Yeah, I have a similar situation with Borderlands 2 not running on my machine with Windows 7 but running just fine in Linux with Proton (which is Steam’s branch of Wine).

It seems to me that Linux with Wine is actually better at backwards compatibility for Windows applications than Windows itself.

PS: Also a handful of old games I have from GoG that wouldn’t run on Windows run just fine with Wine on Linux.

I did the same, and when I switched I just switched to Linux rather than another Windows version.

Then again I’ve been playing with Linux (and using it professionally on the server side) since the 90s, so am not at all representative of most people out there.

It’s funny that without actually spotting the mistake I just read it as the op expecting multiple criticisms to and basically telling people bringing them to get in line.

Look for a processor for the same socket that supports more RAM and make sure the Motherboard can handle it - maybe you’re lucky and it’s not a limit of that architecture.

If that won’t work, breakup your self-hosting needs into multiple machines and add another second hand or cheap machine to the pile.

I’ve worked in designing computer systems to handle tons of data and requests and often the only reasonable solution is to break up the load and throw more machines at it (for example, when serving millions of requests on a website, just put a load balancer in front of it that assigns user sessions and associated requests to multiple machines, so the load balancer pretty much just routes request by user session whilst the heavy processing stuff is done by multiple machines in such a way the you can just expand the whole thing by adding more machines).

In a self-hosting scenario I suspect you’ll have a lot of margin for expansion by splitting services into multiple hosts and using stuff like network shared drives in the background for shared data, before you have to fully upgrade a host machine because you hit that architecture’s maximum memory.

Granted, if a single service whose load can’t be broken down so that you can run it as a cluster, needs more memory than you can put in any of your machines, then you’re stuck having to get a new machine, but even then by splitting services you can get a machine with a newer architecture that can handle more memory but is still cheap (such as a cheap mini-PC) and just move that memory-heavy service to it whilst leaving CPU intensive services in the old but more powerful machine.

I was was going to make a post around the same lines, but in thought it through and in all fairness even in countries with Proportional Vote (the only true Democracies, IMHO) such as The Netherlands, there are still people who won’t vote because “all politicians are liars”, because they feel their vote won’t make a difference or simply because they can’t be arsed to go vote.

There are fewer of those than in semi/fake-Democratic countries and those who do vote actually vote in a positive way (to do something) rather than negative one (to block something), but there still are people who think “all politicians are liars” there.

However I do agree the previous poster’s metaphor doesn’t at all work outside fake Democracies with Mathematically rigged systems such as FPTP like the US.

In my own personal experience, as a gamer and having switched my main machine at home to Pop!OS some months ago, it’s more like “need Windows to run nearly 5% of games” thanks to Wine and Proton which work as adaption layers to let Windows programs (not just games) run in Linux.

(Curiously I use a lot more Wine with Lutris than Proton and Steam, so my success rate is even down to how far the main Wine project got, rather than any special juice that Steam might have added on their Proton branch of Wine - you don’t really need Steam or Proton to run most games in Linux and the success rate for just running games from GoG or even pirated ones is just as good and from some games it’s even the case that the Steam version won’t run but a pirated version runs just fine, probably because it was the DRM that the pirates cracked that caused the problems).

Mind you, at least in my games collection only maybe 1 in 20 have native Linux versions (which is still better than 99% of games being Windows only), but because of adaption layers like Wine and Proton, for most games you can run the Windows version of it in Linux.

Absolutelly, in the old days it definitelly was the case that Windows was needed for nearly 99% of games (I should know: I’ve been trying to switch my gaming to Linux since the late 90s), but that’s not at all the case anymore.

Your idea of how hard it is to game on Linux is at least 1 decade out of date.

Worry not: in 20 years’ time people born in 2028 will all pretty much look like kids to you.

Ah, right - I misunderstood that point you were making.

So, as it turns out, we’ve been in agreement all along.

That’s a good point on the financing side: a used car with about a year or two is well worth it if you have the funds to pay it outright without financing, but if you have to arrange financing yourself you’re not going to get as good rates as what the car makers can achieve thank to their bulk deals with Financial Institutions for the financing, which together with other factors (such as, as you pointed out, some cars not falling as much in price from new to used) might wipe out most of the benefit, at which point the difference might just be small enough that it’s worth the “peace of mind” value one gets from buying new.

