It failed once recently after an system update. Blank desktop with no shell. Had to ctrl-shift-esc and manually download latest `ep_setup.exe` and run it to get the desktop back. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230324-00/?p=10... Raymond did not point out which "desktop enhancement software" it was but I suspect this is it.
> We have to hope that enough of the users whose systems are crashing realize that it’s due to the “shell enhancement” program (rather than blaming Windows itself, which is the more likely case)
I would 100% blame Windows (or Microsoft, rather) for making the shell so awful that people have to resort to these tactics.
You can't cripple the steering wheel on a car and then blame people for not finding perfect aftermarket substitutes.
>Unfortunately, these patchers also cause Windows customer satisfaction numbers to plunge every time an update goes out,
I've refused/blocked updates for as long as I remember since long before Explorer patchers were a thing, because updates break my shit and waste my fucking time.
I've had more of my time and nerves wasted by updates breaking my shit than "all the bad guys trying to take advantage of unpatched systems". Saying my system is "insecure" is concentrated snake oil.
Seriously, fuck updates with a rusty spork.
I only run Windows Updates once a year or two when I've set aside a few days to work out all the inevitable borkages, and I damn well like it that way. My computer is a tool and an appliance, not a mentally ill schizophrenic who changes their personality every hour.
but i'm afraid that your computer is indeed a 'mentally ill schizophrenic' which is here to stay, because fixing it would shift the focus/blame back to the operators.
Ah I miss the youth. Now that my PC holds passwords to all of my accumulated wealth, even a tiny risk of being owned is not something that I’ll live with, if it can be prevented.
Yep Talisman! I received a shareware copy of it on a magazine CD. Totally blown away by the true color UI and pre-arranged widget bits here and there. The thing's born in the 9X era but rocks a definite XP vibe.
I'm fine with 0-based, 1-based or anything-based arrays (I recall it being convenient solving 8queen with pascal), but for Rage-Over-A-Lost-Penny sake, music note intervals are always beyond my understanding.
Same pitched notes are called "interval 1" and there goes thirds, fifths, sevenths... All off-by-one in my base-offset-addressing mind... And then major vs. minor which creates all kinds of "aliased addresses"...
I'd really love a BASE-12 floating number representation. Like 4.00 for the middle C; Chords can be then represented by a tuple of such numbers -- major = [+0.04, +0.07] (some sequencers already do something like that and I'm far better at reading that kind of sequencer data than a sheet)
You do understand that besides thirds, fifths and sevenths, there really are seconds, fourths, sixths, ninths (same as second), elevenths (same as fourth) etc... as well, right? There even are intervals that are not named after a number e.g. the "tritone". The reason the 2nd and the 3rd note in a chord are called third and fifth is because usually chords are made with these intervals instead of dissonant intervals like seconds or fourths. It seems pretty clear you'd already know these things, so can you explain what's your issue with music note intervals?
It's that off-by-one nature of intervals that always bumps me.
The difference between note a and b is (a-b+1).
Calling an octave "an octave" feels to me like calling a numeric system with digits 0x0-0xf as "base 17"
By your logic, an octave/unison would be "seventh"/"zeroth"? (Note that "octave" literally means "eighth" in Latin.) I would think that could work too but the established terminology is not inconsistent. It's just 1-indexed. A lot of things are 1-indexed, in fact I think almost everything in spoken English is 1-indexed. A lot of mathematics, like number theory, is also 1-indexed. I think software engineers are a little too obsessed with 0-indexed things. I understand that things not being standard is annoying to us but pretending like this somehow makes music terminology broken is going too far.
I don't see how 0x0-0xf could be called base 17. 0xf is 15. Did you mean base 15? I think if mathematics terminology developed differently it could be called base 15. The same way binary is 0 and 1 but we call it base 2 because there are 2 digits, but we could totally call it base 1 too, who cares, it's all convention.
Well I think at this stage we can hardly call it a market -- it's not 10 different android distros that stem off from a solid codebase, but different groups of developers that interact with each other to bring up the base.
When you destroy the nest for these dev groups, there will be no more software for a fancy distro to package.
https://repo.aalto.fi/uncategorized/IO_35687268-3fde-4493-a0...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs
Blew me away back then, but forgot the name. This archive helped to recover the bits in my head. Thank you!
reply