Funnily enough, I had been doing the same thing and it hadn’t even occurred to me that my comment might cause confusion for people who aren’t familiar with speedrunning lol
Unfortunately, there isn’t an up-to-date video that I’m aware of that explains the entire run in its totality. But you should get a pretty good idea from simply watching the run. It’s a marvel to watch, especially if it’s a game you’re familiar with. SHiFT’s most recent 100% record is probably a good place to start[1]. He’s the runner mentioned in the article and he’s held the record for every category that matters for 8.5-10 years. (Fair warning, though: he tends to use strong language and he’s almost always in a foul mood.)
If you do want a run with some explanation, GDQ is probably your best bet[2]. Unfortunately, the run hasn’t appeared at GDQ since AGDQ Online 2022, but you still get a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about, even if you don’t get to see how the run has evolved since then. That one is also an Any% run, so you can get an idea of the differences.
I’ve been following this game’s speedrun for years; I never expected to see it on the front page of HN! This post could use a (2021), because this trick was discovered years ago. For anyone interested in speedrunning, this game has some of the most insane tech I’ve seen in any game and is definitely worth checking out.
I can already imagine this won’t be perfect (false negatives / false positives, for one thing) but this seems like a huge step in the right direction. Even just giving the “AI” label a more prominent spot than the description is a big deal, particularly for those who are less tech-savvy than your average HN user. My mom, for instance, can watch your one video that’s entirely AI-generated and not bat an eye, but then watch another video that’s clearly real and say it looks “off.” Say what you will about whether AI-generated content is valid or whether it should be allowed on the platform at all, but more transparency is only a good thing.
It's a black bishop, but not necessarily a dark-squared bishop. Both the black side and white side in a normal chess game get a dark-squared and a light-squared bishop, and I don't see anywhere that specifies which type this one is. It can be either one depending on where you place it.
If anyone is interested in going more in-depth on this, there's a four episode documentary series on Netflix called Chimp Empire [1]. I just saw it last week and it's fascinating stuff. You get to know the individual chimps in-depth (they all have names) and get to see conflicts in this "civil war" unfold. Plus I learned a lot about social and "political" dynamics among chimps.
> To test this, he created a “corporate bullshit generator” that churns out meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences like, "We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing” and “By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.”
So you’re saying people who thought randomly-generated, meaningless sentences sound smart aren’t themselves smart? Who would’ve thought.
It's a scary thought, albeit not a realistic one at the moment, thankfully. The Supreme Court has shown ample willingness to strike down blatant (and subtle, for that matter) executive overreach. Exhibit A is Trump's tariffs, which were justified by the administration to be legal through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to “regulate…importation” during a declared state of emergency. The Supreme Court found that the wording in the act allowing the president to “regulate…importation” was not sufficient to grant the president the power to impose tariffs. The wording in the IEEPA is vague enough that you could go either way, but the conservative majority tends to follow the Major Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that in vague matters like this, assume that the power belongs to Congress and not the president.
Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.
I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
If I’m understanding correctly, it sounds like, aside from the email addresses, all the data leaked was already publicly available on users’ SoundCloud profiles. The only novel aspect is linking that public data to the accounts’ email addresses.
The last reported monthly active user count for Steam by Valve puts it at 132 million users per month. Since this was in 2021, it’s a conservative estimate now. But based on that conservative figure and if my numbers are correct, Steam added roughly 7 million Windows 11 users in December 2025.
Meanwhile, the most recent estimates show the Steam Deck, the most popular handheld gaming PC by far, having sold around 4 million units, while every other handheld gaming PC (including the Asus ROG Ally, the predecessor to the ROG Xbox Ally) having sold around 2 million units combined. While the Xbox name carries some weight, I highly doubt the Xbox Ally has sold significantly in the two months since its launch.
TLDR: You’re likely correct that numbers from Windows handhelds did not contribute significantly to the added Windows 11 users in December.
The author of the PC Gamer article acknowledged that the install base for Linux among gamers was dwarfed by the install base for Windows. All they were arguing is that Linux is the better platform for gaming, not that it’s more popular.
The article brings up some interesting points but doesn’t really go anywhere with them. I came into the article with a mindset of “freedom of choice is objectively better, explain to me why I’m wrong,” and only came away with the caveat of “if public health and safety demands less choice.” Which is fair, and essentially how (the majority of) people reason politically, at least in the US; on paper, your choice of political party affiliation rests on how much individual choice you believe people should have on individual issues, such as the choice to have an abortion or the choice the manufacture a product that harms the environment. The debate is essentially: does giving people this choice have a significant enough negative impact on public health and safety to warrant limiting the freedom to make this choice?
However, I still think that, in general, more freedom of choice is only a good thing.
> Is there any real difference between the scores of toothpastes or breakfast cereals in contemporary supermarkets?
That depends. Do you have a preference for one flavor of toothpaste or cereal over another? Do you have dental issues that require a toothpaste with whitening effects, or without fluoride, or with baking soda? In a cereal, do you value health concerns over taste, or vice versa? If so, then yes, there is a real difference between different choices in these cases. Making one choice over another can have a direct impact on quality of life, if often a minor one. And this is what makes freedom of choice so important for me: it’s the freedom to strive to improve quality of life—synonymous with the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, as the article briefly touches on, freedom of choice isn’t the only kind of freedom, and arguably isn’t the most important one, either. I think this is the point the author was trying to make, but she doesn’t go into much detail. Freedom from oppression is a prerequisite for freedom of choice, and freedom from suffering is (on paper) the ultimate goal of it. Therein lies the debate: when does increased freedom of choice impede on these other two freedoms? Which should be prioritized in these cases? The line is different for everyone. I would’ve liked to see the article add more nuance to the discussion.