Basically, PS5 sales recently reached 80 million. Xbox Series X/S is estimated about 30 million. They lost the generation where digital libraries were built and can't gain the market back.
There's been a lot of rumor lately that Xbox becomes a shell on top of Windows and just runs regular Windows games. The announcement of the Xbox ROG Ally using this same approach gives it a lot of weight.
It is crazy how they managed the bungle the Xbox One launch at just the right time to cause this cascade of issues over a decade later. It doesn't help that MS haven't had a huge AAA exclusive title in a very long time. Now that they have started cutting in hard on their game dev teams, they may end up more like the Microsoft Studios before Xbox was a thing.
Wayland is the mass adoption stage, I've been running it for years.
Since its a protocol it does depend on what compositor you use. KDE Plasma and GNOME are very mature, GNOME was a little funkier with fractional scaling last I tried.
Hallucinations are a nightmare. I asked Gemini to identify an actor, it insisted on the wrong actor. I told it it was incorrect, it said that I was incorrect, people wear makeup in Hollywood, and it analyzed a clip frame-by-frame just to be certain I was wrong and it was right.
I'm pretty sure it can't even do that, it was inventing tools just to try and argue against me. I eventually found the actor's name through a regular web search.
Because shipping the runtime with the software means you can get newer software on older distributions. It's also great for immutable/atomic systems where installing packages at the system level is an anti pattern.
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.
Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
Given the rulings of the current SCOTUS, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's trivial to go after left-leaning political speech and impossible to go after right-leaning speech.
They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated.
There's a 0% chance this move gets struct down by SCOTUS.
If the 'political speech' is not adult in nature, which is true 99.9% of the time, then it can't/won't be blocked under this rule.
Unless of course this political speech is happening on a porn site, or a subreddit that has been deemed 18+. Which I can't see a legitimate reason for.
It seems like videos of violence are also getting blocked, and I expect eventually stuff about LGBT relationships etc will fall under it. Lots of things are adult that aren't porn.
We all know why - because people view LGBT people in a uniquely sexual light. The elephant in the room is that, for a lot of people, when they see two men holding hands their minds are immediately thinking about anal sex.
Yes, that sounds harsh and crude, but it's true. I've noticed it for decades. It's weird, it's not right, but it's how people react.
That's why a children's book with Mommy and Daddy is so mundane, so boring, so... nothing, that we don't even blink an eye. But Daddy and Daddy is different. Because of the implication.
Of course, only adults make the implication because they're nasty perverts. And they then project that perversion onto the innocent.
I mean, it's so fucked it's almost comical. We put babies in "ladies man" onesies and nobody cares. Do we not see how fucking weird that is? But suddenly we so much as acknowledge the existence of homosexuals and it's so risque.
This is a shockingly ugly and ignorant comment. These are very basic and tiresome arguments that the LGBT community has refuted for centuries.
You are the problem. You are very very wrong and it hurts people. Please educate yourself and overcome these flaws in your worldview.
> Because they swing their p*nis in front of children during parades and whatnot.
I live in Seattle where public nudity is legal. We have nude public beaches. We have a solstice parade with nude cyclists. Nothing about the LGBT community makes them more or less likely to participate in these things that straight people also do because they are things people do.
Nudity is not sexual. Wearing a bathing suit is not sexual. Wearing clothes is not sexual. If you find these things sexual it is because you sexualized them in your own mind.
> Sounds like a good enough reason to me and it sounds pretty much "adult" to me, unless you think genitalia is not "adult", but then why do we have this porn restriction in the first place if some people could go outside and engage in this type of behavior, in front of anyone, including children?
Good enough reason for what? Infringing the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong?
> Maybe they should stop shoving it (their "business") down your throat?
It seems to me that the LGBT community has had a lot more forced down their throats in the form of marginalization and outright aggression. Where is the LGBT community forcing anything down your or anyone’s throat?
> I do not have a problem with homosexual people.
You clearly have a problem with homosexual people. The fact you conflate homosexuality with the LGBT community is even more of a red flag.
> I have a problem with them only if they invite me to their bedroom.
