Microsoft has announced that it will cease providing support for Microsoft 365 applications on the Windows 10 operating system after October 14, 2025. This means that after this date, users who continue to utilize Windows 10 will no longer receive security updates, bug fixes, or technical support for their Microsoft 365 apps, which include popular productivity software like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams. This effectively ends the functional lifespan of Microsoft 365 on Windows 10, although the applications may continue to operate for a period afterward, albeit with increasing security risks and potential compatibility issues.
This decision aligns with Microsoft's broader strategy of encouraging users to migrate to Windows 11, the company's latest operating system. While Microsoft will continue to support Windows 10 with security updates until October 14, 2025, the lack of support for crucial productivity applications like Microsoft 365 effectively makes Windows 10 a less desirable platform for businesses and individuals who rely on these applications for their daily workflow. This move underscores the importance of staying up-to-date with software updates and operating system upgrades to ensure ongoing compatibility and security. Users who wish to continue using Microsoft 365 with full support after the October 2025 deadline will need to upgrade their systems to Windows 11. Failing to do so could expose users to potential security vulnerabilities and limit their access to the latest features and functionalities offered by Microsoft 365. This effectively deprecates Windows 10 as a viable platform for continued use of the Microsoft 365 suite, pushing users towards the newer Windows 11 ecosystem.
The article "Enterprises in for a shock when they realize power and cooling demands of AI," published by The Register on January 15th, 2025, elucidates the impending infrastructural challenges businesses will face as they increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into their operations. The central thesis revolves around the substantial power and cooling requirements of the hardware necessary to support sophisticated AI workloads, particularly large language models (LLMs) and other computationally intensive applications. The article posits that many enterprises are currently underprepared for the sheer scale of these demands, potentially leading to unforeseen costs and operational disruptions.
The author emphasizes that the energy consumption of AI hardware extends far beyond the operational power draw of the processors themselves. Significant energy is also required for cooling systems designed to dissipate the substantial heat generated by these high-performance components. This cooling infrastructure, which can include sophisticated liquid cooling systems and extensive air conditioning, adds another layer of complexity and cost to AI deployments. The article argues that organizations accustomed to traditional data center power and cooling requirements may be significantly underestimating the needs of AI workloads, potentially leading to inadequate infrastructure and performance bottlenecks.
Furthermore, the piece highlights the potential for these increased power demands to exacerbate existing challenges related to data center sustainability and energy efficiency. As AI adoption grows, so too will the overall energy footprint of these operations, raising concerns about environmental impact and the potential for increased reliance on fossil fuels. The article suggests that organizations must proactively address these concerns by investing in energy-efficient hardware and exploring sustainable cooling solutions, such as utilizing renewable energy sources and implementing advanced heat recovery techniques.
The author also touches upon the geographic distribution of these power demands, noting that regions with readily available renewable energy sources may become attractive locations for AI-intensive data centers. This shift could lead to a reconfiguration of the data center landscape, with businesses potentially relocating their AI operations to areas with favorable energy profiles.
In conclusion, the article paints a picture of a rapidly evolving technological landscape where the successful deployment of AI hinges not only on algorithmic advancements but also on the ability of enterprises to adequately address the substantial power and cooling demands of the underlying hardware. The author cautions that organizations must proactively plan for these requirements to avoid costly surprises and ensure the seamless integration of AI into their future operations. They must consider not only the immediate power and cooling requirements but also the long-term sustainability implications of their AI deployments. Failure to do so, the article suggests, could significantly hinder the realization of the transformative potential of artificial intelligence.
The Hacker News post "Enterprises in for a shock when they realize power and cooling demands of AI" (linking to a Register article about the increasing energy consumption of AI) sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Many commenters focused on the practical implications of AI's power hunger. One commenter highlighted the often-overlooked infrastructure costs associated with AI, pointing out that the expense of powering and cooling these systems can dwarf the initial investment in the hardware itself. They emphasized that many businesses fail to account for these ongoing operational expenses, leading to unexpected budget overruns. Another commenter elaborated on this point by suggesting that the true cost of AI includes not just electricity and cooling, but also the cost of redundancy and backups necessary for mission-critical systems. This commenter argues that these hidden costs could make AI deployment significantly more expensive than anticipated.
