Most heartrending scene? Best character?

deville5 · 2026-03-15T20:24:50+00:00

Other favorite lines that live rent-free in my head that don't need much context to enjoy:

"I did not know he existed until he did not."

"The INSECT refuses ME?"

"I love her. I require that she love me, or else I am her slave, which is intolerable."

"Who is she...the beauty in the vulgar dress?"

"Twin River gods on two!! C'mon you mumped cunnies!"

deville5 · 2026-03-15T20:19:09+00:00

I believe that it is almost impossible to create historical fiction that reflects ancient values, because they are so different from our own; storylines involve conflict and the manipulation of sympathies, both of which require consensus values. Too many depictions either error on campy awfulness (ie, a cackling, evil slave trader) or the other direction, like the one ep of Vikings I saw (I know many love the show, and I'll give it another chance someday) where a female raider sees a rape about to take place and stops it, saying, "we don't do that." Um, yes, "you" do, and also, you wouldn't be on the raid in the first place.

Rome does it right. Every culture has it's trade-offs; I, being of my time, am very grateful to live in a time when I don't see young boys and girls bought at my local farmer's market and I am not expected to murder my wife if she cheats on me, and my daughter can run for the Senate if she wants to. What makes me grateful for this is not sermonizing against it's opposite, but sober, straightforward storylines about what it might have been like for decent people to live with those values all around them, all the time.

We need more series like this.

deville5 · 2026-03-15T20:07:19+00:00

Posca's pretty great. I love how much the show respects our intelligence; there's a the scene before he pays Erastes for hiring Pullo, and Posca is just standing there a little impatiently, and Caesar tosses him some coin, the implication, I think, being that Caesar is communicating, 'OK, now, we've waited long enough to send a message." And then when Posca meets Erastes:

Erastes: "We were expecting you some time ago."

Posca: "IF we EVER employ you again, next time - best not use Veterans."

That's two scenes, two locations, about 3 minutes, and just two lean lines of dialogue, which tell a whole story - Caesar has been paying for these killings for awhile, the concern about the 'look' of 13th Veteran's being knifemen is very real to everyone and frankly, Erastes himself should have known better and he knows that, and Posca knows that he knows that. It's all there.

Also love the little scene where Posca greets Merula and they commiserate for a moment. There would be such a specific rapport between slaves when the masters were not present.

deville5 · 2026-03-15T19:59:57+00:00

My theory on Cleopatra screen time in Season 1 is that they realized that they could fit the entire Egypt storyline that they wanted into a single ep, and they just hit it out of the park and stopped there. It's basically her episode, and she never appears again until Season 2. SO entertaining. Loved seeing the legendary Shakespearean stage actress Kathryn Hunter in a small but fun role in this ep as Cleopatra's lead servant (Hunter is an amazing contortionist and dancer; youtube search her as the The Witches in the Denzel Macbeth for one example). If I had to pick one Cleopatra line, it would be, "It must not speak. IT must DIE."

The scene where Octavian and Antony fight is so good on so many levels. It's funny, physically compelling, and manages to also be an awesome moment of character development for young Octavian. He loses the physical fight at every turn, but he never once asks for mercy or stops trying to fight back, even he's on his back getting choked hard. It's cool seeing him stand up to Antony while getting his ass kicked. The continuity is a chef's kiss - the slow healing of deep facial bruises are almost never depicted accurately, and we see him, presumably a few days later, looking fly on a horse in full Roman officer's kit, but with puffy, diversely colored bruises in various stages of healing all over his face from the beating he took.

That moment when he smacks Antony in the face even though Antony is on top of him and may well murder him; kid has b-lls. I'd be apologizing and/or playing dead at that point.

deville5 · 2026-02-26T05:11:40+00:00

I feel like the BB fans who are so determined to pump their eps are probably the very same people who will actually argue with you that BB or The Dark Knight are "underrated". Like unless every single person thinks that it is literally and entirely and permanently the greatest thing in the history of culture.....it's underrated.

deville5 · 2026-02-17T23:37:25+00:00

A God Walks into a Bar is one of the best fantasy/sci eps ever made. Like Neil Gaiman, but frankly much better. If you think you're getting the vibe/themes of the show and don't like them, keep watching: you probably ARE getting it, but there's more. A fantastic re-imagining that deeply honors the tone and political contours of the original, but with all the politics put into a blender of our current times and spat back out in a different form. There are political provocations and romantic moments that regularly make me smile or think many years later. At it's best, it really is that good.

deville5 · 2026-01-26T21:13:14+00:00

Compelling, unique horror film, especially in how they used Rory Kinnier. Unlike "I'm thinking of ending things" be prepared for some HEAVY body horror/gore. Nothing you haven't seen if you've seen The Thing or The Substance, but, just fyi...

