They can’t close the source code as long as they use the Linux kernel, right? Besides, Android is popular among other companies because they can customize part of it as they see fit.

This change isn’t really that drastic, because Android never really followed the open source way of doing things. The article even explains that this won’t change much even for ROM developers, since they’re not creating releases based on “work in progress” branches.

Really the only difference is that Google will spare the work of merging two separate branches often and solving conflicts that might as well be turning into a nightmare as the code base has grown.

I think we’re naturally a bit suspicious of freeware as “misleading” because so many old software used to be just vectors to install malware (mostly spam) alongside it. At least for me, I only trust it either if it is open source or it has a sustainable business model.

The whole point of the GUI is to be more intuitive. If you need to go to the internet to realize how to do the basic stuff, that means your GUI “failed” in its purpose.

That’s still unavoidable for very complex UIs though, but still you measure how good a UI is at helping people accomplish their tasks.

As a company, Microsoft doesn’t reward anyone for improving the performance of the OS. That should be enough of an explanation 😆.

Yes, they made it unrestricted which means they’re charging you considering you can use it a lot. That’s what I mean. Using LLMs APIs isn’t free so it has a cost embedded, which they certainly calculated, or else they’d run the risk of it being abused.

You do not pay anything different for AI prompts. You should really actually try the product before you make up all these things about it.

But what you pay involves the calculated cost of using the AI, otherwise they’d be losing money if a lot of users were to make too many prompts. So it should be possible to have a lower price that didn’t give you any prompts.

I wish there was a cheaper plan that didn’t involve AI at all. Like, I don’t care to have X prompts every month. I’d like to pay just for the engine.

…so might as well say that “agent” is simply the next buzzword, since people aren’t so excited with the concept of artificial intelligence any more

This is exactly the reason for the emphasis on it.

The reality is that the LLMs are impressive and nice to play with. But investors want to know where the big money will come from, and for companies, LLMs aren’t that useful in their current state, I think one of the biggest use for them is extracting information from documents with lots of text.

So “agents” are supposed to be LLMs executing actions instead of just outputting text (such as calling APIs). Which doesn’t seem like the best idea considering they’re not great at all at making decisions—despite these companies try to paint them as capable of such.

If they actually wanted quality documents for people to use, they would be advocating for Standard Ebooks or something.

Or… you know… have PDFs that aren’t pictures of handwritten text?

Yeah, none of that would be a problem if the car isn’t connected to anything (WiFi, Bluetooth etc.)

This is why technically software is a liability. The less code you need, the better, since every line of code is a potential vulnerability and something to maintain, update, etc.

But is it that different than the podcasts voices Google already generate with NotebookLM since a while ago?

At the same time, I feel like nowadays there’s less forums or places people can ask help with, although today ChatGPT can be a good help with newbie questions.

TumbleOS

You’re right that garbage collection makes Go simpler, and maybe other patterns do contribute to prevent complexity from piling up. I never worked with Go outside of silly examples to try it out, so I’m no authority about it.

What I meant was more of a “general” rule that the simpler a language is, the more code is necessary to express the same thing and then the intent can become nebulous, or the person reading might miss something. Besides, when the language doesn’t offer feature X, it becomes the programmer’s job to manage it, and it creates an extra mental load that can add pesky bugs (ex: managing null safety with extra checks, tracking pointers and bounds checking in C and so on…).

Also there are studies that show the number of bugs in a software correlate with lines of code, which can mean the software is simply doing more, but also that the more characters you have to read and write, the higher the chance of something to go wrong.

But yeah, this subject depends on too many variables and some may outweigh others.

There’s no free lunch after all. Go’s quick compilation also means the language is very simple, which means all the complexity shifts to the program’s code.

That’s a good argument.

I think Lemmy has very few users to have such limitations.

It helps to look up certain concepts in the Wiki (Arch Wiki is probably the most complete and well explained) as you come across them. The idea is to increase knowledge little by little, but over time it compounds.

First thing I install in each platform is fish