If a physics simulation doesn’t agree exactly with experimental data, it is often difficult to figure out why and tweak the model until they agree. With AI, incorporating a few experimental examples into the training process is a lot more straightforward, and it’s not necessary to understand where exactly the model went wrong.

That’s not too bad if it’s only ever used as a rough guide in the early stages of design, with proper testing done later. But do we trust corporations not to get lazy and pressure their engineers to skip the accurate tests altogether, especially when they can then brag to their investors that AI is replacing expensive engineer time? What would Boeing’s management want to do with this tech?

If they did it with noisy tactile switches and more standard keycaps, I’d be more interested. Silent linear for typing isn’t usually much fun.

“Like every tech company, we’re really excited about the velocity increases from AI, and so we have a lot of internal prototypes that are up and running, and extensions is one of them,” Varma said. “But a lot of things we’re staring includes questions like: Can you customize your homepage? Can you add widgets? Can you change your background in whatever way you want?”

All that and rounded corners? Not sure I can handle this much future.

There is a port to C++ underway, which still seems to be active:

https://github.com/attermann/microReticulum

It’s possible that the kernel and core components are still robust, having been developed in a time when engineering standards were higher. As far as I know, the kernel is still basically Dave Cutler’s NT kernel, adapted by his team to 64-bit in the early 2000s, and his stuff was always well reputed for stability, though other teams were producing unstable code.

The problems of Windows today always seem to trace back to the early 2010s when Satya Nadella took over and nuked the QA and testing team. That’s borne out by what we learn from the current article series, which describes how those test engineers who weren’t fired were parachuted into roles they often weren’t prepared for. And in Windows this seems to have led to a culture of hasty, undertested patches, shoved out to users and re-patched when users report problems, but not before. Also, again borne out by this article, a managerial culture of pressuring devs to add new features (that users don’t even care about) instead of solidifying what’s already there. You end up with demoralized devs and a teetering tower of technical debt growing ever higher.

If the core of the OS is robust but everything on top of it is flaky, then the user experience is still going to be of an unreliable OS.

Unfortunately it’s also critical for MRIs.

No, thanks for the tip. I’ll try that.

Edit: It worked! Disabling exploit protections got my bank’s app working. Thanks again.

The “advanced flow” with a one-day wait is just Google realizing they need to boil this frog a little more slowly to prevent a backlash. They still want a fully boiled frog in the end.

Mine refuse to run in GrapheneOS. Everything runs except my banks’ apps and eBay. It’s a slight inconvenience but the tradeoff has been worth it.

Edit: Thanks to NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml I got my bank’s app working under GrapheneOS.

I’ve been using NewPipe without problems. Is it supposed to have gone away?

We need development of Linux OSs for phones to ramp up. And we need Linux distributors and backers to fight back against “age verification” laws that are actually ID verification laws. There’s a global attack underway on multiple fronts against free software, private computing, and user ownership and control of devices.

In the meantime, for a stopgap, there’s GrapheneOS, but that doesn’t fix the problem of developers having to choose between Google’s way or unpaid obscurity.

Brazil has something similar. Other US states are working on it. And the UK, some EU countries, Australia and others are pushing for the same. This won’t be just California for long: it’s a worldwide push to make it impossible to do anything involving a computer without first disclosing your real identity to the authorities.

https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/online-age-verification-a-complete-global-timeline

It wouldn’t be easy to ban desktop Linux without inadvertently banning Linux servers and IoT devices. So we should let them walk into this quagmire and get bogged down with an impossible task, instead of capitulating at the first opportunity.

I’d rather weed out the assholes.

From the article:

Google says it’s removing XSLT to address security vulnerabilities. The underlying library that processes XSLT in Chrome (libxslt) is an aging C/C++ codebase with known memory safety issues. Chrome’s team argues that because only about 0.02% of page loads use XSLT, it’s not worth the maintenance burden.

It’s debatable whether Google, with all its resources, really needs to do this, especially given that 0.02% of all page loads is still quite a lot. But there are certainly times when it’s better to just delete seldom-used old code from your project to lower the maintenance burden and reduce the surface area for attacks.

Previously they would have had to encounter a person who wanted to manipulate them. Now there’s a widely marketed technology that will reliably chew these vulnerable people up.

Worked fine for me, but I block ads and trackers on my home network so that probably helped.

The link sent Rademacher to a page on WebinarTV.us which featured a full recording of the Zoom recording, an AI-generated video summary of the meeting, “chapters” that sent the viewers to different parts of the meeting, and an AI-generated episode of the “Phil & Amy Show,” in which two AI-generated personalities discuss the content of the call, including quips and rapport between Phil and Amy.

So their business model is to steal other people’s meetings and add an overlay of shit? I hope it fails miserably for them.

It’s not easy, particularly if you developed it and have spent months immersed in all the detail. To emerge from that and imagine coming to it as a new user is pretty hard. I don’t have much to add but I like your advice. I need to rewrite the docs for one of my projects and I’ll be bearing your points in mind.

Maybe one other point I’d add is: have a clear idea of who you’re writing for, and have different levels and styles of documentation for different types of users. Don’t try to satisfy everyone in the same document. Divide the documentation up by intended readership.

VPNs? I don’t understand your question.