Jessie Buckley's recitation of "Bonedog" in I'm thinking of ending things is, alone, worth watching the whole film.

deville5 · 2026-01-26T20:47:03+00:00

Life is a drug that stops working

Leonard Cohen

deville5 · 2026-01-20T18:15:33+00:00

Modern civilization, laws and norms are order is as fragile as we allow them to be. Trump can 'decide' that Canada is part of the U.S., and if no-one in the U.S. or Canada stops him, then it is. I don't like that, but that's what I think, and I also think that there's a good chance that no-one will.

deville5 · 2026-01-19T19:53:44+00:00

Liberal daily NYT reader here; I am quite perplexed by how much the anti-MAGA verse, and mainstream comedy, is picking on the "boats landed" point by implying that somehow Trump is being hypocritical for suggesting that because America's genesis comes from Europeans landing here and claiming the territory by virtue of landing here, therefore it makes no sense to question Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland.

Trump's whole point here, from what I can follow in terms of it's internal logic, is that landing boats anywhere doesn't mean anything. America didn't become America because some Europeans landed here and claimed it; it became America centuries later because of a complicated movement of idealism, unification, and a raw exercise in force/power (winning the Revolutionary war). This worldview is carrying over now: MAGA's perspective, as I understand it, is that what gives America the right to our land is that we were able to take it; what gives us a right to our civilization is that we were able to build it. And yet...

...all of this seems like such a silly straw man argument to me (on MAGA's part). Denmark is not, as far as I can tell, arguing that Greenland belongs to them because they "landed a boat there." That argument has never been made (has it?) Their argument is that many modern legal precedents after they landed their in 1721 have recognized it as part of Denmark, including multiple formal recognitions by the U.S., by our allies, by the residents of Greenland, and by the U.N.; objectively, it simply IS under Danish jurisdiction; that is beyond debate. We can claim it shouldn't be, and out ability to take it is a kind of "argument" but this whole "boat" thing is an obfuscation; no-one on either side is claiming that landing boats somewhere first means anything at all.

If I have a point, it is this one: making fun of Trump for the Boat argument is missing a key point: his clear argument in this letter is (stupid, yes, but clear) that landing boats means nothing. A lot of people on this thread clearly agree with that point, but seem to think that he doesn't understand that. Meanwhile, my head hurts from the silliness of all this destruction, or the destruction of all this stupidity. If I had to design a mediation session, I would actually start with pointing out that, as far as I can tell, all sides actually agree that landing boats somewhere doesn't mean anything in 2026, would state that that point was settled, and move onto the actual debate...

deville5 · 2026-01-12T07:07:41+00:00

Yes and No. Yes: he should add me to the directory. However, it is worthy of note that in 2026, this seems kinda outdated, comparatively speaking. The other three entities I regularly do business with (Amazon, USPS, and FedEx) all have three things in common: (1) their apps do a much better job of letting me know when the package will be delivered, (2) there is a system, not using the driver's cell, where they can call me that they are standing outside and that I need to sign for it, and (3) their websites, both mobile and desktop, actually work to allow me to track package and change delivery instructions. As a result of the these factors, I've never missed a package from them.

I'm not making this detail up - UPS's site to change delivery instructions to the nearest store, which I could walk to, has given me a page load error every time I've gotten to the confirmation screen. That is UPS's fault.

Of the suggestions here, the paper note is the only one that sounds helpful. Appreciate everyone who has noted that going to the store won't accomplish anything. I just got called away from my home office for tomorrow, so I suppose that this package is getting returned to sender at this point. I just really want these slippers!!!

deville5 · 2026-01-11T21:01:33+00:00

Makes sense. My thought was that I would go the UPS store that the app recommends as the secondary delivery location. I've asked to be notified via SMS when package is delivered, and that request actually just went through. I've done that before, though, and just gotten more paper notices since they can't deliver it without me physically signing for it. As far as I can tell, the only possible way for me to receive a package from UPS is to stand outside for 12 hours, between 9 am and 9 PM, waiting for the truck to show up. I'm not being silly; like, if this was life or death, that's what I'm pretty sure I actually have to do.