Inviting you to a bedroom is free speech. You can say no. Simply being lesbian or gay or bi or queer is not an invitation. Personal expression is not an invitation. If you interpret that as an invitation, especially a forced invitation, that is your own ignorance and insecurity showing.
> It is none of my business, and please do not try to make it my business by force.
That’s right. It’s none of your business. Where or when has the LGBT community forced anything on you? Demanding equal treatment is not forcing you to do anything other than mind your own damn business.
> You clearly have a problem with homosexual people. The fact you conflate homosexuality with the LGBT community is even more of a red flag.
The G in LGBT literally stands for gay, so no, it is not a red flag, and for your information, that was an example because it is related (or relevant). And please, do not tell me who I have or don't have a problem with. Who are you to know better than I? I have a couple of homosexual friends and I could not care less about their sexual orientation. I do not care about yours either. Why would I care about anyone's sexual orientation? It is their own business, not mine, and I do not want you or anyone else to make it my business. This is the most important part.
It is wild that there are people like you who think nudity is not sexual. There was some guy who made into the HN main page and it turned out that he was in prison for "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION/EXPOSE ORGANS". Exposing organs, nudity, yeah. So, if there are adults being naked around children, why restrict porn online? Okay, I will give you that in Seattle they may not do that, I have no idea.
In any case, swinging your d*ck in front of children is disgusting and apparently illegal in many places. There are many videos of it online of this happening.
For the record, I treat people equally. If someone, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion, or whatever starts swinging their d*ck in front of children, I will have a problem with that.
I am not going to reply to the rest nor will I engage in a conversation with someone who straight out attacks me and tells me that I am the problem.
I wish the members of the LGBT would actually mind their own business as you viciously said; yeah, that would be great.
Thank you. Next time please be less hostile and assume less. For what it is worth, you strengthened my preexisting beliefs.
'videos of violence' is quite wide: children shouldn't be watching videos of people being executed by gangs for example.
A lot of LGBT content is aimed at adults. I think we should always be clear when we are making statements like this because it causes great stress, a worked example:
People will claim that LGBT is under attack because this law potentially affects some LGBT spaces. These spaces will clearly be meant for 18+ audiences and so fall correctly under the law. Then other people see the first group of people, and from their point of view that group is complaining that their 18+ spaces are blocked from children. "Think of the children" drama ensues.
It is similar to Steam taking down incest/rape games and people claiming it was an action against LGBT creators. I don't think that's an argument that should ever be made for obvious reasons.
I don't think the government, even if it were under the Conservatives, have banning gay spaces on their current agenda.
Even if you think a lot of the content captured by the ban should be banned, I don't think age restriction mechanisms should be put on it. Talks around sexuality, the mere mention of certain crimes and unrest are being banned by social media companies, all because of this act. Companies seem to be acting out of caution.
I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.
One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US
Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
The US states are just targeting the big porn sites like Pornhub to add ID checks AFAIK, I haven't heard of them going after random forums like in the UK. But obviously that sort of power always expands, just like how the UK went from arresting a couple people for offensive tweets back in 2010 to doing 12k arrests/yr in 2025
The UK law was designed to be all encompassing. Why block just the 'porn sites' when you can see porn on forums?
The UK law is actually a good implementation if you put child 'safety' as your number one priority, with any other considerations as, in practise, moot.
Unfortunately I think free civil discourse between adults, privacy, etc. are just as important as child safety which makes the current law a bit crap.
This is similar to the video game and MasterCard/VISA issue - you can buy games that promote sexual violence and incest. Nothing stops children downloading them for free, or using their under-18s debit card from purchasing the non-free versions. In this instance it was private companies leveraging their freedom of association rather than an all encompassing law from a sovereign state, but the intent is the same.
As a collective society we do really need to come to grips with what it is that we want. Allowing kids to freely access gang torture/execution videos and playing pro-rape entertainment should probably be tackled. I'm not sure I agree with the implementations though.
