BananaTrifleViolin

I'd take some of the claims with a pinch of salt. Selling faster now reflects better availability of the Switch 2 compared to the switch 1 at this point in its cycle. The switch 1 was also sold out this close to launch but Nintendo wasn't able to manufacture as many to keep up.

All this shows for now is that the Nintendo is meeting the initial demand better than it could with the first switch. It does not tell us it's more popular or how well it'll do overall. In other words all this stuff about it "out pacing" the swith 1 reflects better manufacturing availability rather than how popular the console itself is going to be long term.

While the switch 2 has undoubtedly had a strong launch, it remains to be seen if the mass market are going to clamour to buy them for Christmas when they're relatively expensive, with a limited selection of exclusive games. Adult gamers/early adopters being enthusiastic about getting the switch 2 is a good sign but doesn't necessarily translate to parents buying the console for their families.

The family and casual gamer market is the bigger one for Switch, and I honestly don't yet see a compelling reason they'd rush out to buy one? 1080p.gaming, better performance and game chat certainly isn't it. It needs some really compelling 1st party or excluaive games. Mario Kart World and Dokey Kong Bonanza plus a raft of old games really isn't great.

I'm not seeing a big new must have exclusive game to help drive sales for Christmas. No big new Zelda, Mario or Pokemon game? Maybe Nintendo intend christmas 2026 to be the mass market year for the switch 2, and this year be to keep on top of initial demand but it seems a bit of a risky strategy to me.

This is tech writers thinking everyone lives like them. An 8 year old graphics card if you're not high end gaming or video editing is fine. That card will still run a 4k desktop, and probably multiscreen 4k desktops without any issue.

For most users, graphics cards have long been at a level when they don't need upgrading. A mid range graphics card from even 10 years ago is more than powerful enough to watch video, or use desktop programs, and even fine for a wide range of games.

It's only if you want high end 3D gaming that upgrading is needed and arguably even that has already beyond a point of diminishing returns in the last 5 years for the majority of users and titles.

I do game a fair it and my RTX 3070 which is 5 years old really doesn't need upgrading. Admittedly that was higher end when it launched, but it still plays a game like Cyberpunk 2077 at a high end settings. It's arguable how much of the "ultra" settings on most games most users would even notice the difference, let alone actually need. New cards are certainly very powerful but the fidelity jump for the price and power just isn't there in the way it would have been when upgrading a card even 10 years ago.

Honestly, as a UK citizen I think my government is pathetic. Recognising Palestine as a "threat" is ludicrous. It shouldn't be conditional on anything.

This just shows how weak and feeble the EU is. To see Von Der Leyen sitting their grinning and fawning over Trump was nauseating. They have capitulated over the fundamentals of free trade and gotten nothing in exchange.

I actually hope he does it because it'll fuel the conspiracy theories in MAGA - "did she lie and did he do a deal with her for her pardon?". He's stupid enough.

Yeah the Act shows the wilful stupidity of politicians who pass legislation without understanding the areas they're legislating on. It's a nonsense act that tries to look like it is "protecting children" and is performative nonsense for MPs to pass moral judgement on things they don't agree with.

But in practice it's a security and privacy nightmare, it's restricting and interfering in the freedom and rights of the majority of the population all to satisfy a stupid moral panic, and it makes the UK look like a backwards state.

All PCs are a frankenstein mix of parts, that's the beauty of PCs. Components can be mixed and matched and usually work together well.

So instead of a new PC think of how you can evolve your current PC. You may be able to upgrade the CPU or even better replace the motherboard and CPU but keep the case and other components for now until you can afford to make more changes. If that's too expensive then look at upgrading other components until you can do a big shift with the motherboard and CPU. For example get an SSD if you don't have one, maybe uograde the graphics card for a gaming boost etc.

Don't think of a PC as being a single thing - any component can be upgraded and switched out at any time and you can gradually move to your dream PC over time in steps, which spreads the cost over time. It's easier to find a few hundred pounds / dollars / euros every 3-6 months than it is to find £2k in one go, and you can still end up in the same place if you're patient

The most important base components are definitely the motherboard and CPU though (it determines the ceiling of all the other components) - so make sure any changes you make fit with your long term plans for those. For example if your PC is old then start with the motherboard and CPU so you aren't restricted in other components (E.g. RAM options are better on newer motherboards so it's worth waiting to buy RAM if you intend to do a big motherboard upgrade).

E.g. If I were starting from a basic ATX desktop, I'd aim to get a new motherboard first and ideally a good CPU. But I might get a decent motherboard with a modern socket and a cheaper CPU if I was short on cash. Then later when I have money again I'd sell the cheaper CPU and upgrade it to something better that my new motherboard can support. I might keep my current hard drive and then when I can afford it get an m.2 to make better use of the new motherboard. RAM can be brought from the old board, and even upgraded in steps to get to an eventual goal amount. Like start with 8gb or 16gb but eventually move to 32gb or 64gb when I can afford it. I might keep my current graphics card and then upgrade that once the other components are good. I might even buy a second hand older card so I get a boost until I can afford my dream card so I at least move forward of I had a crap one now. It'd take time but I'd be moving forwards every few months getting a better and better PC without having to find a huge amount of money in one go.