Several commenters also discussed the environmental impact of AI's energy consumption. One commenter expressed concern about the overall sustainability of large-scale AI deployment, given its reliance on power grids often fueled by fossil fuels. They questioned whether the potential benefits of AI outweigh its environmental footprint. Another commenter suggested that the increased energy demand from AI could accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources, as businesses seek to minimize their operating costs and carbon emissions. A further comment built on this idea by suggesting that the energy needs of AI might incentivize the development of more efficient cooling technologies and data center designs.
Some commenters offered potential solutions to the power and cooling challenge. One commenter suggested that specialized hardware designed for specific AI tasks could significantly reduce energy consumption compared to general-purpose GPUs. Another commenter mentioned the potential of edge computing to alleviate the burden on centralized data centers by processing data closer to its source. Another commenter pointed out the existing efforts in developing more efficient cooling methods, such as liquid cooling and immersion cooling, as ways to mitigate the growing heat generated by AI hardware.
A few commenters expressed skepticism about the article's claims, arguing that the energy consumption of AI is often over-exaggerated. One commenter pointed out that while training large language models requires significant energy, the operational energy costs for running trained models are often much lower. Another commenter suggested that advancements in AI algorithms and hardware efficiency will likely reduce energy consumption over time.
Finally, some commenters discussed the broader implications of AI's growing power requirements, suggesting that access to cheap and abundant energy could become a strategic advantage in the AI race. They speculated that countries with readily available renewable energy resources may be better positioned to lead the development and deployment of large-scale AI systems.
In a distressing incident highlighting the escalating sophistication of online scams and the potent allure of fabricated celebrity connections, a French woman has been defrauded of a staggering €830,000 (approximately $913,000 USD) by an individual impersonating the renowned Hollywood actor, Brad Pitt. The perpetrator, exploiting the anonymity and vast reach of the internet, meticulously crafted a convincing online persona mimicking Mr. Pitt. This digital façade was so meticulously constructed, incorporating fabricated images, videos, and social media interactions, that the victim was led to believe she was engaging in a genuine online relationship with the celebrated actor.
The deception extended beyond mere romantic overtures. The scammer, having secured the victim's trust through protracted online communication and the manufactured promise of a future together, proceeded to solicit substantial sums of money under various pretexts. These pretexts reportedly included funding for fictitious film projects purportedly helmed by Mr. Pitt. The victim, ensnared in the web of this elaborate ruse and captivated by the prospect of both a romantic relationship and involvement in the glamorous world of cinema, willingly transferred the requested funds.
The deception persisted for an extended period, allowing the perpetrator to amass a significant fortune from the victim's misplaced trust. The fraudulent scheme eventually unraveled when the promised in-person meetings with Mr. Pitt repeatedly failed to materialize, prompting the victim to suspect foul play. Upon realization of the deception, the victim reported the incident to the authorities, who are currently investigating the matter. This case serves as a stark reminder of the growing prevalence and increasing sophistication of online scams, particularly those leveraging the allure of celebrity and exploiting the emotional vulnerabilities of individuals seeking connection. The incident underscores the critical importance of exercising caution and skepticism in online interactions, especially those involving financial transactions or promises of extraordinary opportunities. It also highlights the need for increased vigilance and awareness of the manipulative tactics employed by online fraudsters who prey on individuals' hopes and dreams.
The Hacker News post titled "AI Brad Pitt dupes French woman out of €830k" has generated a substantial discussion with a variety of comments. Several recurring themes and compelling points emerge from the conversation.
Many commenters express skepticism about the details of the story, questioning the plausibility of someone being fooled by an AI impersonating Brad Pitt to the tune of €830,000. They raise questions about the lack of specific details in the reporting and wonder if there's more to the story than is being presented. Some speculate about alternative explanations, such as the victim being involved in a different kind of scam or potentially suffering from mental health issues. The general sentiment is one of disbelief and a desire for more corroborating evidence.