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
I've been warning people in the USA about this for well over a decade. Laws like the states passing porn laws are the foot in the door to expand it to -any- internet activity. Freedom is had to take in a coupe, it's a a lot easier to nip at it around the edges until the structure cracks. Strange how people here in the states value the 2nd amendment so much (including me, I'm a proud gun owner) but they will ignore the 1st, 3rd, 4th .... This is particularly true here in Texas.
>It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet.
Also in an overpopulated world it's not a given that children should be protected if it comes at the expense of basic freedoms. We need to move away from this narrative that "think of the children" is a persuasive argument. Little Timmy needs to avoid danger or the ghost of Darwin will work his magic.
Probably based on long term concerns that escalating inequality will lead to widespread unrest and violence. Which it will, if unaddressed.
Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?
Adding a browser header field would be sufficient, could be easily integrated into the OS and browser, and would let developers handle this issue in a few hours worth of effort.
ID verification is such an invasive measure and prone to the exact same failures as the simplest solutions.
While I'd agree, the issue with that solution is that validating against government issued identity solutions aren't always free. I don't know if this is the case with the UK digital ID, but the Danish version certainly isn't free to query. The Danish one has, to my knowledge, a solution that would allow you to do an age for a person, without getting any other information, so yes, the browser could do that, but there cryptographic bits ensure that now body messed with the header data is still missing. And again, who's suppose to pay for the API calls if the browser does it, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft... Ladybird?
I like this solution, integrated with whatever existing parental controls are in the OS.
That would empower parents to keep their kids from accidentally or casually accessing porn. Of course, an intelligent and determined teenager will probably find a way around it, which is also good; then they've learned a bit about computers.
I'm going to bet most kids will get around it by registering accounts with the IDs that they've taken pictures of, which belong to adults, then sharing the accounts widely.
Grandma isn't likely to have an account on one of these sites (unless one of your cousins beat you to it).
The author's point is to use an immutable or atomic system. Debian uses a traditional package manager and over time those packages can get in a weird state. Battery runs out during package update? Third party repo disappears? GPG key changes? Distribution eliminates 32-bit library support? Nvidia drivers change? Distribution deprecates Xorg? Your everyday user doesn't know how to deal with that.
An A/B partition scheme is very simple and the system as a whole is integration tested in CI. An OSTree based atomic system is pretty close, although there is some added complexity.
Not to mention Debian out-of-the-box is a pretty miserable experience for everyday users. Their Nvidia drivers won't work, they can't figure out how to install Chrome, videos won't play due to missing codecs, etc.
> An OSTree based atomic system is pretty close, although there is some added complexity.
The author mentions this as well but there's no details there. We've been shipping chromeos-style images with universal blue for over 4 years and the ostree parts are invisible to end users. What do you feel takes away from the user experience?
Thanks for your work by the way, I'm a happy uBlue (Bazzite) user.
I think my main concern is something like a known OSTree design issue around UID/GID drift, there was a bug that was partly fixed in 2023 but the issue comes from OSTree assigning known UIDs from the deployment once created, but this may not map to the proper UID on the system the deployment is being blasted to. You can get improper ownership out of this.
Not something I've ever encountered myself, but if I were developing an embedded device it seems like one less thing to worry about.
I have 0 problems installing Debian. Half the features listed in the article and yoyr reply aren’t even used by the average user. I don’t know how you can sit there and claim Debian doesn’t work but Ubuntu does. Please share what you’re smoking..
I like what EndlessOS is trying to do but it prioritizes the ability to be a complete OS that doesn't need an internet connection, whereas the article wants a browser-first OS (and assumes an internet connection). So aren't those kind of different use cases?
I think it's also the immutable nature of EndlessOS, its not something you can break as easily as a regular Linux distribution, and acts much more like ChromeOS.
I get the sentiment, but honestly anytime I try to use a modern smartphone it almost takes a short flight. Hidden UI gestures, active sides, functionality limited to 'popular' cases, etc. Totally unusable and frustrating, IMHO.
There's been a lot of rumor lately that Xbox becomes a shell on top of Windows and just runs regular Windows games. The announcement of the Xbox ROG Ally using this same approach gives it a lot of weight.
reply