As a Quest user, I find the touch interface much superior to controllers when it comes to UI interaction. Holding a controller in your hand and pretending that it's your fingers is a lot more cumbersome than actually using your fingers.

You must remember that people do mostly content consumption. Most interactions are short, and definitely not two minutes straight. Sure, you won't be able to comfortably play a mobile game in the air, but scrolling or selecting things? That shouldn't be too tasking. I'm not young, I'm not a sporty person, but I still have no problem with that kind of interaction on the Quest. I imagine that the majority of people are unlikely to have problem with that.

Because they'd probably be better than most of what humans generate.

Most of the visual art I see today is AI generated, and I imagine that's the case for most people. That's because people can easily create an image that's imaginative. Sure, a lot of people create crap, but there's more than enough enjoyable stuff in there, much more than if people didn't have AI as a tool. I imagine this is true for music too.

After switching to Linux you're getting Win11 subscription nagging and reconfiguration? What Linux version are you using?

Taps, gestures or speech. So it would depend on what you want to do. Gestures are going to be the most comprehensive, as it allows "real" interaction with the objects overlayed on the scene. That's what's typically used in VR. It will look strange to passers by, but I'm sure people will get used to it like they got used to other peculiarities of public gadget interaction. Voice is already available for gadget control. Tapping the glasses is good for quick and simple interactions like pausing video or responding to a call.

There's also a good chance that at least initially the glasses will be paired with another device in your pocket/purse, such as a phone, and you could use that for interaction when speech/tapping isn't enough. That will save the need for understanding gestures.

Do they still contribute to cooling?

I'm wondering how many people use Notepad. I've been using Notepad++ for a long while, and haven't touched Notepad.

Personally I like the idea of markdown support. A lightweight word processor that saves results as raw text would be quite appealing over saving as RTF or DOCX or another such format.

The argument "you can express your creativity any time you want" is very flawed.

For one thing, it comes from a self professed artist/musician. You have spent the time learning to play the piano and producing art. It's a self serving commentary to say that you don't like AI art, because without it you belong to an exclusive club.

Then there's the point of *what* you can create. You can create piano music. What about music for other instruments? A lot of people want to compose something with instruments they don't know how to play. So they use synths. Do you feel that's cheating? Do you feel they create crap? People create good music this way.

What if you have the creativity and think of an image of what you want to draw, but you don't have the skills to make that drawing the way you want it? So you go to AI and iterate against it until you get something that matches your vision. Isn't that art? If you write a good movie script and get AI to be the actors and director, isn't that art?

Sure, anyone can create garbage with AI. But anyone can create garbage with a piano, a camera, a piece of paper or a canvas. Museums are full of pretentious pieces of crap drawn on canvas. Some modern composers make orchestraic music that few people even bear listening to. Or, if you're the pretentious type, pop music is now more stupid than it's ever been. And that's all created by people, with no AI help.

So it's obviously a bad argument to imply that if something can produce crap, there's no place for it. Sure, the easier to use the tools are, the faster people can churn crap. But the faster they can churn good stuff, too.

Then you're not the target of this change. Ads do work, even if only a small percentage of viewers follow them.

I find that there's a serious double problem with slashdot, where first of all the summaries are crap, and then the readers don't follow the links before commenting.

To quote the TechCrunch article: "Peak Points leverages Google’s Gemini AI to analyze YouTube videos and identify moments it believes have the highest viewer engagement or are most emotionally impactful, and then suggests placing the ad right after it." (There is an example there.)

Please note the "right after it". You're assuming (as did I, based on the summary) that the ad will play right when you want to know something and will produce a cliffhanger. That's precisely what will not happen. The ad will play after the most engaging section is at and end, and presumably when the viewer is most satisfied. It should actually be an improvement to random ad placement or such strategies, because it will be much likely to *not* interrupt the sections that viewer don't want interrupted.

Having read the links in the writeup, it seems to be a pretty bad description of how things developed. The short of it, as I understand it, is:

- On the 13th of August 2024 Microsoft published an automatic update which applied a security fix to GRUB2 which was meant not to be applied to dual-boot system.
- Due to a bug some form of dual-boot weren't detected, causing the patch to be applied and dual-boot to break.
- On the 23th of August Neowin published a somewhat lengthy workaround for fixing dual-boot systems affected. (I haven't looked into when Microsoft published that.)
- On the 10th of September, Microsoft disabled the automatic application of this patch. It could be enabled with a registry change.
- Now finally Microsoft has fixed the automatic update, so the patch will now again be applied automatically, and hopefully not affect any dual-boot systems.

> Meanwhile, many dual-boot users were left with borked setups, having to use workarounds or disable Secure Boot altogether.

This It's FOSS quote is clearly nonsense. A fix was available within 10 days, and within a month Microsoft disabled the automatic update altogether. Taking this long to re-enable the patch did potentially mean fewer systems were patched automatically, so more were vulnerable, but anyone who cared could still manually install this fix.

> Look at this idiotic thing here

Actually, that's the good thing here. The AI will create test cases and will analyse code. It would also document it. It will likely do it better than an average developer will do. Sure, if you compare it to a really good developer it might not be as good in most cases, but compared to the average developer I think there's a good chance it will be better. An experienced developer will likely be able to direct it even better.

"Microsoft reported Azure and other cloud services revenue grew 33 percent year over year" (from the last earning report), so I do see the job cuts more as aligning with the move to AI rather than AI slowing down.

You're implying that 50% are using hardware not compatible with Windows 11. This isn't necessarily the case. Reportedly there are quite a few people and companies who have downgraded to Windows 10.

It's a good question what percentage of users fall into this category, but my bet is that "50% of their user base abandoned with out updates in October" is far from true, as many users will be able to update to Windows 11.

Although Windows certainly had its share of bugs, especially with 24H2, "counterintuitive graphical gibberish" suggests that's not what your problem is with Windows. Coders have no effect on that.

While there are some good points here, I don't think that any of them are unsolvable.

AI is already used to detect security vulnerabilities. All you needs is AI as an adversary to the AI code, and that should solve that problem.

> the greatest skill of a programmer is reading and understanding existing code to modify it

It's true that a lot of what programmers bring to a company with experience is the memory of the code structure and how things are done. However, programmers are also notorious at being bad at documentation. If an AI can program and document decently at the same time, that would go a long way towards later reuse.

Alternately, AI can just rewrite things from scratch. If the AI writes enough unit tests, replacing existing structures with newly written AI code that does the same thing won't be too much trouble. In fact, it seems to me like a good way to move forward. One AI in charge of the system, another AI rewriting things whenever there's need for new functionality.

I think that there's a lot of scope of moving into an AI programming world. I'm not sure what functions people will play there, it will be interesting to find out, but AI in general should be able to do most things, IMO.