LAwLz

Stop listening to Linus for tech advice.
Not sure where he got the idea that WPA2 is easy to crack from. He is not right though if that's what he said in the video. 
WPA2 is, when configured properly, very secure. There are a few pitfalls you can fall into when configuring WPA2 but most vendors have good defaults so unless you deliberately start changing settings you don't know what they mean (like switching from CCMP to TKIP), you will be fine.
 
 
 
Frequency has nothing to do with it. 2.4GHz, 5GHz and 6GHz are equally secure to each other. It's true that some IoT devices, which may be unsecure, might only support 2.4GHz, but it's not the network that's unsecure in those cases. Thinking that isolating the 2.4GHz clients from the 5GHz clients will increase security is completely wrong.
If you want to isolate your IoT devices then you isolate them based on the device type/purpose/security practice, not the frequency they use to connect. Especially since plenty of IoT devices, such as the Raspberry Pi, do support 5Ghz these days.
 
 
You probably have quite a few devices that support it.
All your up-to-date Windows machines support it. Your Android devices running Android 10 or higher support it. 
Your iOS devices running iOS 13 or later also support it.
(There may or may not be some old hardware that has trouble with WPA3, but in theory, it does not require any new hardware. All WPA2 hardware should be able to support WPA3. In most cases, you should only have to update the software like your OS and it should work).

Two thoughts I had when I saw this video, and I am a bit scared that nobody else has pointed this out.
1) The video is super heavily edited. I am not even sure this is what he said because it is so heavily edited. Does anyone have the original video? In that 1 minute video I counted something like 18 cuts. That the large amount of cuts doesn't ring an alarm bell to anyone else is in my opinion a pretty big alarm bell. Are people just so used to the jump cuts that they don't notice them? Each and every cut could be taking out important context that may bring nuance or it could also just be stitching together words to form sentences that were never even said to begin with.
 
2) Is he really saying "don't learn computer science"? 
To me, the way I interpret what was said, is that while we used to hear people say "everyone should learn how to program" we are quickly moving towards a world where few people will need to learn how to code. That we should aim to make tools that makes it so that everyone can "program" without knowing a programming language. 
That people who used to need to learn programming to make their computers do something that was actually related to something else (like biology) will hopefully be able to just focus on the biology part in the future. Instead of needing to learn how to code because they need to write a program to check some protein reaction or whatever, they will hopefully in the future be able to just focus on learning the biology part and let the computer handle the "how to create a program to check this" part.
 
That we are moving away from "everyone need to learn programming because programming is a skill every job needs" to "you don't need to learn programming if that's not going to be your primary focus".
 
I might be misinterpreting what he said, but I think that is a fairly logical explanation and view considering some particular word choices and context.

I've seen ChatGPT spit out code for a fairly mundane thing that would pass most tests but has fatal flaws in it [ones humans wouldn't make]...I'm not sure I would put it at the absolutely yet.
 
Where I stand on this topic is I think that we will always need to learn computer science because there will always be edge cases with any technology and you will always need people in order to figure things out or check the logic actually is proper...with that said, I think as a whole AI will greatly reduce the amount of time needed to essentially complete tasks and for non-critical things as well you could get by with just the testing/verifying results...especially for workloads the fit the concept of validating being easier than "solving" [e.g. if you solve a sudoku, it's easy for someone to validate but to solve it takes time].
 
What AI really allows us to do though is to create works that are almost there, and then the computer science people will step in and clean things up/remove bad logic.
 
 
I agree with your comments on blanket statements comment, and would like to add this AI has the good and ugly sides to it.  AI tools can help search and refine code, and spot errors that a human might not really notice [Like the heartbleed bug, a simple human oversight that an AI would be able to quickly understand].  Then we get to the ugly
int overfloweg(int x) { if (x + 100 < x) print("overflow error"); return x + 100; } The above technically is valid(ish), technically undefined, a programmer could see it and if they are familiar would understand what is happening.  On one compiler though with optimizations, it doesn't "understand" it and optimizes the code to never run the if statement...thus allowing an overflow.
 
Humans and AI are fallible, but putting the two together under the right conditions can be a wonderful thing.
 