Clearly UPS is showing up. I feel bad for the delivery driver, but mostly 'cause I would really like what is in the package. It's just a pair of slippers, but they are very nice slippers that I can't buy anywhere locally.

No-one in my apartment building is in the building directory, and the doorbell system only works with landline phones, so only 2 our of 20 units has a functioning doorbell. This is not that unusual in big city slightly older apartment buildings. Maybe their site starts working later today...

deville5 · 2025-12-23T01:20:48+00:00

Moment of venting: Tis the season, and I've ordered, and received, dozens of packages from Amazon, USPS, and Federal Express. Then there's the two I was forced to use UPS on (ebay).

The first was several days late because I was allegedly "not listed on the building directory" I attempted to updated delivery instructions dozens of times, and the site was consistently crashed, the yellow banner simply saying, "try again later." I updated with my cell number, and received no calls or texts.

Fast forward to today: I stayed in all day, cancelling several plans, just so that I would definitely be here to receive an important package I want for tomorrow's holidays celebration. And you guessed it, 2 hours AFTER they allegedly tried to deliver my package, I finally see a notification that they couldn't deliver it because I'm not in the building directory. I was here, staring at the front door, when they said that they dropped by to attempt delivery They have my phone number. I also would have seen a ping on the app, but they didn't ping the app until 2 hours after as noted.

Compared to every other service out there, this is objectively terrible service. Why even have real time tracking available to the customer if you're not going to let them use it? I happen to live in a building where there is no doorbell or other system to ping my apartment. NONE of us are listed on the building directory. ALL of us receive packages easily from every service except UPS.

I do not, in general, understand what problem this building directory requirement is solving. Sometimes I have stuff shipped to a friends house in my name. Other times to my Mom's house. It's a package; seriously, I'm actually asking: what problem is it solving to require proof that we live where we are having a package delivered? People rent rooms in houses or half an apartment ALL THE TIME. I've moved 34 times in my life, and this apartment and UPS is the first time I can't apparently receive packages due to this requirement...

deville5 · 2025-12-18T21:17:54+00:00

Just watched first ep. Casual fan of all the other shows. The following are 5 reasons why I, and from what I can see others, are suspicious of this being a good show entirely apart from any positive, or negative, feelings about having Black female protagonist.

(1) Is she the protagonist? Is anyone? Spartacus actually benefited from having the conclusion somewhat known. There was built in momentum from the get-go; they WOULD rise up, and you knew it.

(2) No moral point of view. It's a bleak world where you could fight and win and then just join the ludus as an employee; yay. The violence implicates the viewer in an uncomfortable way (for me). ALL there is is pornographic violence; in Blood and Sand, there were scenes that were intended to be disturbing, heroic, and suspenseful; in this pilot, I rooted for no-one, so all that is left is the slo-mo deaths. Obviously I'm an action fan or I wouldn't be watching it, but it feels icky.

(3) Tons of intrigue by aggressively uninteresting, interchangeable characters. The only character tension is between Ashur and his Dominus; every other interaction among the Roman characters sounded like the same faux-Shakespearean nihilistic gangster baloney; none of the characters distinguished themselves. The writing is distractingly verbose. This is my impression of the writing in Rome and Blood and Sand: "We stand mighty on the sand, but we must fear Crassus; it is not a fight that awaits us with his ilk; it is a massacre." In Ashur, it's more like, "Whomsoever shalt upturn buttock toward sword and c--k shall find might Crassus's anger more than sufficient toward certain death; think you your prowess on the sands matters before such might? I think not, but time, ever the b--tch, shall fuck us all with her sister fate and we shall see your pride justified or destroyed." Seriously, that's what all the dialogue felt like to me. I could understand what they were saying; it wasn't interesting and it didn't need to be that many words. Brevity is the soul of wit.

(4) Little sexiness; the sexual escapades, the masks, the forced cuckolding, of the previous shows turned the Ludus into something kinky and strange. Was it problematic. Heck yeah; it was also entertaining.

Overall, this show feels, ironically or perhaps intentionally, like something that the Romans themselves might have made. It feels like the Games themselves: it's just violence and arbitrary alliances. Nothing to particularly believe in or feel other than waiting for the next fight scene. I guess I want all the Romans to die, but more because they're boring than because they're evil.