Another prevalent theme revolves around the increasing sophistication of AI-powered scams and the potential for such incidents to become more common. Commenters discuss the implications for online security and the need for better public awareness campaigns to educate people about these risks. Some suggest that the current legal framework is ill-equipped to deal with this type of fraud and advocate for stronger regulations and enforcement.
Several commenters delve into the psychological aspects of the scam, exploring how the victim might have been manipulated. They discuss the power of parasocial relationships and the potential for emotional vulnerability to be exploited by scammers. Some commenters express empathy for the victim, acknowledging the persuasive nature of these scams and the difficulty of recognizing them.
Technical discussions also feature prominently, with commenters analyzing the potential methods used by the scammers. They speculate about the use of deepfakes, voice cloning technology, and other AI tools. Some commenters with technical expertise offer insights into the current state of these technologies and their potential for misuse.
Finally, there's a thread of discussion focusing on the ethical implications of using AI for impersonation and deception. Commenters debate the responsibility of developers and platforms in preventing such misuse and the need for ethical guidelines in the development and deployment of AI technologies. Some call for greater transparency and accountability in the AI industry.
Overall, the comments section reveals a complex mix of skepticism, concern, technical analysis, and ethical considerations surrounding the use of AI in scams. The discussion highlights the growing awareness of this threat and the need for proactive measures to mitigate the risks posed by increasingly sophisticated AI-powered deception.
Matt Sayar's blog post, "Why does Cloudflare Pages have such a generous Free tier?", delves into the strategic reasoning behind Cloudflare's remarkably liberal free offering for its Pages product, a static site hosting service. Sayar argues that Cloudflare isn't simply being altruistic; instead, the free tier functions as a sophisticated, multi-faceted investment in future growth and market dominance. He outlines several key justifications for this strategy.
Firstly, the free tier serves as a potent customer acquisition tool. By removing the financial barrier to entry, Cloudflare attracts a vast pool of users, including hobbyists, students, and early-stage startups. This broad user base creates a substantial network effect, enriching the Cloudflare ecosystem and increasing the likelihood of these free users eventually converting to paying customers as their projects scale and require more advanced features. This "land and expand" strategy allows Cloudflare to capture market share early and nurture long-term customer relationships.
Secondly, the free tier acts as a powerful marketing mechanism. The sheer volume of projects hosted on the free tier generates significant organic publicity and positive word-of-mouth referrals. This organic growth is significantly more cost-effective than traditional advertising campaigns and contributes to solidifying Cloudflare's brand recognition within the developer community.
Thirdly, the marginal cost of hosting static sites is remarkably low for a company with Cloudflare's existing infrastructure. Leveraging their extensive global network, Cloudflare can accommodate a large volume of free tier users without incurring substantial additional expenses. This allows them to provide a generous free service while minimizing financial strain.
Furthermore, the free tier cultivates a loyal user base familiar with the Cloudflare ecosystem. This familiarity fosters "stickiness," making users more inclined to choose other Cloudflare products and services as their needs evolve beyond static hosting. This cross-selling potential further strengthens Cloudflare's market position and diversifies its revenue streams.
Finally, offering a free tier allows Cloudflare to rapidly iterate and improve its Pages product based on real-world usage from a large and diverse user base. This constant stream of feedback and data allows for continuous optimization and innovation, ultimately leading to a more robust and competitive product offering in the long run.
In conclusion, Sayar posits that Cloudflare's generous free tier for Pages isn't a charitable act but rather a calculated, long-term investment. By attracting users, building brand loyalty, leveraging existing infrastructure, and fostering product development, the free tier strategically positions Cloudflare for sustained growth and market leadership within the competitive landscape of static site hosting and beyond.
The Hacker News post "Why does Cloudflare Pages have such a generous Free tier?" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mix of speculation and informed opinions. No one definitively answers the question, but several compelling theories emerge from the commentary.
Several commenters suggest that Cloudflare's generous free tier is a strategic move to gain market share and lock-in developers. This "land and expand" strategy is a common practice in the tech industry, where a company offers a compelling free tier to attract users, hoping they'll eventually upgrade to paid plans as their needs grow. This argument is bolstered by observations that Cloudflare's free tier is remarkably robust, offering features comparable to paid tiers of other providers. One commenter specifically mentions that the inclusion of unlimited bandwidth in the free tier makes it extremely attractive, even for moderately sized projects.