I don't have to spend hours typing out skeleton files/basic files that I need to create to create a project.  I just spend 5 minutes with the AI to spit out all the work and then 5 minutes to verify what it did was correct enough and continue with the portions I know it can't handle/wouldn't do accordingly.  It saves lots of time.  The way I would put it, code written by AI allows the developer to focus on the more important aspects of their work.

@jaslion @Blasty Blosty @venomtail @LAwLz @Somerandomtechyboi
 
Just to update anyone whose in terested in this, ended up relaying this info (He has already bought the game on steam but hasnt been able to run it so his play time is under 2 hours and can still be refunded)


 
Thanks for the help and if you have anything else you think would be good to add!
 
(Marking solution on these posts is always a pain, everyones been helpful 😅)

Sinofsky is a massive twat. I am not surprised that he is strongly against the DMA, a piece of legislation trying to keep giant tech companies from abusing their positions of power to lock users into their ecosystems. That is exactly what Sinofsky was trying to push (and in some regards succeeded) when he was at Microsoft.
 
I also think he is being a bit silly or maybe disingenuous when he says the legislation is "clearly aimed at specific US companies" and then goes ahead and lists companies like Samsung, ByteDance, Alibaba, AliExpress, Booking.com, and Zalando as also being affected. Is he aware that those companies aren't American? I mean, it is Sinofsky we're talking about so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know Samsung isn't from the US...
 
Maybe the issue isn't that "the legislation is aimed at US companies because the EU is evil and want to harm America!" but rather "a lot of the big companies that are abusing their power are from the US"?
 
 
There is so much bullshit in this article it's not even funny.
Things like claiming Apple has never abused their position of power and that no consumer has been harmed by the way Apple acts. I would argue that the 30% cut Apple takes is an abuse of their position. Especially since they forbid developers from telling users about for example cheaper rates on their website. Telling developers "no, you are not allowed to tell your users that they can subscribe to the service without also paying us, Apple, is not allowed and we will take away everything from you if you do" is not exactly a friendly and non-abusive way of handling your users or developers. Sinofsky might think that's not abusive because he looks up to Apple a lot and wanted Microsoft to be like Apple, but if he is going to claim that's perfectly fine, good and not an abuse of power then he is in my eyes a dumbass.

"1080p60fps" doesn't really tell us much.
There is a big difference between 1080p60fps when using upscaling and running at lowest detail settings, and if you are running at native resolution with everything maxed out. It's also a big difference if we are talking about average FPS or minimum FPS.
 
The recommended specs for 1080p 60 FPS with medium settings is an Nvidia RX 2060 or AMD RX 6600 XT with a Ryzen 3700K, 16GB of RAM.

Judging by forum posts I've heard, it seems like an AMD 3600 with an RX 2060 is enough for 50-60 FPS with some settings turned down for 1440p gameplay.
Assuming that's okay for you, a brand new PC ends up being about 650-700 dollars. Here is an example of a build I quickly threw together as an example:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HmCW89
Please note that that's something I quickly threw together. There may be room for improvements.
 
You could also try and reuse some parts to get away cheaper. The PSU and the case might be reusable. That would save 110 dollars from my build.
It might be possible to reuse the motherboard, RAM and CPU as well although at this point I think it might not be a great idea to do that. They are quite old and would potentially hold you back.

Two thoughts I had when I saw this video, and I am a bit scared that nobody else has pointed this out.
1) The video is super heavily edited. I am not even sure this is what he said because it is so heavily edited. Does anyone have the original video? In that 1 minute video I counted something like 18 cuts. That the large amount of cuts doesn't ring an alarm bell to anyone else is in my opinion a pretty big alarm bell. Are people just so used to the jump cuts that they don't notice them? Each and every cut could be taking out important context that may bring nuance or it could also just be stitching together words to form sentences that were never even said to begin with.
 
2) Is he really saying "don't learn computer science"? 
To me, the way I interpret what was said, is that while we used to hear people say "everyone should learn how to program" we are quickly moving towards a world where few people will need to learn how to code. That we should aim to make tools that makes it so that everyone can "program" without knowing a programming language. 
That people who used to need to learn programming to make their computers do something that was actually related to something else (like biology) will hopefully be able to just focus on the biology part in the future. Instead of needing to learn how to code because they need to write a program to check some protein reaction or whatever, they will hopefully in the future be able to just focus on learning the biology part and let the computer handle the "how to create a program to check this" part.
 