My point is that just going direct for a new car without at least doing some legwork and seriously investigating second hand options is a bad move, since the cost of a car in terms of “how long do I have to work to pay for it” is pretty high for most people and thus its well worth it to spend many hours of one’s time doing some researching and evaluating before buying rather than going to the option that’s the most heavily pushed in advertising, because for such an expensive purchase even 10% price savings will quite likely well exceed the value of those hours (and the easiest thing to figure out upfront and with little time investment nowadays is if the used car market for the vehicles one is interested in is expensive and close to brand new prices or not, so one can quickly ditch “second hand” as an option if it turns out the market is pricing it too high).

Personally I haven’t bough a new car in more than a decade (I ditched my middle-age-crisis-mobile some years ago and switched to cycling and walking, but then again I’ve been living in urban areas in Europe so a car is not required and generally more of a hassle and money sink than anything else), but a year ago my dad got a great deal on a small second hand city car which was less than two years old (so it even had some manufacturer warranty time in it) which saved him a pretty penny, though that was in Portugal rather than the US.

Not living in the US, I’m not up to date with US salaries.

That said, even for administrative personnel paid $25/h, $25 will pay 1h of somebody’s work which is way beyond what is needed to close a retail customer account in any modern administrative system were such thing is a common operation which should take less than a minute to do, because people who design the kind of company administrative computer systems (such as yours truly, at least during part of my career) will make the most common business operations be the fastest to do in that system.

Almost every purchase for oneself is an investment, not in the Financial Investment sense of putting money expecting to get more money out but in the broader sense that we buy things because they provide some kind of value to us, which can be a utility value, tge satisfaction of an actual physical need, the pleasure one derive from using it or even just the pleasure of owning it

People don’t just buy things with no reason at all at any level, though often people buy things for the emotional reason that it gives them a jolt of pleasure to buy that thing (not exactly the smartest thing to do IMHO, but quite possibly one of the core pillars holding up present day Consumer Society).

So in that broader sense even the peace of mind you refer to as a justification for buying a new car has an actual value which can be expressed into a rough money range or, even better, the more personal “how long do I have to work to pay for the peace of mind of a new car instead of buying a 2 year old car”.

Further once you look at it that way, you start identifying which objective/need/feeling you’re trying to satisfy and figuring out other ways of satisfying it for less - for example if a car is expensive enough you can literally pay to have many possible used cars you are considering checked by a mechanic before you buy, have car histories checked, and buy an extended warranty, to get that piece mind you wish and still save up a lot of money (or, in another “currency”, a lot of days of work to earn that money).

In that broader sense, IMHO, new cars are generally a bad “investment” versus cars with a year or two because you’re paying a huge premium for a piece of mind you might get for much cheaper or might not even need because your fears are just be the product of being widely misinformed about the probability of problems in cars relative (I can tell you from a broader Engineering sense, the rates of problem in physical products in general tend to peak first when they’re new, then go down, then start going up again when they’re aged, which for something like a car would be 5+ year at least, though beware that I only know this rule as a general thing and don’t have car-specific knowledge on it beyond some vaguely remembered stuff I read over a decade ago) and of imagining the worst possible scenario in your mind about what problems a 2 year old used car can give you when the reality is that scenario in your mind is incredibly unlikely and you can buy stupidly cheap insurance to cover it.

It deceives people whose idea of how things work in large companies hasn’t changed since the days when it was the manager of your bank branch who decided if you you should get a loan or not.

Nowadays, for certain in middle and large size companies, all the administrative main business pathways are heavilly if not totally automated and it’s customer support that ends up eating the most manpower (which is why there has been so much of a push for automated phone and chat support systems, of late using AI).

Those $25 bucks for “account closure” pays at worst for a few minutes of somebody’s seeking the account from user information on a computer, cross checking that the user information matches and then clicking a button that says “Close accout” and then “Ok” on the confirmation box and the remaining 99% or so left after paying for that cost are pure profit.

As somebody who works in designing software systems, including for large companies, lets just say that the amount of human time that goes into a customer account closure is negligible because main business operations such as openning and closing customer accounts are the ones that get automated the soonest and the furthest.

The stuff that uses “lots” (in relative terms) of manpower is supporting customers with really unusual problems involving third parties and even then spending 2.5 h man/hours (assuming the administrative person get paid $10/per hour) is pretty uncommon.

You’ve been lied to, repeatadly, for at least 3 decades.

If analyzed in purelly financial terms, buying a brand new car is almost invariably one of the worst investments there is compared to other options (if you really need a car, aim for a car which is 1 or 2 years), and if you couple that with taking a punt on a Musk product on the user side (not even the shareholders’ side but quite literally the side of the people the shareholders, most noteably Musk, want to extract money from, so pretty much the suckers’ side) AND, maybe worse, doing it as an early adopter, pretty much adds up to a guaranteed lubless shafting.

