I get that moving the Start menu to the middle gives you a very "Iron Man in the command chair" type feeling on large monitors/multiple screens, where you spin off windows to the left and right...but is super annoying on a smaller monitor

It works with 95/2000.

95 - good,

98 - bad,

2000 - good,

ME - bad,

XP - good,

Vista - bad,

7 - Good,

8 - bad,

10 - good,

11 - bad.

That assumes 10 was good and misses 8.1.

Also 95/98/me were a different line from NT/2000.

It sounds like a good theory but there isn’t much substance to it.

> That assumes 10 was good and misses 8.1.

I find this to be a mostly valid assumption, and 8.1 shouldn't be counted separately from 8 just as Vista SP2 should be counted any differently from Vista (Vista was mostly fine after companies fixed their drivers and Microsoft toned things down a bit. 7 just drove that home and put some necessary distance between itself and Vista).

> Also 95/98/me were a different line from NT/2000.

I fail to see why this matters.

I thought it might be to bring Windows in line with Mac OS 10. Seems petty, but I could see a billion dollar company not liking their flagship is on version 8-9 while the competition is on 10.

I thought that was why the second Xbox was “Xbox 360” so it did not seem a lesser number than PlayStation 3.

That too

Counter-point: I upgrade day 1 (or in a reasonable timeframe) because I know there's no way the company will ever "go back" on what they're doing. If the new UI nukes the pleasant atmosphere of the OS by making all the icons look glass-like, then I'd better get used to it now. I don't want to forego upgrading, then have to learn a bunch of new features ON TOP of the UI differences.

For example, iOS 26 introduced the liquid glass, which, coupled with how some UI elements work, was essentially the only change. If I wait until the inevitable iOS 36, I'll have to learn the UI paradigm on top of 10 versions worth of functional upgrades. The delta would be too large for me.

I don't call them Samdung for no reason

You made an entire performance. Good, good job

I found that annoying on the editor, but if used on a 2nd screen to build graphics programmatically (fractals, etc), or via an external port to drive RGB LEDs arrays or matrices, results could be spectacular. Imagine fractals driven by music or a giant spectrum analyzer made of LED strips.

I recently bodged together a board that would drive FastLED programs parameterized by the control voltages that come off a eurorack, it was really neat and straightforward because you have some really good clock sources to sync to

Can someone espouse some positive LLM use? Correlating data seems useful, but...

...I've been negative on LLM use recently. I've somewhat mentally decided an LLM is a google search which tries to make you feel good (like you're collaborating with other people), and if you strip that away, you get essentially a (admittedly decent) wikipedia search on a topic. The data correlation can give new insights, but I'm struggling to see how an LLM is creating anything _new_. If the LLM is fed it's own correlated data, it gets confused after a while (e.g. context poisoning or whatever).

So if I strip away the platitudes, isn't an LLM just a wikipedia search which gets confused after a time to most people, and a research assistant which might lie to you (by also having the context get confused) after a time to researchers?

Roll with it, and change as necessary. Compromises don't need to be permanent; you can just leave.