If I’m understanding correctly, it sounds like, aside from the email addresses, all the data leaked was already publicly available on users’ SoundCloud profiles. The only novel aspect is linking that public data to the accounts’ email addresses.
The last reported monthly active user count for Steam by Valve puts it at 132 million users per month. Since this was in 2021, it’s a conservative estimate now. But based on that conservative figure and if my numbers are correct, Steam added roughly 7 million Windows 11 users in December 2025.
Meanwhile, the most recent estimates show the Steam Deck, the most popular handheld gaming PC by far, having sold around 4 million units, while every other handheld gaming PC (including the Asus ROG Ally, the predecessor to the ROG Xbox Ally) having sold around 2 million units combined. While the Xbox name carries some weight, I highly doubt the Xbox Ally has sold significantly in the two months since its launch.
TLDR: You’re likely correct that numbers from Windows handhelds did not contribute significantly to the added Windows 11 users in December.
The author of the PC Gamer article acknowledged that the install base for Linux among gamers was dwarfed by the install base for Windows. All they were arguing is that Linux is the better platform for gaming, not that it’s more popular.
The article brings up some interesting points but doesn’t really go anywhere with them. I came into the article with a mindset of “freedom of choice is objectively better, explain to me why I’m wrong,” and only came away with the caveat of “if public health and safety demands less choice.” Which is fair, and essentially how (the majority of) people reason politically, at least in the US; on paper, your choice of political party affiliation rests on how much individual choice you believe people should have on individual issues, such as the choice to have an abortion or the choice the manufacture a product that harms the environment. The debate is essentially: does giving people this choice have a significant enough negative impact on public health and safety to warrant limiting the freedom to make this choice?
However, I still think that, in general, more freedom of choice is only a good thing.
> Is there any real difference between the scores of toothpastes or breakfast cereals in contemporary supermarkets?
That depends. Do you have a preference for one flavor of toothpaste or cereal over another? Do you have dental issues that require a toothpaste with whitening effects, or without fluoride, or with baking soda? In a cereal, do you value health concerns over taste, or vice versa? If so, then yes, there is a real difference between different choices in these cases. Making one choice over another can have a direct impact on quality of life, if often a minor one. And this is what makes freedom of choice so important for me: it’s the freedom to strive to improve quality of life—synonymous with the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, as the article briefly touches on, freedom of choice isn’t the only kind of freedom, and arguably isn’t the most important one, either. I think this is the point the author was trying to make, but she doesn’t go into much detail. Freedom from oppression is a prerequisite for freedom of choice, and freedom from suffering is (on paper) the ultimate goal of it. Therein lies the debate: when does increased freedom of choice impede on these other two freedoms? Which should be prioritized in these cases? The line is different for everyone. I would’ve liked to see the article add more nuance to the discussion.
Toothpaste options do matter. There's only one kind I know of - conveniently very cheap, not a big brand - without massive amounts of menthol in. Since menthol triggers my gag reflex, I buy that one. Without consumerism, I would be supplied with the people's utility toothpaste, and I would be retching whenever I brushed my teeth.
Yeah, I know it’s a complex game but we had a big multiplayer game deadlock a couple hundred turns in and that kind of soured everyone on the franchise.
It’s disappointing we don’t get any further investigation into this he said/she said argument.
The cynic in me is inclined to believe the company is denying it to the press without regard to the truth, because they can. No one will hold them accountable, so there’s only upside to lying publicly. (We’re currently seeing this strategy play out in national politics as well.)
I’m with you. The author makes bold claims about not following the assumptions imposed upon you about success and productivity, but what, exactly, is the alternative? Maybe I could go live in the wilderness, hunting and foraging at my own pace, instead of the pace imposed upon me. Of course, that isn’t realistic for the vast majority of people.
> Instead of feeling bad, examine the gap between your current life and the one you yearn for.
Say, for example, my definition of fulfillment is having a large array of close friends. If I find myself distracted from or am unwilling to shower, that will drive many people off. If I miss social cues and communicate “in a different language,” so to speak, that will make it difficult to relate to people and become close with them. If I don’t let myself sleep, I’ll be robbed of the motivation and energy I need to pursue this goal or any other.
That’s just an example. But the vast majority of people, regardless of how they define fulfillment, will have to “play society’s game” to some extent.
An assailant who doesn’t have access to this dataset may assume 4321 is more common than 18th, as I would’ve, and try it sooner. Not a great choice in that case.