Another commenter suggests that the free tier acts as a massive, distributed honeypot for Cloudflare. By having millions of sites on their free tier, Cloudflare gains invaluable real-world data about traffic patterns, attack vectors, and various edge cases. This data can then be used to improve their overall security infrastructure and refine their paid offerings. This allows them to constantly improve their services and offer better protection to their paying customers.
The ease of use and integration with other Cloudflare services is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the generosity of the free tier. Several commenters point out that Pages integrates seamlessly with other Cloudflare products, encouraging users to adopt the entire Cloudflare ecosystem. This "stickiness" within the ecosystem benefits Cloudflare by creating a loyal customer base and reducing churn.
Some commenters express concern about the long-term viability of such a generous free tier. They question whether Cloudflare can sustain these free services indefinitely and speculate about potential future limitations or price increases. However, others argue that the benefits of market share and data collection outweigh the costs of providing free services, at least for the foreseeable future.
Finally, a few commenters speculate that Cloudflare might be leveraging the free tier to attract talent. By offering a powerful and free platform, they attract developers who become familiar with Cloudflare's technology. This can potentially lead to recruitment opportunities and a larger pool of skilled individuals familiar with their products.
While the precise reasons behind Cloudflare's generous free tier remain undisclosed by the company in the comments, the Hacker News discussion offers several plausible explanations, revolving around strategic market positioning, data acquisition, ecosystem building, and potential talent acquisition.
The Rust crate ropey provides a highly efficient and performant data structure called a "rope" specifically designed for handling large UTF-8 encoded text strings. Unlike traditional string representations that store text contiguously in memory, a rope represents text as a tree-like structure of smaller strings. This structure allows for significantly faster performance in operations that modify text, particularly insertions, deletions, and slicing, especially when dealing with very long strings where copying large chunks of memory becomes a bottleneck.
ropey aims to be a robust and practical solution for text manipulation, offering not only performance but also a comprehensive set of features. It correctly handles complex grapheme clusters and provides accurate character indexing and slicing, respecting the nuances of UTF-8 encoding. The library also supports efficient splitting and concatenation of ropes, further enhancing its ability to manage large text documents. Furthermore, it provides functionality for finding character and line boundaries, iterating over lines and graphemes, and determining line breaks.
Memory efficiency is a key design consideration. ropey minimizes memory overhead and avoids unnecessary allocations by sharing data between ropes where possible, using copy-on-write semantics. This means that operations like slicing create new rope structures that share the underlying data with the original rope until a modification is made. This efficient memory management makes ropey particularly well-suited for applications dealing with substantial amounts of text, such as text editors, code editors, and other text-processing tools.
The crate's API is designed for ease of use and integrates well with the Rust ecosystem. It aims to offer a convenient and idiomatic way to work with ropes in Rust programs, providing a level of abstraction that simplifies complex text manipulation tasks while retaining performance benefits. The API provides methods for building ropes from strings, appending and prepending text, inserting and deleting text at specific positions, and accessing slices of the rope.
In summary, ropey provides a high-performance, memory-efficient, and user-friendly rope data structure implementation in Rust for manipulating and editing large UTF-8 encoded text, making it a valuable tool for developers working with substantial text data. Its careful handling of UTF-8, along with its efficient memory management and comprehensive API, makes it a compelling alternative to traditional string representations for applications requiring fast and efficient text manipulation.
The Hacker News post discussing the Ropey crate for Rust has several comments exploring its use cases, performance, and comparisons to other text manipulation libraries.
One commenter expresses interest in Ropey for use in a text editor they are developing, highlighting the need for efficient handling of large text files and complex editing operations. They specifically mention the desire for a data structure that can manage millions of lines without performance degradation. This commenter's focus on practical application demonstrates a real-world need for libraries like Ropey.
Another commenter points out that Ropey doesn't handle Unicode bidirectional text properly. They note that correctly implementing bidirectional text support is complex and might necessitate using a different crate specifically designed for that purpose. This comment raises a crucial consideration for developers working with multilingual text, emphasizing the importance of choosing the right tool for specific requirements.