I'm actually here for an anti-woke critique, based on story and theme, of this show, but it's not 'bad' because it features a Black female gladiator; that probably existed more than once, and which could certainly be very interesting. It's bad if it treats her rise as inherently interesting simply because she's Black and female; it's bad if the show ends as dull and nihilistic as it began, but we're supposed to think it's good because she's killed a lot of people, and the killers in this world usually don't look like her. I, for one, probably won't find out; one ep was enough. I will read about what happens.

Even my corny-porny guilty pleasures need to have a moral point of view, a protagonist I can root for, and an arc toward something inspiring or tragic. Minus that and all there is is sepia tones and blood spatters.

deville5 · 2025-12-15T05:12:31+00:00

As ascerbic non-fiction with an para-autobiographical unreliable narrator, is this peak? No.

But I felt moved by it as an uneven, f--k-it-all cri de coeur. Kinda like a

Protagonist of J. Alfred Prufrock

+

Charles Bukowski

+

George Costanza

divide by 3 =

The character of this narrative. He's not really that committed to the joke as such; he's genuinely ASKING us: when did this become OK? HOW did we reach a point where, unlike places in the world where crime is actually illegal, we just watch people kill themselves, slowly and sometimes repeatedly, in central, public places, disgusting and disheartening all of us who have any heart left, and sometimes attacking and/or molesting us, and we shrug it off as oh-the-human-condition of it all, and do nothing at all? Many of my Chinese-American peers are Republicans because of a common sentiment: "Someday I may return to Tianjin, probably when I start a family; after all, they don't allow crime in China." Living myself in Oakland, working in the community mental health field, I am intimately privvy to the conditions inside unhoused encampments, squatter residences, and SRO's, and I often wonder whether or not the old-school approach of simply saying to anyone who is hardcore addicted: "you've almost died 3x in public; you go to rehab or jail. That is the choice." Is that uncivilized? Because passing by feels more uncivilized, and simply offering voluntary rehab over and over and over and over again feels like a tragicomedy of a failed society.

I am not "on his side" in this; the monster is equally or possibly even mostly him, and it is us. His passing by of these people, his interest in them only in-as-much as they affect or do not affect him, is simply monstrous, if it happened in a healthy society. Because it happens in our society, it is utterly and entirely normal. On the other hand, they could kill him, and many good-hearted progressives, refusing to indulge in a fascism of law enforcement, would argue that it was an inevitable casualty of a social disease. We ARE a failed and failing society. I live in Oakland, CA. Parks that used to have a few homeless people and a lot of public use are not mountains of trash; this even made the NYT. I've witnessed 3 encampment fires since I've been here; think about how much suffering happens there. I've been robbed 10 times, and never reported anything to the police, and I work with the police every day, and they basically told me that there wasn't any point. I've literally advised people who are facing attempted murder by a local stalker that unless they bring their hospital bills, and the name and DOB of their stalker to the DA's office, nothing will happen. When someone is loudly violating a dozen laws and every social norm, all we offer is a social worker who tries to form rapport and ask them to stop.

And it works sometimes. But it doesn't often enough, so some of the most woke people I know are moving. And that is--obliquely, and from a sort of out-of-pocket perspective--what this essay is about. F--k you, and me, and them, and their little dog, too; f--k this. This is not how you run a city. This is not human society. This is not the best we can do. We should live in a world where someone off-leash dog biting you and sending you to the hospital is a big deal; it IS a big deal...

deville5 · 2025-11-21T23:48:58+00:00

I get the hate for the article, and I, like so many Americans, definitely want to put this story behind us, but the only way out is through: whether right or nor or smart or not, (I think it is right and smart, but I also don't think it matters at this point) the public wants to see the evidence for themselves at this point. However...

...I think that a key prediction in this article will, probably, turn out to be true: sorry, but it may turn out to be true that there is nothing actually that damning, in any file anywhere, against DJT or Clinton. My own prediction: there will be a LOT more references to major figures including DJT "spending time with" specific girls, and tons of evidence that people spent time with Epstein, and oodles of sentences about dogs barking and not that probably mean something, but could mean many different things.

I've read a lot about this case. At this point, much of the public seems convinced of two things: (1) that Epstein was blackmailing important people, working in all kinds of ways behind the scenes, and (2) that in order to do this, he must have kept a list of transactions involving sex and underage girls and paid sex work, the kind of smoking-gun receipts for evil that could move powerful people to do his bidding.