Think of it like the ship.of theseus. Genuinely my current PC has evolved gradually since 2015 but I don't think I have a single component left from that original PC apart from maybe some screws and the case. I've done 1 big motherboard change and 2 CPU changes since then, I'm onto my 3rd GPU and about to move to my 4th, and have replaced the RAM and then doubled it later with 2 more sticks. I've changed the power supply once, and lost count of how many hard drives I've been though - currently I have 2 m.2 cards and some SSDs of various ages.

A lot of it comes down to convention and convention is often set by those who did it first or whose work dominated a field. The whole mathematical notation system we use today is just a convention and is not the only one that exists, but is the one the world has decided to standardise to..

Rene Descartes is usually regarded at he originator of the current system. He used abc for constants and xyz for unknown variables amongst other conventions.

Sequential letter sets are easy to use as they are easily recognised, and convenient as a result, plus are generally accepted to have non specific or less specific meaning. For example:

a^2^+b^2^=c^2^

That formula is a much simpler concept to get round using sequential leffer than:

V^2^ + G^2^ = z^2^

Under the common system, when you don't use sequential letters it also implies much more specific meaning to the individual letters, and that can introduce ambiguity and confusion.

When writing a proof there can be many many statements made and you'd quickly run out of letters if you didn't have a convention for accepting abc are variables and can be reused.

We also do use symbols from other alphabet sets, and alpha/beta/gamma is commonly used trio. But in mathematical notation there are a huge range of defined constants and symbols now that many have been ascribed specific uses. Pi for example. So you risk bringing in ambiguity of meaning by moving away from the accepted conventions of current maths by using other sets.

Even e has specific meaning and can be ambiguous if you need to stretch to 5 variables. When working with e it's not uncommon to use a different string of lwtters in the latin alphabet to avoid confusion if you need to use variables

And we don't stop at 3; abcd etc is used.

Yeah it's not about the Internet and virtual reality or fax machines etc, it was about overpopulation and ecological collapse among other things.

The song was inspired by a trip to an underground city in Sendai, Japan if you read Wikipedia. In the late 90s Japan was a gadget obsessed place with neon signs and screens packed into places like Sendai. Japan had industrialised rapidly over the 20th century and gave the impression of a thriving technology and manufacturing industry.

It was seen as a futuristic place by people from the rest of the world when they visited. Of course in reality Japan was in the first of its "lost decades" of stagnation that's run from the early 90s to now.

I find the article a little ridiculous. "Chilling" is being used to describe the end of late night television for commercial reasons. People aren't watching late night TV as much, and the advertising is not there - that isn't chilling; that's the world we live in.

The way the article is written you'd think late night TV is an irreplaceable cultural touchstone. It's nonsense - people have stopped watching so it's already no longer a touchstone.

This is from Wikipedia on rival Tonight Shows ratings in 2006:

2006, The Tonight Show led in ratings for the 11th consecutive season, with a nightly average of 5.7 million viewers – 31% of the total audience in that time slot – compared to 4.2 million viewers for Late Show with David Letterman, 3.4 million for Nightline and 1.6 million for Jimmy Kimmel Live!.

In 2025, Colbert is leading the ratings with 2.42m - less than half the audience for 1st place in 2006 - and now we're in a time where TV advertising has declined massively in value.

Look at the TV ratings for 2024/2025 and network TV has collapsed. The most watched shows are Netflix. And even the few Network TV shows that break the top 20 are getting way fewer viewers than 20 years ago. Plus they're skewed to older viewers that are not valuable to the advertisers. The demographic they want - 18-35 - don't watch TV any more, and they certainly don't sit down every night to watch late night TV shows.

So Colbert's Late Show being cancelled is more a sign of the times. Network TV is dying and it's dying fast. The merger itself between Skydance and Paramount/CBS is itself a sign of the times - one billionaire media family is exiting old media (the Redstone family) which another is buying into it (the Ellis family). But Paramount and CBS are not doing well - Paramount global has declining revenues, declining assets and made an operating loss of $5.3bn. The big media conglomerates failed to move fast enough with the times; Netflix has won the streaming wars while traditional TV and Cinema is in massive decline. These companies don't have any answers - they're just managing declines while new companies will come along and take advantage of the new world.

Colbert's show was in 1st place and it was cancelled to save money. I wouldn't be surprised if there are further cancellations although for now I suspect the networks will wait to see where the audience of the Late Show lands. But one of the shows (Jimmy Kimmel's I think?) house band was sacked last year to save money - the writing is on the wall.

It's possible the politics of the merger played a role but even if that's the case, it shows that the value of the Late Show has declined so much for Paramount/CBS that they could dump it easily.

This is a combination of terrible legislation in the UK meets awful social media site.

The Online Safety Act is an abomination, compromising the privacy and freedom of the vast majority of the UK in the name of "protecting children".

I'm of the view parents are responsible for protecting their children. I know it's hard but the Online Safety Act is not a solution.

All it will.do is compromise the privacy and security of law abiding adults while kids will still access porn and all the other really bad stuff on the Internet will actually be unaffected. The dark illegal shit on the Internet is not happening on Pornhub or Reddit.

The UK is gradually sliding further and further into censorship, and authoritarianism and all the in the name of do gooders. It's scary to watch.