Another comment discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of using a rope data structure compared to a gap buffer. The commenter argues that while gap buffers can be simpler to implement for certain use cases, ropes offer better performance for more complex operations, particularly insertions and deletions in the middle of large texts. This comment provides valuable insight into the trade-offs involved in selecting the appropriate data structure for text manipulation.
Someone else compares Ropey to the text manipulation library used in the Xi editor, suggesting that Ropey might offer comparable performance. This comparison draws a connection between the library and a popular, high-performance text editor, suggesting Ropey's suitability for similar applications.
A subsequent comment adds to this comparison by noting that Xi's implementation differs slightly by storing rope chunks in contiguous memory. This nuance adds technical depth to the discussion, illustrating the different approaches possible when implementing rope data structures.
Finally, one commenter raises the practical issue of serialization and deserialization with Ropey. They acknowledge that while the library is excellent for in-memory manipulation, persisting the rope structure efficiently might require careful consideration. This comment brings up the important aspect of data storage and retrieval when working with large text data, highlighting a potential area for future development or exploration.
In summary, the comments section explores Ropey's practical applications, compares its performance and implementation to other libraries, and delves into specific technical details such as Unicode support and serialization. The discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the library's strengths and limitations, highlighting its relevance to developers working with large text data.
Summary of Comments ( 55 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42712807
HN commenters largely discuss the implications of Microsoft ending support for Office apps on Windows 10. Several express frustration with Microsoft's push to upgrade to Windows 11, viewing it as a forced upgrade and an attempt to increase Microsoft 365 subscriptions. Some highlight the inconvenience this poses for users with older hardware incompatible with Windows 11. Others note the potential security risks of using unsupported software and the eventual necessity of upgrading. A few commenters point out the continuing support for Office 2019, although with limited functionality updates, and discuss the alternative of using web-based Office apps or open-source office suites like LibreOffice. Some speculate this is a move to bolster Microsoft 365 subscriptions, making offline productivity increasingly dependent on the service.
The Hacker News post titled "Microsoft won't support Office apps on Windows 10 after October 14th" has generated a number of comments discussing the implications of Microsoft's decision. Several commenters express frustration and cynicism regarding Microsoft's perceived strategy of pushing users towards newer operating systems and subscription services.
One highly upvoted comment points out the confusion this creates for users, especially given that Windows 10 is still supported until 2025. They highlight the discrepancy between supporting the OS but not the core productivity suite on that OS, questioning the logic behind this move. The commenter suggests this is a tactic to force upgrades to Windows 11, even if users are content with their current setup.
Another commenter echoes this sentiment, expressing annoyance at the constant pressure to upgrade, particularly when they are satisfied with the performance and stability of their existing software. They feel this is a blatant attempt by Microsoft to increase revenue through forced upgrades and subscriptions.
The theme of planned obsolescence is also raised, with one user arguing that this is a classic example of a company artificially limiting the lifespan of perfectly functional software to drive sales. They express disappointment in this practice and the lack of consideration for users who prefer stability over constant updates.
Some commenters discuss the technical implications, questioning the specific reasons why Office apps wouldn't function on a supported OS. They speculate about potential security concerns or underlying changes in the software architecture that necessitate the change. However, there's a general skepticism towards these explanations, with many believing it's primarily a business decision rather than a technical necessity.
A few users offer practical advice, suggesting alternatives like LibreOffice or using older, perpetual license versions of Microsoft Office. They also discuss the possibility of using virtual machines to run Windows 11 if necessary.
Several comments mention the security implications, with some suggesting that this move might actually improve security by forcing users onto a more modern and regularly updated platform. However, this is countered by others who argue that forced upgrades can disrupt workflows and create vulnerabilities if not handled properly.
Overall, the comments reflect a general sentiment of frustration and skepticism towards Microsoft's decision. Many users perceive it as a manipulative tactic to drive revenue and force upgrades, rather than a move based on genuine technical necessity or user benefit. The discussion highlights the ongoing tension between software companies' desire for continuous updates and users' preference for stability and control over their systems.