h0rnman

That's just their idle animation. Supposedly, if they desync, it's like a yo-yo until they catch back up

Much development is being done at public research universities leveraging government grants. Most of what these companies pay for is packaging, marketing, and distribution

Ah yes, "scream at you bbq" lol. I always thought gates was good but I hate the gimmick

This is an amazing bit of advice that every home brewer needs to understand. IBU only tells part of the story, and you have to understand that there are other factors that go into perceived bitterness. Many of your darker beers have higher IBU values, but the non-fermentable sugar and the other roast flavors counter the hop bitterness. Adjuncts like lactose can also smooth out some of the sharper hop notes (again, non-fermentable sugars). I found a guide that shows ibu ranges for a bunch of styles and you can see that a lot of heavier beers are rather high in IBU even though you'd never call the style "bitter" or "hoppy"

It's definitely the clunkiest of the 3. I almost gave up on it but if you stick with it you'll figure it out and maybe even learn to like it. RotTR and SotTR are both much better from a control perspective. FTL is great for when you just want a chill game. It's hard but not sweaty. I really wish they had it for Android...

I generally go back to the nostalgia-filled retro titles from the nes-psx eras or for a more modern experience I'll lean into Mark of the Ninja, Guacamelee, or FTL. I've also put an embarrassing number of hours into the new Tomb Raider trilogy and Breath of the Wild. BotW counts as vintage these days, right?

I don't know about Subnautica - seems like it might be a little too intense for me. Maybe ABZU? Same underwater theme/vibe as Subnautica without the pants-shitting terror

Creating an AD domain carries a substantial amount of extra overhead that they might not want to deal with. The basics of setting one up are simple enough but actually building out/maintaining the infrastructure the correct way can be a lot of extra work (2 DCs for redundancy, sites configuration, users, groups, initial GPOs). There are also licensing and CAL considerations (bare metal and hypervisor, both different), domain and forest options that can paint you into a nasty corner of you're not careful, and a whole host of other things to think about and plan around. I'm not arguing that a domain is bad, on the whole I agree 100%. I just like to set the record straight that building a new production domain isn't as simple as a lot of people would have you believe, and OP might not have the time to go through all that.

I feel like this is legitimately more true than a lot of people think. Say what you want about the average end user, but UX is a HUGE driver with regard to adoption and user uptake. You can have the best of everything else in your application, but if the UX sucks, folks just aren't going to use it

From a basic tech perspective, yes. Offloading working data from the primary drive frees up capacity elsewhere in the system. From a more practical standpoint, it depends on the speed of the new drive, how the pcie lanes are divided on the chip set (a wifi slot might share bandwidth with the primary disk) and a whole host of other minor items (power draw, thermals, etc) that might aggregate into you not noticing any difference at all. That said, it's generally a good idea to keep working files not only backed up, but on different physical media so that having to format your OS drive because of some wacky error doesn't cost you what you've been working on. It's far easier to swap a nvme drive to a different laptop than it is to try recovering the data if your disk controller fails

I kinda disagree with the context comment though. That era of computing was inherently wild - nobody had figured anything out yet beyond the most basic and general strokes, and security analysts (such as they were) had what would be considered a childish understanding of IT security by modern standards. Heck, Windows95 didn't even have the TCP stack enabled by default, so when these features were being designed, planned, and coded at Microsoft, there was no context for security on that kind of feature. Wikipedia says that Win95 was in the planning stage in 1992 - I take that with a grain of salt, but the concept is valid. Microsoft was writing the core features of Windows 95 before WAN was even really a thing. Like I said, I don't disagree with the idea that AutoRun was a terrible thing among many terrible things Microsoft is responsible for, but given the era in which AutoRun came out, it was a reasonable trade-off between security and functionality for the lowest common denominator of user. The whole thing should have been disabled (on 95 and 98) when Windows 98 came out since they should have known better at that point.

I don't disagree with this statement in general. That days, I don't know how old you are and whether or not you were really around the home PC space when the auto run feature first came to be. I can sort of understand what Microsoft was trying to accomplish with it... the mid-90's were a wild, lawless time with regard to personal computing. There was a lot of heartburn on the end user side because things were changing so rapidly. Getting them to understand that what a "drive letter" was, how to get there, and how to run an application from it (let alone what an application even was) proved challenging even under the best circumstances. The ability to insert a CD into the drive tray and have it "just work" (also a big theme in Win 95/98) was a godsend for a lot of publishers.

Of course, in today's world, we look at that kind of feature and rightly say "yo, that's fucking crazy, why would you do that?", but in the old days it really did help. At the end of the day, it was a useful feature that, like a lot of windows legacy crap, was left in the OS after its usefulness had gone and just became another attack vector.