That's why I live very well with Win 10 without updates.
I downgraded in May last year from Win11 after months of frustration and headaches and since then everything works smoothly and peacefully.
Windows 10 LTSC IoT 2021 is the way to go, if you have to use Windows. Gets security updates until 2031 but no new "features".
You can't just pay for it like the Home or Pro edition because Microsoft is not interested in actually selling an OS as a product to users, but https://massgrave.dev/ is your friend.
I will say that 11 LTSC is also a solid option. I run it myself and I don’t have any issues with it, and it lacks a lot of the crap that Microsoft has been trying to shove in.
At some point there might be compatibility issues with Windows 10 (especially with it now being EOL) so if your a gamer 11 LTSC might be the better choice.
Month after month I read this stuff (along with the seemingly neverending gaming issues with MPO?) and think, yep, I will stay off Win 11 as long as I can
Sure you can predict the market. Making money off of it beyond the regular risk-adjusted return is what's hard. (And the prediction of this article is indeed based on that assumption.)
I completely disagree with the idea that 2025 "The (only?) year of MCP." In fact, I believe every year in the foreseeable future will belong to MCP. It is here to stay. MCP was the best (rational, scalable, predictable) thing since LLM madness broke loose.
I think concrete examples of this are tricky because these "mini frameworks" only exist inside of a companies' proprietary codebase. My understanding of the concept is its an abstraction layer built on top of a more general abstraction, except the more general version is well documented and well understood by the company (for an internal framework) or even overall developer community (for something open source).
Not the GP, but I'll bite. I'm skeptical too, so I read TFA.
---
They tried 9 bacterias and a 1 control group. Using n=3 * (9+1) = 30 mice they got this result:
> Most remarkably, E. americana demonstrated exceptional therapeutic efficacy, achieving potent tumor suppression and complete tumor regression (complete response, CR) following a single bacterial administration. The therapeutic kinetics revealed that mice treated with R. qingshengii exhibited initial tumor suppression up to day 5 post-injection; however, tumor re-growth was subsequently observed, suggesting that while this strain possesses antitumor activity, its therapeutic effects are not sustained long-term.
They claim "p < 0.0001" that in my opinion is a loooot of zeros for only 3 mice.
They end the experiment after 40 days, so it's not clear if the cancer would reappear after a a few months.
They tried again with 5 mice, and got similar results, so it doesn't look like a fluke, but it's a very short time to claim an "elimination" line in the title of the press release. The research article has a more neutral tone.
---
It looks like the idea is that these bacterias can survive without oxygen, so they are happy to live in the tumor that usually has a low number of capilar and blood and oxygen. IIUC the bacterias kill the nearby tumor cells, perhaps steal their food and also make the immune system go there and kill everything just in case. This sounds like a sensible idea, but it's too far from my area to be sure.
Fwiw, 3 mice is imho sufficient because these mice might as well be clones. They're not clones, but they're genetically very similar to one another, so variations in results are not expected.
