Note that I refer to Windows Mobile, before Windows Phone 7. I consider Windows Phone 7 their first vaguely credible attempt at a mobile centric UI, and then Windows 8 the consequence of trying to throw desktop/laptop under the bus for the sake of trying to popularize their take on mobile UI. Admittedly, I was never interested in bothering to give Windows Phone 7+ a chance, but some others I knew at least made me think it was a credibly usable multi-touch UI for handhelds.

Or possibly what it means is that the segment of people who want that capability is small. (I would have been part of that segment a decade ago, when my eyes were better. These days Txt message on the phone are too small to read.)

If there was a possible strategy for Microsoft to get into the mobile game, this would have been it.

Their first pass failed to really optimize for mobile at all, so you had mobile devices with clunky interfaces.

Then when they finally saw that a more targeted UI for mobile was needed, they went the other way, screwing up desktop by trying to make it look like their vision of a mobile OS, all while having the phones still unable to use monitors so there wasn't really any 'synergy' between the platforms despite throwing the desktop experience under the bus.

Now I've seen samsung and motorola phones drive desktops, but good luck which ones actually support displayport alt-mode on the usb-c.... However not *too* much of a loss because they both have just utterly shitty window managers with no options to swap it out for anything vaguely more capable despite a plethora of options in the space.

I think Android has at least got *some* of the message with respect to applications, carrying over from the ChromeOS support for linux applications, however it was sad that even as a pure linux person who uses desktop linux without a hint of Windows, I actually thought using Linux under ChromeOS was even worse than WSL.

Now if by some miracle, I can have an Android phone with displayport that will let me run Plasma desktop in a normal way, they can take my money so fast. Of course, realistically speaking, they'll have like 3 or 4 people excited for that and wonder why they wasted money pandering to us..

Your valid point is that it's no longer adaptive. But it *was*, and social customs tend to persist long after their utility. I'm sure you can think of a few currently being stressed in the US.

While it may certainly reduce any sympathy, 'losing money' is still an apt term.

If I intercepted one of your paychecks, I think you'd fairly say that you 'lost money', despite having, presumably, some savings.

Now if you are a billionaire bemoaning losing a few thousand, I'm not going to be terribly moved by your plight, but I would still permit the phrase 'lost money'.

It's not moronic, but it only makes sense within a proper context. It's more of a society optimizing thing than a physical efficiency optimizing thing. It makes more sense when transportation and communication are slow, and laws aren't strongly enforced, so social customs depend strongly on trust.

That joke is a story based on a really early attempt at machine translation. There were several similar goofs. E.g. "out of sight, out of mind" into "unseen moron", "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" is the one you selected, but it was only one of several. Not a huge number. Computer time was expensive! I probably heard of around 30. And translating to and from different languages yielded different results. "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian and back yielded "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten.".

My sister was left-handed. It's NOT a myth. She had to really contort her hand to avoid smearing the stuff she'd just written. And this was with ball-point pens, not fountain pens (which I preferred, because I could use various colors of ink).

But the phrasing should be about losing money, not "losing" cars.

I sort of agree with you, but the appropriate thing to do is to change the law, not to violate it in the name of "doing what's right". It's true that this would mean amending the constitution, and that's difficult, but they have the legal right to choose what they allow.

OTOH, it would be quite reasonable to deny that they are common carriers if they use editorial judgement as to what posts to allow. That would be an easier approach, and in line with what's been done in the past. I just feel that it's blatantly unconstitutional. (I think the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that was the Warren court, perhaps the current one would agree...but probably not. That would limit the executive power.)

Yes. So it should be legal for them to make that change. It should also inform everyone that YouTube is even less trustworthy than you previously thought. (Unfortunately, it probably won't.)

There are lots of domains were physical evidence is either missing or impossible, yet where many people feel the need to have certainty.

Actually, the space is even larger than that. Every area of expertise implies an area that is not being examined, since people have only finite intelligence and finite time to explore. So...I "believe" in the EWG multi-world interpretation of quantum physics (with a few modifications). This is a belief, because I'm nowhere near expert enough in the field to have detailed knowledge. I *do* acknowledge that there are other interpretations that fit the existing data equally well, but I find them...distasteful.

Also, I believe that my wife was a wonderful woman. This is not based on globally accessible knowledge, partially because "wonderful" is not well-defined.

Etc.

You are wrong. AI has done mathematical proofs that were new. It *can* only be original by combining existing information into new patterns, but if the "rules of inference" are good, this can allow it to create something new and good.

OTOH, you are partially correct, in that it can't derive anything that wasn't already implicitly implied by the existing knowledge.,,because it can't currently run its own experiments.

N.B.: This is a comment about "AI" not about pure "LLM"s. Pure LLMs are a lot less reliable, because they've been designed to never admit that they are uncertain. And because they've been trained on the Internet.

What are the analogous problems in China?

During the early years the laser was called "a solution in search of a problem". Don't try to estimate what current AIs can do by the applications that they are currently shoe-horned into.

OTOH, every speculation as to how AI will develop further is *speculative*. That explicitly includes the speculation that it will not get any better or more efficient. (And I'd call the speculation that "we've reached top AI" at least as silly as "AGI will show up tomorrow and solve all our problems".