That we are moving away from "everyone need to learn programming because programming is a skill every job needs" to "you don't need to learn programming if that's not going to be your primary focus".
 
I might be misinterpreting what he said, but I think that is a fairly logical explanation and view considering some particular word choices and context.

Sinofsky is a massive twat. I am not surprised that he is strongly against the DMA, a piece of legislation trying to keep giant tech companies from abusing their positions of power to lock users into their ecosystems. That is exactly what Sinofsky was trying to push (and in some regards succeeded) when he was at Microsoft.
 
I also think he is being a bit silly or maybe disingenuous when he says the legislation is "clearly aimed at specific US companies" and then goes ahead and lists companies like Samsung, ByteDance, Alibaba, AliExpress, Booking.com, and Zalando as also being affected. Is he aware that those companies aren't American? I mean, it is Sinofsky we're talking about so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know Samsung isn't from the US...
 
Maybe the issue isn't that "the legislation is aimed at US companies because the EU is evil and want to harm America!" but rather "a lot of the big companies that are abusing their power are from the US"?
 
 
There is so much bullshit in this article it's not even funny.
Things like claiming Apple has never abused their position of power and that no consumer has been harmed by the way Apple acts. I would argue that the 30% cut Apple takes is an abuse of their position. Especially since they forbid developers from telling users about for example cheaper rates on their website. Telling developers "no, you are not allowed to tell your users that they can subscribe to the service without also paying us, Apple, is not allowed and we will take away everything from you if you do" is not exactly a friendly and non-abusive way of handling your users or developers. Sinofsky might think that's not abusive because he looks up to Apple a lot and wanted Microsoft to be like Apple, but if he is going to claim that's perfectly fine, good and not an abuse of power then he is in my eyes a dumbass.

It's most likely next to impossible. I kind of doubt the ribbon cable just sends a regular HDMI signal to the display. These things are typically quite "non-standard". 
 
If you were to make it work, you'd probably need to solve far more difficult challenges than getting it powered on. 
Since a lot of things will probably be very specific to your particular model of TV, it's most likely too much to ask someone to help you. It would just require way to much time and effort. 

I mean, Samsung has Auto Blocker which blocks everything non authorized and official. If you want pure security you can enable it and it will refuse to allow any sideloading entirely. But you can also choose not to if you want to sideload. Why can't Apple just do that instead of being always so stupidly pedantic about "their ways"?

No? it's just a marketing strategy. There is no brain hijacking or dark patterns. Respectfully, in this case you are using those terms wrong. They aren't forcing you to use this product and if you think it's a bad deal then its not for you and you can just not buy it. 

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

So if I understand correctly, she wants to play Roblox with you but you don't want to play that game. 
So now you're asking for help finding games that both of you might enjoy? 
 
 
 
By the way, I think you should be more careful about how you word your posts. Calling your daughter slurs, being demeaning towards the things she likes and such is not exactly a good way to come across as "dad of the year". I think that's why a lot of people seem to react a certain way towards your posts. 

A bit more context would help. It sounds like this is a property that is relatively detached so there is no existing infrastructure reaching it, even if there is some nearby. If there isn't an explicit universal access requirement, then costs can be high. It sounds like this is a push towards something like universal access.
 
The minimum requirements listed might seem low, but for remote locations it could potentially be provided over the mobile network or even LEO satellite outside of pricing.

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

So far, I haven't had any negative effects like feeling hungry, lack of energy, etc. I'm generally happier with myself than before, probably because of the amount of weight I've lost and the muscle I've already built up. Not to mention the compliments I get from colleagues and family, which no doubt helps to keep me motivated.
 
Interesting, so I can basically rule that out since I still have more than enough body fat. I figured it probably wasn't happening because I don't have any of the typical symptoms.
 
I try not to buy snacks in the first place, so I'm pretty sure this isn't a problem since I don't have much food at home other than my cooking ingredients. And if I do have a snack in the evening, I will still roughly count the calories to try to stay within 1500 kcal for the day.
 
That's probably what's happening because I'm seeing significant muscle growth in the mirror. I just didn't think I'd be at a point where it would be at a similar rate as fat loss.
 
Makes sense. It seems I'm at a weight now where I can't see my progress by just looking at the number on the scale. So, I'll basically continue as usual, but take more measurements besides just body weight and see where it goes in the coming weeks.

