifestyle” story/model.
> What's you angle ? Depressed people are spoiled brats ? Depression is not a real struggle ? Only bored people get depression ? Just say so and stop sugar-coating what you think.
I’m sensing a lot of defensiveness. I’m sorry if I’m triggering unpleasant feelings for you. I don’t believe any of those things and I don’t appreciate having words put in my mouth.
The people I’ve met with depression have a lot of that tendency to jump down people’s throats after perceiving insults that are of their own making.
Saying that society is structured in a way that prevents people from functioning well (I.e. is not tailored to the realities of the human limbic system) is the opposite of saying that it is in depressed people’s heads or that depressed people are spoiled brats.
> > Someone who has never known struggle or threat may not realize how happy they should be.
> This is another broad statement for which there is no support.
While “may” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, I don’t think you can say there is no support given I gave a concrete example from my own life in which I came to that realization. FWIW I also practice gratitude journaling, so I know it’s helpful from my own life. I’ve also overcome binge eating disorder (bad enough to result in morbid obesity), anxiety (social and otherwise), and small bouts of what might look like depression (given that I pulled myself out of it, I think you’d define it away as not actually depression, and I can live with that).
> That's an overly broad statement ignoring a lot of what research has found about causes of depression.
Fun fact, we still don’t actually know what causes depression, and we’re not very good at treating it. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to speculate that the environment might be a contributing factor. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/depressio...
> You seem to think depression is only in the head and try to rationalize it.
No, I don’t. But one of the better treatments for depression, CBT, involves talking about and rationalizing ones thoughts, ultimately with the goal of getting into more productive habits of thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
Can you please elaborate? I’m trying to avoid causing distress but I don’t see how what I’ve written is anything other than clear, neutral, and respectful (even more than usual for an Internet forum).
(PS: I don’t discuss mechanisms of depression with depressed people; reviews from friends who have recovered are generally positive, I think mainly because I am willing to put up with the emotional abuse and continue to be supportive)
> > > What's you angle ? Depressed people are spoiled brats ? Depression is not a real struggle ? Only bored people get depression ? Just say so and stop sugar-coating what you think.
> > I’m sensing a lot of defensiveness. I’m sorry if I’m triggering unpleasant feelings for you. I don’t believe any of those things and I don’t appreciate having words put in my mouth.
> The people I’ve met with depression have a lot of that tendency to jump down people’s throats after perceiving insults that are of their own making.
Maybe you bear some responsibilities then if you keep on getting the same kind of reaction when talking with depressed people. Why do you insist on that approach, knowing it hurts them ?
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am reformulating stupid statements like: > If you were to take someone who is actually struggling and put them in the shoes of a depressed, privileged westerner, they would be overjoyed. Someone who has never known struggle or threat may not realize how happy they should be.
You may not like it but you did implied depressed people didn't know actual struggles.
> > and small bouts of what might look like depression (given that I pulled myself out of it, I think you’d define it away as not actually depression, and I can live with that).
There is a pattern here where you think you are the one who knows how other are feelings (depressed, insulted with the absence of insults, having experienced sufferings or struggles).
And survivor bias, of course (see what I did here ?).
> > > Someone who has never known struggle or threat may not realize how happy they should be. > This is another broad statement for which there is no support.
> While “may” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, I don’t think you can say there is no support given I gave a concrete example from my own life in which I came to that realization.
Self-reported anecdata with your anti-western position and a situation that has nothing to do with depression ? No, you gave no support to your thesis.
Oddly enough you also chose to lead your reasoning on depression with that one-time event rather than your self reported bouts of depression.
> > > You seem to think depression is only in the head and try to rationalize it.
> No, I don’t. But one of the better treatments for depression, CBT, involves talking about and rationalizing ones thoughts, ultimately with the goal of getting into more productive habits of thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
You are confusing a solution to a problem with its cause. The fact CBT is effective in helping keeping depression effects at bay doesn't prove thought patterns are the sole root cause of depression.
PS:
> I’m sorry if I’m triggering unpleasant feelings for you.
Strangely enough this choice of words triggers more unpleasant feelings for me than anything else you said. How curious.
PPS:
Know what I think of what happens to depressed people who experienced actual struggles in non-western societies ? They die sooner.
