|
I won't lie, I had no idea who the one percenters even were. Hanlon's razor it is then.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 19, 2021 21:02 |
|
|
Poutou is Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste, new anticapitalist party Artaud is Lutte Ouvričre, laborer's struggle.  As you can see they are both hilariously left and spent most of the debate decrying the sins of big capital and bosses and accusing the others of being political shills. Lasalle is a weird peasant who just rambled on about old people in retirement homes during the debate 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mad_molix/status/850522649881001984
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Didn't try and graph NT, XP or Vista, smh
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Didn't try and graph NT, XP or Vista, smh I feel that “Millennium Edition” must count as one thousand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Didn't try and graph NT, XP or Vista, smh https://twitter.com/mad_molix/status/850818613267189760
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
 to the comment that says Me = a million times e, 2.718*10^6
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
What constants can you use to calculate Vista though. I guess you could make it a complex number but that won't help for putting it on a graph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
it's a 3d graph, so just have it pointing out of the page
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:What constants can you use to calculate Vista though. Obviously Vista is a bijective hexavigesimal number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:What constants can you use to calculate Vista though. What's the unicode for the poop emoji? Use that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:What's the unicode for the poop emoji? Use that. U+1F4A9, or 128169 in decimal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
I still lol every time I remember that Microsoft skipped straight from Windows 8 to Windows 10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Windows 7 is secretly Windows 6.1
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Toys For rear end Bum posted:I still lol every time I remember that Microsoft skipped straight from Windows 8 to Windows 10. It was to avoid too much poo poo breaking. There's a startling amount of code out there that specifically does not work on any OS that identifies itself as "Windows 9[*]".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It was to avoid too much poo poo breaking. There's a startling amount of code out there that specifically does not work on any OS that identifies itself as "Windows 9[*]". Could've gone with "Windows IX" or "Windows Nine".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
How the gently caress did that come to be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
I guess the code checks that the OS is not 95 or 98 before attempting to run.Somfin posted:It was to avoid too much poo poo breaking. There's a startling amount of code out there that specifically does not work on any OS that identifies itself as "Windows 9[*]".  I didn't know that, that's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Could've gone with "Windows IX" or "Windows Nine". Not without breaking sorting re: the new versions. Welcome to coding, where everything is a compromise with idiots from ten-to-thirty years ago. As for how it happened, well, there's a few things that 95 and 98 did very, very poorly. A lot of people don't want to deal with that headache so they made their programs not run on those versions. And because coders are efficient, why make two checks when you can do it in one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:How the gently caress did that come to be? One thing to note is that's not Microsoft's doing really, it's the thousands of cowboy programmers out there that put in these checks into third party apps. They just had to make the choice to break these programs with Windows 9, and mean that companies using these programs would not upgrade to Window 9 or just skip straight to 10, which is version 6.4 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
They skipped it because 7 8 9 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Tumblr of scotch posted:They skipped it because 7 8 9
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Avoiding touching the weird version checks was just a bonus of going to 10, the official line is "you have to fix your own homegrown if the version checking goes weird you idiots" and I think there was the normal internal branding discussion where a stoned marketing team writes a powerpoint on why this happens to be the correct name because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Not without breaking sorting re: the new versions. Welcome to coding, where everything is a compromise with idiots from ten-to-thirty years ago. Sometimes the idiot is yourself from two years ago. Past Me is a moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It was to avoid too much poo poo breaking. There's a startling amount of code out there that specifically does not work on any OS that identifies itself as "Windows 9[*]". That's the common explanation I see, but I think it's more likely that focus groups just liked "Windows 10" better than "Windows 9."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Windows Nein.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Not without breaking sorting re: the new versions. Welcome to coding, where everything is a compromise with idiots from ten-to-thirty years ago. And ten to thirty years later the new generation of coders will be cursing the choices made today. It's the circle of programming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
All these numbers will be moot when the gritty reboot is just called WINDOWS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Pakled posted:That's the common explanation I see, but I think it's more likely that focus groups just liked "Windows 10" better than "Windows 9." 9 Is unlucky in Japan as well which is fair enough reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
I thought that was 4?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:9 Is unlucky in Japan as well which is fair enough reason. Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Why? Superstition?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Avoiding touching the weird version checks was just a bonus of going to 10, the official line is "you have to fix your own homegrown if the version checking goes weird you idiots" and I think there was the normal internal branding discussion where a stoned marketing team writes a powerpoint on why this happens to be the correct name because reasons. Yeah, this is coming from a company that named the third XBOX “XBOX One”. They’ll go with whatever the marketing execs want. Nothing else matters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah, this is coming from a company that named the third XBOX “XBOX One”. At least it has a word for its generation. Apple dropped version identifiers for iPad after 2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
lifg posted:At least it has a word for its generation. Apple dropped version identifiers for iPad after 2. The MacBook has been the MacBook for eleven years now, and that’s never been a problem. Probably because it rarely matters which specific model someone is talking about. They all run the same software till they’re too old to receive updates at all. There is no expectation that a gaming system will run software from previous models, or that its own software will run on future models. What I’m saying is that the iPad is more like a general purpose computer than it is like a game console. e: This isn’t the obsolete technology thread?  
Platystemon has a new favorite as of 20:41 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
that squiggly line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah, this is coming from a company that named the third XBOX “XBOX One”. I heard that marketing wanted to name the original X-Box the "Microsoft Direct-x Box", but engineering pushed back hard enough to get them to accept "X-Box".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Why are people so broken brained about XBOx One not being called XBox... 720? Or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 19, 2021 21:02 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are people so broken brained about XBOx One not being called XBox... 720? Or something? Calling the third installment of something "one" is incredibly dumb regardless of what they didn't call it. Nebrilos posted:I heard that marketing wanted to name the original X-Box the "Microsoft Direct-x Box", but engineering pushed back hard enough to get them to accept "X-Box". I thought that was just the dev codename - considering Direct-X is like, microsoft's graphics tech, no way marketing was trying to push naming the thing of some obscure tech only PC gamers would recognize. Then again, it's Micosoft's marketing...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:28
|
|