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

That sounds great! Losing weight is really hard and if you have been at it for 5 months then you are doing a fantastic job.
Although 1000 calories, if accurate, seems too low to me. It's important not to starve yourself too much. Not really because of the "starvation mode" (more on that later) but because you will feel really bad and it may have other health complications.
 
 
"Starvation mode" is a real thing, but it is not really what people typically assume or describe it as.
At the end of the day, calories in and calories out is all that matters. If you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight. Anything else would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
 
"Starvation mode" is not the reason why people typically stop losing weight or recommend against doing extreme diets. The reason why those diets can result in you not losing weight is because the temptation to eat a lot of food becomes too great and you feel like shit. When your body doesn't get enough energy it will respond by making you feel bad in an attempt to make you eat more. A lot of people who say they stop losing weight are simply eating more because the cravings become too big. They don't actually enter the "starvation mode" we often hear about.
Starvation mode is a real thing that has been observed, but it only occurs in extreme situations. One study I found was about soldiers during world war 2 which expended over 3000 calories a day, ate around 1800 calories a day, and they didn't enter "starvation mode" until they were at around 5% body fat. 
 
In your case there are a few likely scenarios for why you haven't lost weight which are unrelated to starvation mode.
It might be that you have been eating more even though you don't think you have. There have been studies where cameras were placed around peoples' houses and what was observed was that people ate a lot more than they though, and then simply didn't remember it.
Another explanation could be that your exercises have prompted your body to start building muscles. 
 
Depending on how overweight you are, it might be a good idea to start taking measurements instead of strictly looking at the scale. The scale only tells you weight, but measurements will also give you an idea of progress in terms of fat vs muscle mass.
It might just be that you are, as you suggested, that you are gaining weight in terms of muscles and losing weight in terms of fat. It's really hard for us to tell, and it might even be hard for you to tell if you are just using a scale to track progress.
 
 
 
This is probably awful advice that could potentially be dangerous.
 
Calories mean everything when it comes to losing weight.
If you eat fewer calories than you use then you will lose weight, regardless of whether those calories come from Big Macs or vegetables and chicken.
 
It's not recommended to eat Big Macs and other fast food stuff for various reasons, but the idea that their calories are "worse" for the purpose of losing weight is not true.
You should avoid them because they are very calorie-dense and thus won't make you feel that full compared to the equivalent amount of calories from "better foods". It will also be hard to fit the other things that are important to eat to feel good while not exceeding your calorie budget, but that's it. It's not because 1500 calories of fast food will make you more overweight than 1500 calories of vegetables. They will provide your body with just as much energy as each other, and fat is energy.
 
 
It sounds to me like you are blindly recommending your diet and workout routine to OP without even considering if they are in the same situation as you. Diet and training need to be tailored to the specific person based on their goals. If you want to bulk up and gain weight in muscles then your diet will look very different from someone who wants to lose a bunch of weight in terms of fat. 

Except that's not what you should be doing... Because you shouldn't assume a piece of the spectrum is "tainted". You should assume a network, which is independent of what frequency you transmit it on, is "tainted". Just because a device on let's say the SSID "IoT" is vulnerable does not mean the SSID "Office" is vulnerable because it is broadcasted on the same frequency. A vulnerable device might compromise the network itself, but that does not inherently extend across all devices sharing the same spectrum. Spectrum has nothing to do with it. In most networks, a compromised host on the 2.4GHz spectrum might extend to the 5GHz spectrum as well because they are probably the same network. Having separate 2.4GHz networks and 5Ghz networks, with a firewall between them, is a very strange and uncommon setup (because it is a poor, inflexible design that doesn't offer any benefits).
 
The reason I keep pushing on this is that it seems like you think, or at least people reading your post might think, that 2.4GHz is its own "network", which it isn't. What you say makes as little sense as saying "Cat 5e is tainted, so you should keep that on a separate network" or "100Mbps Ethernet is not secure, so you should keep that on a separate network".
The big issue I have with what you are saying, is that it you are partially right for the wrong reasons, and as a result, you might mislead people into assuming "devices that are on 5GHz = more secure", which is not true. 
 
