I wonder if there’s a way to replace the “these programs are preventing your computer from shutting down” with this image. The legit one, preferably lol
I know you can change the images in Windows 95 so you could replace the proper one with this. I suspect the messages in Windows 10/11 are a bit more sophisticated though!
28 and I remember the ancient text. I remember having to unlearn this shit later that it’s totally okay to hard shutdown a PC and you won’t brick it by doing that.
What kind of a PC do you have where you can just do a hard shutdown?
Doing that on any regular system can totally screw up stuff. Unless you are running some sort of funky read only system, or one of those fake write systems, a hard shutdown is a bad idea.
Also with modern hardware it’s less of an issue, but with anything with moving parts, shutting it down properly can make sure those parts aren’t moving any more and secured for transportation for example. I remember back in the DOS era, we used to park our heads before shutting down the PC.
I’ve been slamming the power button for decades and it’s never been an issue. Anything even remotely modern will have storage drivers that mitigate the risks.
Well what do you mean by slamming the power button? Because I understand a hard shutdown to be turning off the power or holding the power button till the power turns off.
Just pressing the on/off button is the same as selecting shutdown from the menu, that’s properly shutting down the pc and not a hard shutdown.
Shutting the power off can fuck up a system pretty bad. Nothing much a driver can do about that, everything in flight is lost.
Back in the day (pre ATX) the power button actually turned the power off. That’s where the screen from the post comes from. When you used to shut down Windows, it couldn’t turn the power off itself, so it showed this screen so you could turn the power off yourself.
Man on any modern PC you can yank the power cord out of the wall and you are not likely to do any permanent damage. Not that you should do it, but it likely won’t hurt.
Well no, not permanent damage. I don’t think there were ever any PCs where dropping the power could permanently damage your PC. What can happen is you screw up your data, either just your personal files or something in the OS. This can easily cause your computer to simply not boot. Depending on the issue, this can be fixed easily, or can require an entire restore/reinstall. Now modern Windows is pretty good with detecting and repairing that shit, but still, it’s not something you’d ever want to have happen.
But pushing the button isn’t a hard shutdown, that’s just how you tell the computer to go do it’s shutdown thing. That’s not a hard shutdown at all, that’s a regular vanilla shutdown.
With old shit, when hard drives had moving parts and didn’t auto park their heads, not parking before turning it off and then moving the system could absolutely crash the head destroying the disk. Even that isn’t like permanent damage to the PC, because you could simply replace the drive, but still. But we’re talking 80s and early 90s, after that the default state was parked and the drive had to move it to an unparked state.
Yeah exactly, on older systems you could fuck up the HDD by shutting down hard. That’s why they used to include the shutdown screen. But modern systems and particularly modern applications handle persistence in a way that makes it much harder to leave the storage in an invalid state. You might lose something you tried to save, but you’re unlikely to brick your HDD or your OS installation.
There was no “permanent” damage to older computers either. That was literally how you turned them off before ATX power supplies (hence this message).
Modern PCs do so many things in the background that at any given moment yanking the power could cause all sorts of problems. Usually minor things that you’d never notice immediately, but that doesn’t mean they’re not happening. Usually file transactions are committed to disk before they say they’re finished, but not always because of cache.
Obviously nothing like this will break the hardware, it’s the software that would get corrupted.
As someone who works with industrial PCs that rely on UPSs, whose batteries often go bad, to properly shut down, let me tell you, windows DOESN’T appreciate that sort of treatment, after a while data corruption adds up and the system is fucked.
Old PCs couldn’t switch themselves off, so they stopped the operating system and asked the user to cut the power. This image is in the style of the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows9xshutdown.jpg.
We won’t stop either, the greed disease is like a drug. The few who have wealth and demand more without end, and the many who prefer to tell themselves it’ll be them one day with hard work so why destroy their future lavish lifestyle by breaking the wheel? Addicted to the gluttonous life, or addicted to the gluttonous delusion.
Because these fires are the result of climate change.
Climate change itself is driven by human emissions, which the VAST majority of are driven by the pursuit of profit by corporations, which is entirely a capitalist concept. Corporations could invest money into eliminating emissions, but that would reduce profit, so corporations don’t do it unless they can leverage it as a selling point to increase revenue.
