Well, *duh*, if you could have SSD for the same cost as magnetic drives then of course everyone would want them.

Joke can be on you though, you didn't say SSD, you said NVMe. So there is a concept of a spinning disc with an NVMe interface, since it's increasingly weird to bother with SAS/SATA when PCIe interfaces are more and more prolific, including switch chips taking the role of things like SAS expanders. So it may well be that you can get slow disks that are, technically, NVMe drives.

Yarrr

Maybe you mis typed or omitted something and didn't realize it? He quoted you directly: "Also it's not been very successful so it makes sense to roll it into the Android project." His reading of your comment was pretty straightforward.. My best guess is you meant it wasn't successful at being any more minimalist than Android, since it had Android runtime, you might have had to sweat local storage, and you had ability to run full on debian in container. They got the 'drawbacks' of Android while still being awkwardly 'almost Android'. But that's making a leap because there wasn't an explicit link between the thoughts.

Note that he describes only 5% of submissions as legitimate security issues and only 20% as AI slop, leaving still 75% of the submissions human slop.

Curl has long been one of the projects unafraid to highlight the mess of the "security research" ecosystem. Very good and solid work is drowned out by people fishing for vulnerabilities to pad their resume. A lot of bogus stuff gets CVEs, and even if by some chance MITRE is surprisingly stingy with giving a CVE, there are third party companies that will issue "advisories" that some organizations treat the same as CVEs.

So the AI slop certainly exacerbates the problem, but the broader security industry does have some deep issues with spewing so much stuff that it's very difficult to know whether to take a "finding" seriously or not.

Think that's likely pretty much the plan. They have added desktop mode and blessed ways of running Linux containers to Android, and with that they've pretty much caught up with the things ChromeOS could do that you typically didn't see happen in Android.

ChromeOS was already "barely enough Linux to run a web browser" with just the most crappy minimalist window management and a concession to let you run Linux applications in a container.

So compared to the typical android experience, you have a lack of Window management (but Android does have a desktop mode with ChromeOS level window management, which isn't much) and container execution (which Google has added to Android in the AVF thing they have been spouting.

This actually makes a ton of sense the only thing that didn't make sense was how long they tried to keep ChromeOS and Android separate.

I've seen it a lot in games that aspire to look 2D-ish. They seem to think it looks quaint and human.

You see it in pre-rendered 3D animation content a lot too, which isn't trying to hide bad performance, since the rendering isn't real time either. The spider man movie being a prime example of this "some choppy animation as an artistic choice" sensibility.

It's a common style nowadays, like some sort of counter reaction to the change from hand drawn animation to 3D animation, where the software could fill in between keyframes and be effortlessly smooth.

I've seen a fair argument that smooth is not necessarily better, that human choice in the animation allows the animator to decide which frames linger a bit and which frames move on. For example in a fast paced action sequence letting some frames linger to give the viewer a chance to see what happens.

However the response seems to be to just animate at a lower rate all the time, which I personally don't think is better but it is stylistically consistent with a fair amount of modern games and animation.

You have to get a feel for when it's utterly useless and when it's got a good chance of success. You also have to have a different vigilance as the LLM will make mistakes unlike what humans will do. My experience is it can be a modest time save but only because I've learned to ignore it for most of my work. Occasionally neat completion, very very rarely generating useful snippets from prompts, and ability to generate doc strings that no one will probably read anyway. Utterly asinine at trying to write comments, documenting the self evident tediously and skipping commenting anything that actually could use it. One example is if I write a little command line utility using variables that make sense to me it's decent at seeing the uninitialized variables and generating a chunk of argument parsing code including decent staff help text based on the observed variables

When all is said and done, if AI convinces management I don't need the diploma mill outsourced code slinger from the lowest bidder, I come out ahead even if I never even use the AI at all.

An example where the business case is at odds with the best situation for the user.

The ideal would be a local hub that can easily provide local area "app" connectivity, with ability to work with a DNS provider, Let's encrypt, and the relevant firewalls to let it have it's own port. Regrettably every member of the industry has steered explicitly away from making this interoperable. Upnp was designed to faciltate asking for real ports, but generally considered insecure and disabled with no standardized authenticated way to do the same. We basically didn't create an ecosystem capable, because it being anti-revenue.

The money is on the side of client being a dumb slave to vendor curated internet services that happen to also let them hold your device hostage for a subscription fee.

Home Assistant Green is the closest to enable it, but you get to own having to see if the devices are willing to work with it but without cloud and you get to own the task of getting it a port going to it from the internet, it's a piece in an ecosystem that's barely willing to accommodate the use case.

Just dealt with some nest thermostats. Hate their design.

Much prefer the "Sensi" thermostats, but the ones that still have HomeKit since those can be onboarded onto a LAN without internet (and even without an Apple Device). However they seem to have decided to discontinue HomeKit in their newer models, so I won't touch them either.

Part of it though is those sorts of classes were stupid not because those skills were useless, but because you didn't really *need* the classes as the software was easy to use, unless you got into some of the more tricky spreadsheet stuff that looks more like programming than just office stuff.

Similar here, to the extent LLM *can* augment/implement coding, they really don't need a university major to tell them how to use AI... If it can work, it can work easily. You don't need to be *taught* how to use the LLM, it should come relatively naturally.

Problem being that LLM in university is going to be totally different than LLM in real life. LLM in university/school is going to feel a lot more capable than at least some of the professional world. A university curriculum won't ask you to do something that hasn't already been done, because they need precedent to know if they are making an unreasonable assignment or not. In the real world you are potentially going out on a limb. There's of course a lot of work that is well trodden territory that LLMs might just chug away at, but at least some of the market is beyond that.

I've never had particularly compelling results from prompt style interaction, though as a code completion it has been... ocassionally useful, still usually wrong, but it can generate almost-correct code worthy of fixing faster than I can type it 10-20% of the time.

It could just be the area I develop in, which is a bit more niche than maybe what other people are doing, but it seems to struggle a lot with having no clue about the ecosystem I work with day to day.

I hear you, as a member of the first generation to be cluttered with software developers who jumped in for a gold rush, it may be nice, eventually, for things to settle in.

But we still have a great deal of grift from those gold rush people who can convince managers that they are best because they can use Claude to write up whatever the manager wants.

The problem is that it is incapable of "realizing", so if it's spiraling out, it's really not worth trying to make it correct itself, it's not "learning".

To the extent the chat guides things to a correct path it is by influencing the statistics of the content away from a failing outcome.

It will happily be correct, but admit it is wrong if the human contribution to the text content and then say something wrong, then pivot back if that's what the human says. None of this influences the 'next' person to come along, since that interaction didn't change the model any, unless fed back into the training set later, but that's not necessarily a good way to improve the model.