It's generally acknowledged that IQ measured by well known IQ tests like the WAIS are fairly consistent over time. You may score a few points lower or higher, but it won't change much. Training can help a bit, but only so much. Health issues, mental problems, stress, tiredness, drugs or alcohol can all influence your score, mostly in a negative way. So I suppose that influences like these are filtered out of this research. They are interesting to research, to see what their influence is, but to study the consistency in test results over time, they should be left out.
> It's generally acknowledged that IQ measured by well known IQ tests like the WAIS are fairly consistent over time.
This is partially because they're designed to behave that way. There is not a direct causation between your score on a test and your quality of life.
Also, how many people are actually taking IQ tests multiple times in their life? Who even takes them once unless they're being studied for a mental health issue?
> Health issues, mental problems, stress, tiredness, drugs or alcohol can all influence your score, mostly in a negative way.
… and this is a counterpoint to the one above, because removing negative contributions is the same thing as improving your test score.
Plenty of people, particularly people employed by large institutional bodies like the the worlds mililitaries, many participating in long term studies, people being assessed for schools and colleges for learning difficulties, people joining a variety of institutions like mensa or applying to a range of jobs
I think only "participating in long term studies" counts here, the rest don't actually get results that can be compared over time. And if you're taking the rest because you have learning difficulties, why would the results apply to humanity in general?
This is high school level knowledge. Where does this meme that human population is growing out of control come from? I keep seeing it repeated here and it is puzzling.
We would still consume too much resources even with population decline.
Sure, lets say we fix climate change. I think the only viable way to actually do that is for everybody agree to live as people did a few hundred years ago.
People seems to believe that we can solve climate change with technology. I think that's a pipe dream.
I also think that it's a pipe dream thinking that the world will band together and "solve" the climate crisis together. I think Covid-19 has showed us that humanity does not band together in a crisis, each country and even each individual will use the crisis to make moves to benefit them.
And it doesn't matter what you do as a individual, most resources are consumed by large corporations anyway.
Huh? Communist China was (and still is) aiming to have LESS children. Before 2015 they didn't allow more than 1 (one!) child per family. Currently they are allowing 2 (two) children which is below sustainability threshold of 2.4
Current news suggest that they are upping the threshold to 3 children trying to stimulate population growth due to needing to increase their available work force in the future.
These measures are not as extreme as the last time they stimulated their population growth, which lead to the one child policy. We'll see if they feel that this stimulation is enough or if they will try to increase the incentive even more if they don't feel as if it is enough.
I just want them to include a Windows license in my Microsoft 365 subscription and let me install it on my M1 (or Intel) Mac. I don’t understand why the business folks at MS haven’t noticed that opportunity.
Separately, I’d like to see a return to the concept of “Trusted Computing”. In the Windows XP/Vista days, telemetry was opt-in (sometimes with a nudge). Office wouldn’t send my grammar telemetry to MS without letting me see it and remove items first. There was an option to just turn it all off.
I get why MS wants telemetry, but they would win a lot of good will by giving power users an easy way to opt out. I think relatively few would do it in practice and they’d lose some of the bad press.
Greater UI consistency would be nice as well but that isn’t exactly on brand for them, so not holding my breath.
I don’t think good will or good publicity matters, and MS knows it. If the telemetry, spam reinstalling, changing user settings, user document deleting, work interrupting crap they pull with Win10 hasn’t caused a significant number of users to abandon ship, I am not sure what will.
True, all good points. I just wish software companies were more motivated by craftsmanship and love for users.
I remember in college they would always emphasize user obsession at the recruiting events. Apparently I drank more of that koolaid than the people they ended up hiring.
If Microsoft really wanted to, they could find a way to squeeze the old panels into the new UI. They can run x86 binaries on ARM, and all sorts of other tricks, its not like they lack the engineering talent.
They also do loads of shims/special treatments for specific apps based on a compatibility database. Worst case scenario, they could rewrite the top ~100 most common ones and make “Legacy Control Panel” an optional feature that is off by default.
It has been 5+ years since Windows 10 came out, longer since 8, Microsoft really doesn’t need people making excuses for them.
They definitely do, see the 1900s.
I think modern day Americans do not understand how bad war is because they’ve been engaged in it for nearly 30 years continuously without directly feeling the consequences.
reply