And there are a plethora of ways to generate electricity cleanly. Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro. You know who has lobbied against these heavily? The oil and gas and coal industries, because it would hurt their profits if we used clean energy. Coal and natural gas account for 98% of the emissions from electricity generation in the US.
You know another major contributor to emissions? Transportation. Having efficient mass public transportation would eliminate a huge amount of emissions, and we would have more walkable cities with a healthier population. You know who has lobbied against that for decades? The auto industry because it would hurt profits if people didn’t need to buy a car to get anywhere.
Chevron, BP, Exxon, and Shell make up 10% of carbon emissions just between those four companies. All lobby heavily against green energy and public transportation because it would hurt profits.
And they have known about oil and gas being major contributors to climate change and the effects of climate change for nearly 100 years. And have lobbied against things that could have eliminated our need for oil and gas by now because it would hurt profits.
How do you not get this. They have known about climate change for decades and actively work to keep harming the climate because of profit.
I swear we need to retire the term ‘Capitalism’ entirely because it seems like it’s impossible to discuss its flaws without someone just assuming it’s a statement in favour of resurrecting Stalin. This has nothing to do with communists.
Electricity can be produced in many different ways - it’s just that some are more profitable than others.
Capitalism also creates an entire web of incentive structures that make it hard to develop more sustainable alternatives - e.g car industry creating ‘lock-in’, as described in this paper. I’m sure a similar paper could be written about some Soviet bloc state 60 years ago, but that’s irrelevant. This is a problem of Capitalism and the Soviet bloc doesn’t exist anymore. Just cause ‘Stalin bad’ doesn’t mean ‘Capitalism can do no harm ever’.
Ah the innovation argument, so original. “Capitalism creates innovation”. Everyone says it all the time so it must be true right? Well it isn’t. Data doesn’t support this argument.
Pretty much every major innovation of the past century has come from publicly funded and/or not-for-profit research and development. Capitalists only step in once the difficult part is done and the ‘innovation’ can be repackaged into something profitable in the short term.
Capitalism definitely creates barriers to certain types of innovation. Mainly innovation that isn’t profitable - see ‘planned obsolesence’. It also creates barriers to profitable innovation sometimes; just look up ‘patent trolls’.
But I was never even talking about innovation. You just jumped to it because that is the classic buzzword talking point that is constantly repeated everywhere. ‘Develop better alternatives’ doesn’t have to be ‘innovation’. We have the technology already, we’ve had it for decades. Trains and cycle lanes = better alternatives to cars. Nuclear energy = better alternative to fossil fuels.
Market capture exists everywhere, in every economic system.
Sure, this might be the case for every existing economic system. I believe we need to develop something new. Just like modern Capitalism was inconceivable to someone living in the Feudal era, a new system might be inconceivable for us right now. But it is imperative we try.
Lmaooo “Greenablers”. What a joke. That’s literally a corporate PR puff piece. How is corporate greenwashing PR supposed to convince me that Capitalism drives innovation (or is good for the climate?) when countless studies of data prove it wrong? The only piece of data he cites is about the billions being spent on the ‘energy transition’. I checked out his source. A good chunk of that is just government investment. Another big chunk of that is electric cars - a really stupid thing to invest in as they’ll compete with renewable energy for rare earth minerals etc. Not to mention all the emissions they’ll cause in production, and the fact that they’ll still need half the world to be paved over in asphalt for roads and parking. Better than petrol or diesel sure, but hardly efficient.
Dense cities yes. End single-family zoning yes (doesn’t really exist where I live, the US is an insane place).
Energy deregulation no. I’m sure it will be great for opening new coal plants, not a chance in hell will it lead to more nuclear power or anything useful.
Yes, I see that. It’s an investment blog written by the account manager of a major finance company. I’m sure he has no vested interests whatsoever and is just trying to be as factually accurate as possible.
If you don’t want to read other people’s thoughts on things, don’t post yours on an internet forum lol.
Am happy to end the conversation on a friendly note though. If we were having this chat in person, i’d say ‘fuck it, let’s grab a beer and chill’. See ya.