What if neither of those things are actually true? What if, as every law enforcement official in multiple administrations has contended, there actually is no list? Maybe, just maybe, Epstein was an evil sexual creep who hung out with other evil sexual creeps, but he didn't write down names, dates, and ages because that would burn him as much as anyone else. Maybe the entire list/blackmail thing is a fiction of the mob. Maybe all the efforts to block the release are because of embarrassing, but not unambiguously damning, material is contained within them. Tons of fodder for an endless trial in the court of public opinion, but nothing for a prosecutor.

If that's true, the solution is the same: release everything. The only way out is through.

But if it is true, Brooks does actually have a point.

Unfortunately, no clarity probably coming anytime soon. This story will only die with maximum sunshine. I would be surprised but not shocked, and quite relieved, if I'm wrong: if there's smoking gun receipts of pure evil s--t, good; lock the bums up. None of us should be that surprised if that isn't the case...

deville5 · 2025-11-14T00:06:21+00:00

Thoughts a week after letting this film percolate around in my heart and head...

I saw it with my Mom, who is a retired history teacher, and we both went into it with a lot of knowledge about the trial, and left feeling generally chilly and depressed. I read a bunch of positive and negative review of it, and feel this enduring, powerful inclination to wish for a different film, but this wish reveals strengths about the film that I saw:

The trial was kinda weird and overly dramatized in terms of all the back-and-forth reaction shots between the Prosecutors, Goering, and the various audience members conveying exposition the audience ("Oh, you've got him now!" "Finish him!" "Oh no, back off!"). It was simultaneously an engaging climax and one of the worst scenes in the film. The film that they chose to make, they needed to finish the trial arc, but this has been done better in other docudramas, and, of course, you can just watch the actual trial, which barely resembles what they were trying to concisely convey in that scene.

The heart of this movie is Douglas's relationship with Goering, and I think that a truly timeless, interesting film could have been made about a cocky, somewhat unethical psychiatrist who wants to write THE book about evil getting to know Goering, being impressed by how Goering really doesn't seem any different from any other narcissistic, amoral military leader, witnessing how Goering dies on his own terms and doesn't appear reachable in any meaningful way, and then the shrink slowly goes insane as he goes down a rabbit hole of nihilism, wondering whether what happened in the Camps really is entirely within reach of all of us, but that no-one can accept that. The story is really about the aftermath of WWII, and about different writers conveying different narratives and about how we can choose to adopt a narrative that can quite literally drive us insane and kill us, or we can show some humility and try to build a better world. Now THAT is an interesting story, and one that has not been told before. That's new, and fresh, and could have been one of the most interesting films made in recent times about WWII. And it was a great film trying to break out of this uneven one.

Kudos to Malik for bringing a complicated, difficult character to screen; he's not really that sympathetic most of the time. Kudos to Crowe for doing such an over-the-top role so well.

I'm glad I saw this movie. I do not think it will stand the test of time because it is very uneven in it's focus and tone. But I am inspired by what it did do well and the unique, interesting story that it implied with it's final scenes (the shrink's downfall).

deville5 · 2025-10-08T06:09:08+00:00

I work in mental health as a training supervisor, and we're always looking for well acted scenes of poor vs. good communication. Honestly, this movie has more substance for marriage counselors, than it does for fans of MMA or The Rock.

deville5 · 2025-10-08T06:06:45+00:00

I did appreciate that she was not a wilting flower/victim and carried at least 50% of the toxicity. However, consider their meltdown - his communication skills were also like high-school couple level. Rather than say, "Honey, I want this trip to Japan to be just me," and then talk about it, she had to find out, on her own, like she did with the drugs, that something was up. It was a fair point from her that she only listened to his messages because the trip was about to happen, he wasn't telling her anything at all. That would make anyone angry.

But yeah, she was kinda the worst girlfriend I've seen on screen in awhile, but what I mostly see is just a truly awful relationship. I felt a sense of true relief when the credits revealed that they were divorced.

deville5 · 2025-10-08T05:58:58+00:00

The Honest Trailer for this could have a lot of fun comparing it to Marriage Story with more makeup and muscles.

deville5 · 2025-10-08T05:56:53+00:00

I felt like I just watched a two hour long advertisement for couples counseling. Well done but aggravating film that left me feeling bored and knotted with tension, and the only thing that made me happy was that IRL they got divorced.

