Adoption is a function of existing adoption and existing availability of resources.

Extremely good OS' and truly amazing computers have failed, not because they were too expensive or had issues, but because they were perceived to be unpopular OR simply lacked enough software that could run on them.

Extremely bad OS' and truly awful computers have succeeded for the opposite reason.

Linux has an extremely good architecture, at least for machines that are mostly operating with CPUs. When most of the work is done by the GPU, it's less obvious that Linux provides the necessary mechanisms to manage resources and abstract away the hardware specifics. That doesn't mean I expect Linux to start fading, but I don't think a centralised OS is necessarily where things will go. However, the reason it hasn't done better so far is simply because potential users and potential software houses had a negative view of it (even though actual users were almost invariably loving the system).

Windows is crashing now not because it is a slow, bug-ridden piece of spyware (which it is, but users have never cared about that in the past), but because it is perceived in increasingly negative light.

They can get vertical samples from space and the ground. What they can't get from space or the ground is how the internals of a system evolve.

The problem with "models" in the abstract is that there are a lot of them and some of the time the thing you want is to know the same point relative to the system and not to the mudball.

Lots of people have gut feelings about AI, positive or negative.

Most of the AI research I can see people doing is focusing on single-element problems (such as finding counter-examples to a mathematics hypothesis) or solving very simple engineering systems (at most a dozen or so components). Most of the benchmarks are even simpler (write a short story at the level generally asked in English classes of primary school kids).

As a result, I think that people have developed either a very cynical outlook or a very optimistic look. Neither of these is entirely realistic, for the simple reason that no actual useful problem fits any of those descriptions.

Digging much deeper, I'm finding that when problems get into the hundreds or thousands of elements, even ChatGPT Sol 5.6 and Claude Fable 5 struggle badly to keep track of accurate relationships, let alone any level of detail.

If you want to solve a relatively simple coupled system (whether to use solar panels or direct solar heating, and which side of the house to place them), I'm sure AI is fine. If you want AI to write a five hundred word story detailing a conversation between Kim Possible, Rufus, and a smoked herring, I'm sure it could cope. Just.

If you want it to do anything hard enough that a human could do with an assistant, the tests I've been using (meaningful rather than synthetic problems) suggest you've developed a fantastically expensive blue smoke generator. We are going to need to see the inference engines developed for previous generations of AI, and the reasoners developed for the semantic web, and perhaps tools that haven't begun to be imagined yet, before AI can do anything non-trivial.

Over 60=net tax consumers who on average radically over-consume health benefits and entitlements relative to their lifetime tax contributions. The 20,30,40,50 year old workers may be getting 'paid' by because they're servicing those patients, but those patient's checks are written by and at the expense of their children, their grand children, great grandchildren, maybe even further removed than that. In other words, those checks are both written and cashed by the very same people working that hospital, which is a peculiar sort of arrangement.

That's not to say we shouldn't take care of older folks; we should. Nor am I laying blame on those people, but that voting block is quite powerful, and continuing to live is a powerful instinct. However, it is a fact. When just one emergency can outstrip anything most people have ever scrimped and saved, it's kind of inevitable. Our entire system is just broken, and something has got to give, sooner or later.

You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's dreadfully simple: if you want to keep kids off the interwebs, you have to prove you're not a kid, do you not? So you pass a law which says that as a company providing social media must effectively positively identify the entire user base in that locality. Are they going to erase that proof once a positive identification is made? Of course not! It's a value added proposition to these companies, which in addition to pitching advertisements, operate as data brokers. Positively identifying your users only means more money.
Your identity is now forever tied to your profile and posts, unless you chose to post only to obscure non-mainstream sites which have no reach.
Presto voila, anonymity is forever gone, and so is the meaningful ability to communicate perspectives which are contrary to the mainstream narrative, which is almost always completely manufactured and curated. If you dare post something that someone in a position of power dislikes for whatever reason, the police know just who hunt down, and thanks to the omnipresent surveillance networks they probably know to a very precise degree where you're at, at all times.

The stasi wished they possessed an iota of the ruthless efficiency.

A balloon is not static, it moves with the atmospheric system it is in. Ergo, it tells you how that system evolves. A drone cannot do this.

A drone can stay put, relative to the ground, telling you how a location's atmosphere evolves. A balloon cannot do this.

These are solving completely different types of problem.

You could, of course, construct a hybrid, as balloons are traditionally single-shot. If a balloon carries the measurement gear and a drone capable of carrying that same gear PLUS a deflated balloon, then you can have something that operates as a balloon until it reaches some pre-set location, whereupon the balloon's gas is released and the drone flies the ensemble to a collection point.

It obviously gives us guarantees in terms of what the source will do and what the compiled code should need.

These do not provide memory safety, so memory bugs would not be solved by these. They will find unexpected behavioural issues, though.

The precondition and postcondition statements are not cunningly-disguised assert statements because they're not asserted at runtime. They're enforced at static check and/or compile time.

The policy hints mean that if the kernel is doing something you're not expecting, you find this when testing the code. Equally, though, it means that users cannot cause the software to venture into realms unknown through many of the usual attack vectors because those will require permissions that aren't there.

You mentioned whatever a human policeman can see and memorize. That's the difference.
If all policemen had a photographic autobiographical memory, eyelids which never closed, required no sleep, were connected to a distributed consciousness which never forgot anything they ever saw and allowed them to collaborate across vast distances, and furthermore could be inexpensively placed at every intersection... I'm confident the founders would have outlawed them.

Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.

Exactly. I think this is salty people who desperately want the AI bubble to pop and for it all to be a scam of 'stochastic parrots' and a modern Mechanical Turk. It somehow offends their humanity and they are sure there is a vast capitalist conspiracy to defraud everyone. The fact is some asshats like Altman are indeed overhyping BUT that does not change the fact that my team of programmers got cut by 30% yet we are kicking out bug fixes and new features faster than ever. At higher quality too because now a lazy developer isn't half-assing the testcases.

Agreed 100% about hard to predict. I love this analogy from Geoffrey Hinton: it is like driving in a fog. Your headlights see only a few meters ahead and then there is an impenetrable wall of fog. Anyone who tells you they can see exactly where the road is heading a mile ahead is selling you something.

If like me you use VirtualBox you should hold off on this kernel upgrade until you know VirtualBox is ready for it