Because these fires are the result of climate change.
Climate change itself is driven by human emissions, which the VAST majority of are driven by the pursuit of profit by corporations, which is entirely a capitalist concept. Corporations could invest money into eliminating emissions, but that would reduce profit, so corporations don’t do it unless they can leverage it as a selling point to increase revenue.
Because these fires are the result of climate change.
Climate change itself is driven by human emissions, which the VAST majority of are driven by the pursuit of profit by corporations, which is entirely a capitalist concept. Corporations could invest money into eliminating emissions, but that would reduce profit, so corporations don’t do it unless they can leverage it as a selling point to increase revenue.
Because these fires are the result of climate change.
Climate change itself is driven by human emissions, which the VAST majority of are driven by the pursuit of profit by corporations, which is entirely a capitalist concept. Corporations could invest money into eliminating emissions, but that would reduce profit, so corporations don’t do it unless they can leverage it as a selling point to increase revenue.
Capitalism demands and requires constant growth/metastasis instead of equilibrum. Consume, consume, consume, leads to unnecessary industry to make unnecessary things to increase profits for private individuals who never stop demanding more year over year. They use their propaganda machines, all major media which they own, to impress on everyone that not consuming needlessly makes you a loser and a bad person who is missing out and uncool, to further drive consumption for profit. Which has led us inexorably here.
You’re getting downvoted because it’s hard to believe there are any folk out there who are arguing in good faith that climate change is not at least partially (if not majorly) impacted by man-made causes. Capitalism being a driving factor would go hand in hand with climate change due to its proponents of “fuck you I got mine” and get rich at any cost. Capitalism is not for the people, it is for the capitalist, and the capitalists have shown that they are willing to burn the world down for short term gains. See the picture above.
If you can tell me you believe that fossil-fuel executives, having looked at this picture, think “oh man we really should’ve been listening to scientists for the past half century”, then I can show you a liar.
The goal of pure capitalism is to extract as much wealth for yourself and shareholders as you possibly can, as fast as you possibly can. The consequences of that are to be the most successful, you're pushed into making selfish decisions, ones that benefit you to the detriment of others. What we have in the world now is that taken to the extreme. Oil companies don't give a fuck if global warming is killing the planet, they're making money now. Industrial farms don't care if the rain forests die, they need that land to sell crops. Fishing operations don't care if entire species are going extinct, they need to catch more to make more. Companies don't worry about long term problems because they don't show up on a quarterly balance sheet, and they need to show growth for their investors or they'll go under.
That doesn’t really apply when the topic is “capitalists uniquely cause(d) climate change,” which is hilariously and obviously false because socialists also have a need for shelter and food.
That meme would work if I were saying something like “socialists also buy iphones lol” but my point is very clearly broader than that
You’ve ACTUALLY missed their point with the comic (who the fuck is calling a comic a meme?) tho. The fact is that capitalist society, especially in the US, has pushed even the socialist calling for change to live in the system, even though they’d rather not. The consumption of coal and oil are forced choices because someone isn’t just going to fuckin go without shelter or the ability to get to work. Your “SoCiaLisTs dO It tOo tHo!!#'$^=!” statement is crap because consumption of those products isn’t a choice anymore.
Even socialist states that fail on the climate front are because they’re competing on a global scale with capitalist cultures that just completely ignored that for a century.
For warmth and necessary industry and energy, not for crap the capitalists propagandize we need or need to be jealous of. You need a home and commons(transportation of some kind for people and utilities) and food, you dont need beanie babies, pop figues, and for everyone to have their own polluting car instead of having societal investment in quality public transit almost eveyone uses. Socialists also don’t encourage replacing everything every 6 months and making things to break/planned obsolescence to encourage needless consumption.
The capitalist lifestyle is unsustainable because it relies on infinite growth on a finite world we are burning to sustain.
Consumer mindset and thinking of people first and foremost is brought to you by capitalism.
We’re not consumers, we’re people. Social animals that enjoy living in groups. Owning shit isn’t something that makes us inherently happy. Just look at how other apes live. Just think about the things that make you happy.