Investing in a “I’m a sucker” tattoo for one’s forehead probably has a better return.

“Perceived value”

Without that element, there would be no explanation for Marketing other than pure Brand Awareness promotion working (and McDonalds is definitely beyond needing more Brand Awareness, at least in the Developed World)

Even then, it doesn’t explain a lot of how Marketing does its work (namelly the stuff they took from Psychology and use to do things like create associations between brand and specific feelings on people’s subconscious - you know, the way cars are “freedom” and perfumes are “sex”).

And don’t get me started on other techniques that prey of human cognitive weaknesses (for example, FOMO would not work with the fabled Homo Economicus that underpins so much of Free Market Theory)

Anyways, a ton of present day enshittification (and that includes this kind of price inflation) relies on people having a well entrenched positive perception of a brand after years of having a relationship with it (i.e. chosing it as customers) and there being quite a lot of momentum behind it. It also relies a lot on using a “slow boiling” effect to keep people from spotting the full picture of the changes.

Ah, I see.

Your point is that the use of a secondary channel for a One Time Pass is still an insecure method versus the use of a time-based one time password (for example as generated in a mobile phone app or, even more secure, a dedicated device). Well, I did point out all the way back in my first post that SMS over GSM is insecure and SMS over GSM seems to be the secondary channel that all banks out there chose for their 2FA implementation.

So yeah, I agree with that.

Still, as I pointed out, challenge-response with smartchip signature is even safer (way harder to derive the key and the process can actually require the user to input elements that get added to the input challenge, such as the amount being paid on a transfer, so that the smartchip signs the whole thing and it all gets validated on the other side, which you can’t do with TOTP). Also as I said, from my experience with my bank in The Netherlands, a bank using that system doesn’t require 2FA, so clearly there is a bit more to the Revised Payment Systems Directive than a blanked requirement for dynamic linking.

It think you’re confusing security (in terms of how easy it is to impersonate you to access your bank account) with privacy and the level of requirements on the user that go with it - the impact on banking security of the bank having your phone number is basically zero since generally lots individuals and companies who are far less security conscious than banks have that number.

That said, I think you make a good point (people shouldn’t need a mobile phone to be able to use online banking and even if they do have one, they shouldn’t need to provide it to the bank) and I agree with that point, though it’s parallel to the point I’m making rather than going against it.

I certainly don’t see how that collides with the last paragraph of my original post which is about how the original thread poster has problems working with banks which “require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking” which is an element of the most secure method of all (which I described in my original post) and is not at all 2FA but something altogether different and hence does not require providing a person’s phone to the bank. I mean, some banks might put 2FA on top of that challenge-response card authentication methods, but they’re not required to do so in Europe (I know, because one of the banks in Europe with which I have an account uses that method and has no 2FA, whilst a different one has 2FA instead of that method) - as far as I know (not sure, though) banks in Europe are only forced to use 2FA if all they had before that for “security” was something even worse such as username + password authentication, because without those regulations plenty of banks would still be using said even worse method (certainly that was the case with my second bank, who back in the late 2010s still used ridiculously insecure online authentication and only started using 2FA because they were forced to)

I literally said 2FA over SMS is not secure because of weaknesses in the GSM protocol.

It’s still more secure than username + password alone, but that’s it.

Those little boxes are just a bit of hardware to let the smartchip on the smartcard do what’s called challenge-response authentication (in simple terms: get big long number, encode it with the key inside the smartchip, send encoded number out).

(Note that there are variants of the process were things like the amount of a transfer is added by the user to the input “big long number”).

That mechanism is the safest authentication method of all because the authentication key inside the smartchip in the bank card never leaves it and even the user PIN never gets provided to anything but that smartchip.

That means it can’t be eavesdropped over the network, nor can it be captured in the user’s PC (for example by a keylogger), so even people who execute files received on their e-mails or install any random software from the Internet on their PCs are safe from having their bank account authentication data captured by an attacker.

The far more common two-way-authentication edit: two-channel-authentication, aka two-factor-autentication (log in with a password, then get a number via SMS and enter it on the website to finalize authentication), whilst more secure that just username+password isn’t anywhere as safe as the method described above since GSM has security weaknesses and there are ways to redirected SMS messages to other devices.

(Source: amongst other things I worked in Smart Card Issuance software some years ago).

It’s funny that the original poster of this thread actually refuses to work with some banks because of them having the best and most secure bank access authentication in the industry, as it’s slightly inconvenient. Just another example of how, as it’s said in that domain, “users are the weakest link in IT Security”.