The frequency has absolutely nothing, none at all, zero, with how secure something is, and a single network can be (and usually is) available on multiple frequencies just like a device with a Cat 5e cable might be connected to the same network as a device with a Cat 6 cable. 
I don't even agree with the premise you built this entire argument on, the idea that unsecure IoT devices only support 2.4GHz. I have given you an example of possibly the most popular IoT device and it supports 5GHz. So your argument falls apart even on that front.
 
The part about you having two access points and broadcast two separate networks from each is also a red flag in my mind, but I won't go into that now.
 
I just want to leave the discussion by saying group and isolate devices based on purpose and "security rating", not "frequency they support". It makes no sense to do that. If you want to make an "IoT" network, you can do that. It might be a very good idea to isolate those devices since they tend to be less than steller security wise. But it is totally fine (and probably a good idea) to have that network be available on both 2.4GHz and 5Ghz. Likewise, your "secure WiFi" should probably be available on both 2.4GHz and 5Ghz as well. It's the SSID that determines the perimeters of the network, not the frequency. You should absolutely not assume that 5GHz devices are secure and 2.4GHz devices are not secure either. Both can be either good or bad security-wise. Isolate your devices based on potential security risks, not hardware capabilities. 

I don't really think they created a problem here. The truth of the matter is that a service like this costs a metric butt-ton of money. If they want to offer this to bring people in, I say why not? 
I don't agree with a lot of what nvidia does but this seems particularly like a nothing burger to me. 

Except that's not what you should be doing... Because you shouldn't assume a piece of the spectrum is "tainted". You should assume a network, which is independent of what frequency you transmit it on, is "tainted". Just because a device on let's say the SSID "IoT" is vulnerable does not mean the SSID "Office" is vulnerable because it is broadcasted on the same frequency. A vulnerable device might compromise the network itself, but that does not inherently extend across all devices sharing the same spectrum. Spectrum has nothing to do with it. In most networks, a compromised host on the 2.4GHz spectrum might extend to the 5GHz spectrum as well because they are probably the same network. Having separate 2.4GHz networks and 5Ghz networks, with a firewall between them, is a very strange and uncommon setup (because it is a poor, inflexible design that doesn't offer any benefits).
 
The reason I keep pushing on this is that it seems like you think, or at least people reading your post might think, that 2.4GHz is its own "network", which it isn't. What you say makes as little sense as saying "Cat 5e is tainted, so you should keep that on a separate network" or "100Mbps Ethernet is not secure, so you should keep that on a separate network".
The big issue I have with what you are saying, is that it you are partially right for the wrong reasons, and as a result, you might mislead people into assuming "devices that are on 5GHz = more secure", which is not true. 
 
The frequency has absolutely nothing, none at all, zero, with how secure something is, and a single network can be (and usually is) available on multiple frequencies just like a device with a Cat 5e cable might be connected to the same network as a device with a Cat 6 cable. 
I don't even agree with the premise you built this entire argument on, the idea that unsecure IoT devices only support 2.4GHz. I have given you an example of possibly the most popular IoT device and it supports 5GHz. So your argument falls apart even on that front.
 
The part about you having two access points and broadcast two separate networks from each is also a red flag in my mind, but I won't go into that now.
 
I just want to leave the discussion by saying group and isolate devices based on purpose and "security rating", not "frequency they support". It makes no sense to do that. If you want to make an "IoT" network, you can do that. It might be a very good idea to isolate those devices since they tend to be less than steller security wise. But it is totally fine (and probably a good idea) to have that network be available on both 2.4GHz and 5Ghz. Likewise, your "secure WiFi" should probably be available on both 2.4GHz and 5Ghz as well. It's the SSID that determines the perimeters of the network, not the frequency. You should absolutely not assume that 5GHz devices are secure and 2.4GHz devices are not secure either. Both can be either good or bad security-wise. Isolate your devices based on potential security risks, not hardware capabilities. 

I am not sure what issue you are talking about Nvidia creating.
Them giving away a free tier which has ads, and also offering a tier which you pay for and don't get ads is in my opinion not Nvidia "creating an issue and selling the solution". It's just them offering various services of different quality.
Unless you think the issue is "the service has to make money somehow" in which case, yes, having to fund the service is certainly an issue. Although I think it's weir dot say that it is an issue that "nvidia created".
 
I am honestly kind of surprise they have a free tier at all. 

Good to know. I think my dads Chromebook is unsupported, so that might not have been updated.