Endless consumption is a blight. It’s killing our habitat. It’s killing us.
That app where you tilt your phone and it looks like you're drinking a beer. Maybe a soundboard app. Paper toss. The lightsaber app. Definitely set some custom ringtones and show those off, those always impress.
I wish this was the case, but the BBC news output has really dropped off a cliff the past few years. Going by the notifications I was getting a few months ago before I finally killed them off, they are pretty much reporting only on asinine shit about royals, people killing themselves and the occasional weird article that tries to put a shine on what our shitshow of a government is up to.
The BBC intended to educate and inform is unfortunately dead.
Cameron changed the rules of the BBC charter in 2015, and installed a load of Tory affiliated people. They first elevated Laura Kuenssberg to political editor, they then swapped the long time DG Tony hall for Tim Davie, someone affiliated with the Tories for decades. Then of course we had the Robert Sharp stuff with Boris. And we don’t need to go into the drop in editorial quality.
Pretty much if something does not fall under the category of “might need my full attention within 5 minutes”, notifications are going to be off. So basically I have notifications on for all of my messaging channels (with most chats on mute), bank, security apps.
If theres any news worthy of a notification I expect the warning sirens to be on full blast and emergency broadcasts on every channel.
How about you galaxy brain “just switch to linux” people actually give some helpful advice? Clearly there’s a registry edit that can be made for Windows users that would take all of 5 seconds to complete, rather than an entire week formatting, installing, reconfiguring an entirely new OS that also requires a degree of command line knowledge.
People who spend half their free time troubleshooting a simple driver install on their OS need to feel like it’s worth it, hence they justify it by their sense of superiority. Sunk cost.
“Driver install” is mainly a windows thing. Linux ships with drivers that just work out of the box for nearly everything, with the only notable exception being Nvidia‘s proprietary drivers. However, every distro streamlines the installation process for that since it’s so common (And Nvidia is slowly moving towards open source anyways)
The first time you connect a printer to your linux machine and you find that it just fucking works is when you will see the light.
And most games work, and most programs work, and for the rare ones that don’t you can use a Windows VM as long as you have just enough attention span to sit through a youtube tutorial
Proton for gaming on Linux has come a long way. You still cannot get to 100% parity with all games and programs, and if you absolutely need something that isn’t supported on Linux, you are out of luck, but chances are that most people would actually be able to use everything they need. I understand there’s also the learning curve and not everyone has time or inclination, but for those that do, in 2023 it’s absolutely worth a try.
I find it a bit ironic that the thing that made it easier to ditch windows completely was o365 web apps, they’re actually decent if you have to use them. Thanks microsoft.
I think the just use linux voices are getting louder because every day more things just work out of the box, it may not quite be there for everyone yet but it’s getting better every day.
I use Windows for gaming but if we need an in-depth technical solution every time Microsoft comes up with some new annoying BS, maybe Linux users have a point to suggest something else. It’s not like the Registry is exactly intuitive to the average user.
yeah, it’s frustrating when they’re smug about it but I’d argue that suggesting an alternative where this issue doesn’t happen is helpful advice even if you don’t agree with it. I do agree that ‘just switch to linux’ is a gross oversimplification as there will be some growing pains and there are a few hurdles that may at present be unsurmountable. I also find it amusing that you present digging up registry hacks and fighting for control over your system for the rest of time to be easier than a modern linux installer that takes about 5 minutes to click through the gui with no command line knowledge needed. I guess the point is that you should use whatever you’re comfortable with, but if you haven’t tried linux in a while you might find it to be less of a fight than windows is becoming.
This… is actually true. I’ll concede that even as recently as 4, 5 years ago it might have not been entirely true, but now it is - Linux has become so accessible (look at Mint, Pop_OS) while Windows has (somehow) become even more hostile to its user base to the point that an average user would actually have an easier time switching than staying in the long term. I didn’t think I’d be able to write this with a straight face, but I honestly think this is now true.
Microsoft will never stop developing new ways to be anticompetitive leeches on society. You learn how to use one debloating tool, they’ll take the developer of that debloating tool to court and have it pulled from circulation. You learn what registry key to edit, they’ll change it. You get used to a menu, they’ll remove it.
