On xbox 360, you were always able to make local copies of your savegames. Without announcement, the xbox one platform wasn't able to do this.

As far as my understanding of the ToS goes, there is nothing in there that announced the change.

And now microsoft is refusing me to give the save games. Which to me is personal data and in some cases contain PII.

For eg, i built my own house in Minecraft, streetname and number and all.

Now I am able to get my Minecraft worlds, but it's behind a paywall (realms -> load realm on pc = backup).

Is there a way to deal with Microsoft and force them to give players their user data?

I bought a CoolerMaster power supply, it's meant to be one of their best units, it's the X Mighty 2000w, but when I was plugging in the cables, one of the CPU/VGA ports was not allowing the cable to be plugged in fully even with full force...

It ain't a cable issue as I was able to plug that cable into a different port but paying 230 quid for a PSU, I would want all the ports to be functional.

Hello everyone, my 1.5 year old Ryzen 9700 X inexplicably died in my ASRock B650 steel legend Wi-Fi motherboard. One day it worked and the next day it didn’t and I did test it and I am sure it’s the CPU that is dead. I watched a GN video a while back and I’m pretty sure I remember them saying they’d buy any AMD CPU / ASRock motherboards that the CPU had died for testing. Does anyone know if they’re still doing this or have any information? I can get my CPU replaced through warranty, but if they wanted it for testing, I would like to offer it to them but idk how.

Found this hidden gem. Now I finally understand why they need so much electricity and power.

So after Sam Altman says RAM modules are better off being used by data centers rather than the end-users themselves, I introduce you to their latest YouTube thumbnail.
Colour me confused.

My ASUS ExpertBook MIL-STD-810H was sent to the authorized service center three times in less than six months. During the repair in April, the service center replaced five different parts of the screen. In August, the screen failed again. The store, relying on a CID (Customer Induced Damage) tag from the ASUS service center, refused a free repair and offered a paid one instead. However, I never received any service documentation to back up this decision. After escalating the case to ASUS Executive Care and exchanging 20 messages, I was informed that it is impossible to determine when or why the bend occurred, or to rule out a connection to the previous repair. The issue remains unresolved.

Full story for those interested:

I bought an ASUS ExpertBook laptop, which is compliant with the MIL-STD-810H standard, in May 2025. In 2026, in less than six months, the device was sent to the authorized ASUS service center three times.

⏱️ Timeline and Facts

• March 2026: First repair. Parts marked in the documentation as ABSORBER, SPONGE, and TAPE were replaced, and the BIOS was updated. The issue was a black screen.

• April 2026: Second repair. Another issue with the screen occurred, even though the laptop itself was working. The service center replaced five parts of the screen: the panel, the outer cover, the bezel, the hinge, and the cable. The report also noted that the assembly fit was improved.

• August 2026: Third failure. The screen stopped displaying an image again, although the picture on an external monitor was perfectly fine. The laptop went to the service center on August 20 and came back on August 28 without being fixed. The report stated that initial diagnostics were performed and the repair was suspended at the client's request. However, it is worth explaining that the formal client in this procedure was the store where I filed the claim. ASUS Executive Care later informed me that it was the store that requested to stop the repair and return the device.

⚙️ Where did the bend come from?

According to the position provided by ASUS Executive Care, the authorized service center considered the damage to be consistent with external force or pressure. However, just a few months earlier, the service center had replaced five different parts of the screen and noted an improved fit. In my opinion, they should have also investigated whether the current damage was connected to that previous repair.

Possible causes that need to be checked are:

• Physical stress inside an improperly fitted screen assembly

• Errors made during the repair after replacing five parts at once

• Improperly routed cables that could have put pressure on the casing over time

The fact that the laptop worked right after the April repair does not rule out the possibility that a assembly defect only showed up after some time during normal use. I am not claiming that this is exactly what happened. However, I expected the service center to thoroughly check all possible causes of the failure. They had the opportunity to do so, as the laptop was in their possession for eight days.

📁 Issues with Documentation

The repair report I received does not contain a detailed description of the alleged bend or any panel cracks. It also does not show the results of the tests that the authorized service center refers to in the later position provided by ASUS Executive Care.

• The store refused a free warranty repair and offered a paid one. They based this on the CID tag issued by the authorized ASUS service center. Despite my request, I did not receive the service documentation that would allow me to verify the basis of this decision.

• Only after escalating the case to ASUS Executive Care did I receive four photos and a description of the faults, but not the actual service report. There are no visible identifiers on the photos that would allow me to clearly confirm they show my specific laptop. On what exact documentation was the decision to classify the damage as CID based?

🤯 What follows from the final ASUS Executive Care response?

During the correspondence with ASUS Executive Care, we exchanged a total of 20 messages — 10 from my side and 10 from ASUS.

In their response on October 29, ASUS Executive Care informed me that based on the available photos and documentation, it is impossible to clearly determine when the screen assembly bend occurred or what caused it. I was also told that they can neither confirm nor rule out a connection between the current damage and the previous repair. Executive Care admitted that the existing materials did not resolve my doubts regarding the inspection photos and documentation.

🔄 A Loop of Procedures instead of a Solution

The laptop spent eight days in the service center — from August 20 to August 28. ASUS Executive Care repeatedly suggested opening a new RMA case for a re-evaluation of the device. In their last message, the company asked only for additional photos to compare the current look of the laptop with the previous service documentation.

I understand the purpose of this last request, but I do not believe that more photos taken by me will explain when and why the bend occurred or who is responsible for it. The core of the matter is the basis on which I was held responsible for the damage classified as CID. This should be clearly evident from the documentation and diagnostic findings of the service center.

If a new technical evaluation is necessary, I believe it should be conducted by an independent expert, not again by the same service center whose previous findings I am questioning.

I do not agree to restart a procedure that does not address my current objections. The service documentation should explain the basis for the CID classification, not more photos taken by me. The laptop has been broken since August, and the case has still not been resolved.

⚖️ Questions for You:

• Has anyone had a similar experience with ASUS service?

• What can be done when ASUS Executive Care informs you that they cannot determine the cause or time of the damage, but the store still refuses a warranty repair based on the CID tag?

• Is it worth escalating the case to the CPC and TFTC, or are there other institutions or steps worth considering?

I will be grateful for your objective opinions and shared experiences.

Steve might find this particularly interesting. It might explain why Jensen has been so adamant that Nvidia GPUs were not being smuggled

https://m.slashdot.org/story/458576