The point is to explicitly extend android to be more 'laptop/desktopy'. So it's still a linux distribution, and looks like it won't be *really* distinct from Android....

They might not have had a choice. The memory vendors getting sweetheart deals from AI supply chain might require other markets to increase their commitment or get nothing.

So the choices might be either stockpile or not have any supply at all for their mainstream product. It's worth a risk of overpaying for memory when you have no other viable option.

Oh, for dialog it would suck. I'm thinking more about commanding 'sidekicks' to do certain things. Like voice command saying: "Bob, get up to that ledge (while pointing your crosshairs indicating the ledge) and provide cover with your sniper rifle". Today you can't direct non-human 'squad mates' with that level of specificity, so they do their specific scripted things or vaguely adjust their behavior in accordance to your vague command based on a press of a directional button. Natural language command of NPCs could open up possibilities to fix long-standing annoyances/limitations with NPCs trying to actively contribute to these situations.

For dialog, you lose the ability to be confident that the correct information has been conveyed to the player. So you can use it for background dialog for NPCs with no actionable info, but that dialog is going to be pretty pointless and particularly painful if it's hard to tell if an NPC is just background or has actual information for you.

Directing NPCs using natural language could enhance single player experience, where games have long sought to have NPC "sidekicks" and at best had to settle for very basic inputs in a real-time scenario "focus on my target, pick your target, form up, spread out" and even then it is generally making the input "too busy". These NPCs are a common source of frustration today, and if the gaming industry can't seem to give up on them, this could at least make them less infuriating... maybe...

Eventually? We are kind of already there. I recall some question on one of these going viral, attracting a lot of actual humans to write up why they felt the AIs struggled with it including answering in their writeups. So then their writeups made their way into the RAG inputs into LLMs and also into training material. The AIs suddenly got better at that question, what a surprise...

Just like most specific examples of LLM screwups get self-corrected in short order, automatically as the mocking ironically shapes the RAG component to avoid the specific behavior. Suddenly the LLMs got really good at counting the number of 'r's in strawberry, even as they couldn't actually count letters, but the internet now said how many rs were in strawberry just a whole bunch of times...

Exactly this, the "spec" is almost always a very rough draft that is largely written and consumed by people that want to feel like they contribute to the project even though they don't understand the customer or the developer situation that well. You might reference it a bit in your first offering and then ignore it as the stakeholder sees what the spec produces and realizes the spec wasn't really what they wanted when they see it live.

Once upon a time more weight was given to design, but the industry largely realized that all that very careful effort just became a liability of sunk cost fallacy when they realized the resultant output was not desired, but so much work had gone into the spec we don't want to change.

Nowadays it's a way that PMP minded folks feel like they are core technical contributors without learning to code. This is of course the target audience. Spoke to an executive that sincerely believes the only thing of irreplaceable value is his 'insight' and over 90% of his employees are going to be dismissed since he can just do it all himself. In practice his is the *first* job that could go to LLM, as all he ever says is either obvious stuff or just confidently wrong and his business decisions amount to "all we need is more customers and for them to pay more for it and we will be profitable"... Genius.

Fun fact, there has been two Linux distributions officially certified as "UNIX". Inspur and Huawei for whatever reason bothered to get them officially certified.

On the flip side, there's an odd sentence in the XDG specification that explicitly qualifies the wording around filesystem feature requirements to apply only to Unix-like platforms. Clearly they had Unix in mind, but they explicitly bothered to give an implicit pass to any hypothetical non-Unix, non-Unix-like platforms.

It can be a viable strategy to lean into bad news perhaps even more than is warranted. When you proclaim in 3-4 months time that you've overcome that disadvantage, people find that marginally more credible, even if that is wrong.

When you speak *exclusively* in CEO optimism speak, at some point people just stop believing anything positive you say.

If that CEO thinks the behaviors of the LLMs are "super smart", then I really wonder about his level of intelligence...

IT's certainly novel and different and can handle sorts of things that were formerly essentially out of reach of computers, but they are very much not "smart".

Processing that is dumb but with more human-like flexibility can certainly be useful, but don't expect people to be in awe of some super intelligence when they deal with something that seems to get basic things incorrect, asserts such incorrect things confidently, and doubles down on the same mistakes after being steered toward admitting the mistakes by interaction. I know, I also described how executives work too, but most of us aren't convinced that executives have human intelligence either.

Broadly speaking, a lot of the 'cloud native' stuff are complex solutions to potentially complex problems that fit within the parameters that those approaches can handle.

If you don't have those complex problems, then it's a premature optimization that is painful. If your use case is not the sort of use case resembling the bread and butter of the applications that instigated these approaches, then it's all pain, no gain.

There was a team that maintained a project that was broadly panned for not being good enough. The developers decided that the cure for what ails them would be changing to 'cloud native' approach, despite the complaints really being about limited functionality, not even about performance or scaling issues. Now on top of having the same functionality complaints *now* they have performance and reliability complaints too, and they have no idea what they are doing, they just arbitrarily carved their single fixed instance of software into a couple of dozen fixed instances of services (they can't figure out how to scale arbitrarily, so they still have exactly one instance of every component). Not one of them is capable of debugging the convoluted network situation they've created, and the logging information is just a mess.

You already had your turn in the late 2010s after big data and before AI. You don't get to come back to the hype line for seconds.

The line has muddied, as consoles went USB and console accessories started being PC compatible.

Once upon a time, you popped a game cartridge into a purpose built specialty thing with bespoke capabilities to do the things the game companies wanted, with proprietary connectors and instant boot up and what you get is what you have.

On the PC side, you futzed with config.sys/autoexec.bat to have just the right memory layout, depending on if you needed the maximum conventional memory, ems or xms, and environment variables to match your dip switches.

Now a game console is an x86 box that takes some time to boot to an OS then you select an app, which probably is a game, and good chance it's developed with a game engine that pretty much equally supports Nintendo, PS4, and Microsoft ecosystem.

The PC side you just plug in, often the exact same accessory, and things automatically go. The UI of Windows can be obnoxious, but this is a prime mindset for Valve to take advantage launching their PC that's 10-foot optimized out of the box.

Nintendo held on to console-ness longer, with their Wii and Wii-U gimmicks, and their switch admittedly isn't an x86 box, but it's basically a gaming tablet, which is the other big thing eating into the casual gamer market.

The thing is that while the heat pipes can work in space and may have been used in satellites and then brought to earth, the issue is with the amount of thermal energy and having radiation as the only way to evict heat.

So while the mechanism for heat pipes started in space, the computers are *way* more wattage than the space based applications.

I wonder how the developers feel about that characterization. Now all performance improvements are subject to being attributed to motivated by AI for marketing points...

Fair point, I forget how utterly stupid businesses, particularly large businesses can get about boneheaded requirements that they mandate but do not use or do need, but could better solve it in a separate path rather than mandating it on what should be the 'wrong' product category.

Particularly surprising to forget since I'm basically continuously exposed to that in my job, but guess it eventually faded into the background of me not thinking explicitly about it anymore..