You have a choice: 1, You can continue that arms race with a monstrous evil megacorp, which you will continue to lose, or 2, you can switch to a platform that doesn’t treat you this way in the first place.
Linux Mint among many others has a feature complete GUI which will provide anything the average user needs, including a graphical app “store” for installing software. The desktop paradigm is quite similar to Windows, it will be mostly familiar. The CLI is frankly easier to deal with than Windows’ endless and redundant series of settings menus and applications. When someone asks for help on a text-based forum like StackOverflow or Reddit or Lemmy, it’s easier to tell them “Open a terminal and copy-paste lshw -f” than it is to tell them “Open the Start menu and click Programs > Administration >Regedit then look for a thing that says win11embraceextendextinguish and toggle that from 1 to 0, and do this after every update because it automatically changes it back.”
Linux does not require a week to install. Windows does. My father bought a new Dell about the time I built my little Ryzen box I’m typing this on. It took him over a week to wipe the factory Win 10 Dell Bloatware Edition image for vanilla Win 10, fuck around with drivers, then manually go to individual software websites, download installers, run them, haul out CDs and DVDs and install software (including Office 2010, the damned old chad) one at a time, then restore a backup of his files…He was actively engaged with this task for over a week. I had it done in about three hours, most of which I actually spent trimming my hedges while waiting for files to download or transfer from an external HDD. It was a 100% GUI process; I didn’t open a terminal throughout.
Sure, Linux is different than Windows and this will take some learning. Just like Windows does every time they come out with a new version and you have to learn where they arbitrarily rearranged basic functions to this time. When I switched to Linux a decade ago, it was a similar process in going from Win 98 to Win XP, or XP to 7. Except after awhile the basic reorientation finished, and I started learning new things.
They have a regular backup cylinder that has all the vulnerabilities of a regular lock.
On top of that they have a bunch of electronics that can be vulnerable.
I can’t see how it would be possible for them to be more secure unless you’re someone who leaves their keys around a lot and a smart lock would let you not have a key on you.
They don’t have to have a backup cylinder. The most common kind (Yale doorman) where I live doesn’t have one. If the Internal battery goes out you can plug in a 9V battery from the outside to power it.
Slovakia. I mean, it’s not all of them. Most of it can even run Windows 7. Recently they put Windows 10 on some of them, but good luck even just trying to launch a browser.
In June they already got rid of the last 32-bit machines.
Schools often have very old computers but don’t let that discourage anyone. We had old Apple IIe’s in 1998 in my high school “computer literacy” class. I became a programmer in part because I was bored and learned BASIC on the Apple II’s and my TI-85 calculator also supported BASIC.
Sometimes, a crappy computer teaches you more than a modern one. (Only if you want to be a programmer, though. Don’t learn Office 2000 because politicians in your country won’t budget for some cheap, modern laptops.)
The TI83 Plus was my gateway drug. Learning BASIC and the fundamentals behind connecting it to my computer. Emulating software to test code on different models. It was fascinating and engaging. The fun and learning involved with doing anything and everything you can with the technology that’s available to you is something that I think is lost for a depressing majority of youth now.
I had to upgrade 4 years ago when I bought new hardware and went to 10 and now 11. I still miss 7, it was insanely more performant and feature complete. From a UI point of view, anyway.
There actually are updates to it as for the last three years Microsoft has continued to patch it under the commercial "Extended Security Update" program - that only ended in January 2023.
You just couldn't get them as a home user without doing a lot of tweaking on your own.
You know how when you press the Windows key and are able to type into the searchbar? Prior to 10, this bar did an instant local-only search of your desktop applications and (if you enabled it) select cached documents. Imagine building up the muscle memory of using this to launch applications for a decade or two to the point where you don’t even look at the screen anymore when launching apps. Now imagine that Windows 10 comes along and introduces a mandatory internet search that has to complete before it lets you see the local results that you were actually looking for.