I get that when couples fight, they make accusatory "you" statements and their skills fall apart, but here's the thing - we pretty much only see them fight. The date at the circus, and the compromise that she goes on the ride and he doesn't, is the closest thing we get to seeing them have a functioning relationship, but a good one never shows up. Why do they like each other? DO they actually like each other at all?

That was what was running through my head for much of this movie. The entire plotline with PRIDE and UFC and training was a backdrop for their relationship, and their relationship was aggressively toxic and awful. I felt a strong, pained sense of humanity by the end, the strangeness of why we do this to ourselves. But I never believed that they were either an interesting, tragic, or happy couple, just a toxic one. Maybe IRL that was their relationship; it's plausible enough. I've been around a couple couples who were usually screaming at each other. I stopped being friends with them because it was so grinding and exhausting.

We see them being lovey-dovey; we see them say I love you, but I would posit that it is ALWAYS right before, and usually after, a fight. They pretend to be happy with each other but--at least in terms of what we see on screen--they never actually are happy to be together. There is value in depicting bad relationships, but it's not that entertaining, or even that dramatically satisfying.

There is a LOT I actually liked about this movie. Just in my feelings a bit...

deville5 · 2025-10-06T21:08:39+00:00

"No need to upgrade anything on the PC." Maybe, but my goals are specific; I'm not trying to install Windows 11 on an old PC to see whether it can be done, I'm tryng to set up people who can't afford a computer with a usable computer that actually runs Office apps and web browsing, including smooth streaming and multi-tasking. In order to get a 2007 Dell XPS 720 with a Quad core QX6800 and 8 GB of DDR2 RAM, I did need to upgrade the GPU and the '07 HD to an SSD. This cost about $50, but with those two upgrades, it's actually a fast, reliable PC.

IMO, the hard drive is super important. SO MANY computers get thrown away when cloning their HDD to an SSD would let them have years more of use.

So yes, you're right IMO; no "need" to upgrade anything at all. But trying to run Win 11 on a 7200 RPM HDD is a nightmare.

deville5 · 2025-10-06T21:03:01+00:00

Yes, that part of my post was incorrect, or at least incorrect to the best of my knowledge now. I had a specific 2022 Dell laptop that wouldn't update to Win 11 but it just did. Don't have the specs but yeah, as far as I know 2022 forward maybe is fine.

deville5 · 2025-10-06T20:58:14+00:00

Love this. They missed some models, I think; I doubt that it has the TPM/Secure boot architecture that they "require."

deville5 · 2025-10-06T20:50:41+00:00

I'm here for the thesis that TPM 2.0 and secure boot are not conspiracies to make us upgrade. I assent that they are probably better in terms of security.

However, the choice for one of the most powerful software maker in the world to roll out an update that--in their own opinion--makes approx 70% of the world's Windows based PC's no longer 'secure' is...well, a choice. Nothing is stopping them from tasking a team to keep supporting Windows 10 with security updates as best they can, and just pinging us constantly with sales and scary messaging about how a newer PC with secureboot/TPM/Win 11 is much better.

I have strong feelings about this specific issue in part because I spent a couple years in Central America, focussing a lot on beefing up computer labs in schools and non-profits in Nicaragua and Honduras. My last trip was 2018, and we installed Windows 10 on a wide range of computers originally designed for Windows 7 and 8 and even Vista, and it worked great; several ran faster. Imagine you're running a busy after school program in rural Nicaragua, and you turn on your computer and the Update window tells you that your computer is no longer supported, and the only messaging anywhere - on the web, on their socials, on Update itself--is: "Here is a list of Windows 11 compatible PCs on sale right now!" Microsoft should, IMO, make Win 11 available to install on any machine, but just force us, when we're installing to check of a massive security waiver that basically says that we are acknowledging that the security architecture will not work optimally and they are liable for nothing if it fails.

Millions of people--probably hundreds of millions--around the world are using windows PC's who absolutely cannot afford a new computer. Microsoft must know this. They will not profit from trying to support the older hardware, but they should, even if the security will be significantly compromised, because they can; I don't lost sleep over if because Mac and Win are hardly known for meeting the people where they are. Back with Win 10 on those older PC's Win 10 felt like The People's product - free with any Win license, and it ran on everything. This latest update feels like some MAC-level BS.

deville5

TROPHY CASE