Now imagine not being able to forget how snappy it used to be every single time you launch an application. Imagine the annoyance of being punished for a typo by having Edge open up a Bing search instead of the application you were trying to launch. Imagine not noticing the error and waiting 5 seconds for Bing to boot up, only to be confusedly greeted by a search you didn’t ask for in a browser you wish you could uninstall. Imagine installing third-party applications to try and restore the old search experience only for it to get regularly broken by OS updates you cannot opt out of and are only sometimes notified of in advance (another “feature” that Windows 10 brought).
IMO Windows 7 was the last “pure” Windows before the power balance at Microsoft tipped in favor of the cloud & sales people.
You can disable searching as a fall-through, but you cannot disable web results appearing inside of the menu itself, which is what slows it down. At least, that was the case for the first 4 years or so before I stopped using Windows 10 and switched to Linux.
you can, it’s just harder to do. I suggest find a debloater tool, and use it. Also remove cortana thing to make it even faster. There are some tools that let’s you remove all WinRT apps
you can fully disable all online/web search features in search using a group policy on Pro versions of windows. afaik there are even one click tools that can do that for you (pretty sure even good ol’ OOSU10 can do it)
Woah man, why wouldn’t you want your computers key search features to just go straight to bing result? Are you using some kind of crazy computer that has things on physical memory? Fuck that put it all on the cloud man. It’s the future.
But since smart locks generally also have a traditional mechanical mechanism for backup, aren’t they inherently always less secure than a traditional lock since you can find the weakest link in either of the two mechanisms?
Yup. The backup for battery failure on this model is that the bottom of the plate can accept power from the pins of a 9V battery, held there just long enough to punch in the code.
Some smart locks are vulnerable to being manipulated with a magnet, if they’re poorly designed, since someone can just manipulate the motor from outside.
I’ve seen it for keypads that have to send a signal to an actuator located elsewhere, but I think the typical in-door deadbolt (where the keypad is mere millimeters from the motor itself) wouldn’t have the form factor leaving the connection as exposed to a magnet inducing a current that would actually actuate the motor.
Most of LPL’s videos on smart locks just defeat the mechanical backup cylinder, anyway. I’d love to see him take on the specific Yale x Nest model I have, though.
Based on the context, I think they would suggest going with the old school lock with a deadbolt. The more complex a device is, the more likely it is to have multiple vectors of attack.
Honestly, the lock is one of the last things to worry about. If you have an outward opening door get security pins for your hinges.
Check out one of m.youtube.com/ talk on door security and worry less about the lock and more about the door fixture. His hour long conference talks to through how a door is insecure how it can be exploited and what you can do to prevent it from happening.
Absolutely right! By far the majority of burglaries are with forced / destructive entry. Virtually all. That makes me think: if there is a “lockpicking lawyer” out there, what else lockpicking is there…?
Typically, external residential doors open inwards so that they can’t be blocked by someone on the outside. Of course this doesn’t apply if we’re talking about an internal or non-residential door.
It is region specific as in my place 2 out of 3 of my external doors open outwards. my place before that was about 50:50 for outwards or inwards opening doors.
I’m not sure. Honestly, it was mostly observation, and not straight fact. Perhaps it just more common on more recent construction. I don’t think I’ve ever been aware of an apartment or house door opening outward, except for screen doors on the outside of regular doors.
Trying to think through all doors of all places I have lived personally and I can not remember a single inward opening door in a house, cottage or apartment. I could very well be wrong but nothing comes to mind.
I have to disagree - this is more like the gate that blocks the sidewalk that you can get around by walking on the grass. The mechanical locks that these come with are significantly weaker, more common and better understood by thieves, that they wouldn’t bother even trying to figure out how to hack the smart lock.
That doesn’t invalidate their point. The electronic lock is just an additional potential point of failure with no added security. In addition to people who can pick or break the key lock, now there is an additional type of person who can break in: the kind that knows how to bypass electronic locks.
Same concept but why pick a lock when you can break a window or sliding glass door?
In other words… The attack surface is indeed larger for smart lock than dumb lock – more ways to attack – but in practice it matters little because existing home attack surface is easily breached.
PS the counter argument is smart locks come with added security controls: monitoring, logging, and the ability to auto lock in case someone forgets to lock it.
feddit.uk
Top