Is there a reason why Don Ho doesn't like the port?

I can understand him being upset at the misappropriation of his Trademarks, and I think he should protect them. It's all good.

However, is there something wrong with the port? Wouldn't a more 'progressive' option to be to accept the pull request and start advertising MacOS compatibility as part of the main project?

Is it just junk code? Is it too divergent? Does he specifically NOT want ports to other OSes?

(Or maybe it was never offered and Letov won't allow the collaboration. But, in that cause couldn't Ho fork Letov and consume it anyway?)

"It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it."

We're running out of water. No where in the West (except maybe PNW) has enough water for the people they have already. Any growth will just exacerbate that. Lotsa land. No water.

This is what I came to say:

The very premise of how LLMs work mean that nothing they ever do is 'clean room.' If you use an LLM you forego the 'clean room' argument.

Now, I guess you could take special effort to train your LLM only on code which you can verify is 'clean.' Good luck on that. If you have that much code that you can coerce and LLM to accurately rebuild an software product, then you would have already written that software product 3 times yourself.

It says 'display-less' so it's not AR...which I thought was the whole point.
From what I've people describe the uses as being the same as airpods with the addition of taking video/pictures.

Why use the 'glasses' form-factor when you're not using your eyeballs for any of the interaction?

Is that it? Is it just a convenient place to hang a camera? Also, are people expected to get prescription lenses for these things...or are normally sighted people now walking about with glasses on....just because?

I keep wondering if it's the 'stealth' factor. Are they 'spy' glasses and made to look completely normal? Did someone decide that Google Glass was 'too obvious' and people would know you're walking around with a camera on your head? So they have to make a camera that (most) people wouldn't recognize? That seems a bit illegal. ;)

(one guy said, "we're not allowed to have airpods at work, so I use these instead." (that's totally going to backfire, and your boss won't be amused.))

If you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns. (swap guns with tech you care about)

Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

Innovation should be examined, understood, integrated, not 'blocked.'

Of course, there's also the concept that 'locks are simply there to keep honest people honest.'

I agree 100%.

In the last "Grok" example, it makes sense that statistics would tell it that when someone 'inputs a ticket' or 'sends a memo' that it receives a confirmation, and it would be able to generate a something similar. So they say 'send a message' and it comes back with 'okay, here's the receipt.'

That makes perfect statistical sense to me. It's completely worthless, but it makes sense.

What I don't understand is the very last part. What amount of statistics would make it 'realize' (or appear to realize) that it had been lying? It should never understand that it hadn't actually be doing those things. Where did that confession come from?

While you're correct, and I'm not disputing that, I often don't like an 'unadorned s' for pluralizing proper nouns and non-word things (like acronyms.) I wish there was a way to pluralize while still keeping the base word distinct.

As an example, multiple people named Judy definitely won't be "Judies", but I don't like them being "Judys" either, and definitely not "Judyes". "Judy's" seems more respecting of their actual name. I haven't figured out how to solve the collision with the possessive, and that's the fatal flaw of my argument. [Side note: The editor marked "Judys" and "Judyes" as being spelled incorrectly. Take THAT Merriam-Webster.]

So, while it's purely accidental and muscle memory in my stupid fingers, not lack of knowledge, when I always use "it's" as a possessive, it's a deliberate choice, having full knowledge, when I add extra characters to my pluralized proper nouns. Call it a rebellion.

Mostly because they are just statistical models. They don't understand anything at all. They just know that 'when b is near c, that often means we'll have an x followed by a y' That could be pixels or letters or wave-forms.

With that basis, it's almost miraculous that they do as good of a job as they are at 'pretending' to give coherent answers. That's why I always say, "AI is great, as long as it doesn't have to be correct."

I'd love to have AI that 'understood.' It didn't 'make up' answers, it 'looked up' answers. For example, if you want a URL, instead of 'constructing a likely URL' it actually went out and found that URL.

And it definitely needs to be 'deterministic.' Asking the same question again and getting a different answer is a big 'no no.'

Is this new 'physical model' based on rules and "understanding", or is it just a different pile of statistics?

The 'artificial scarcity' game just got moved up a level.
It used to be the products that were scarce, but when everything went digital, the product scarcity had to be artificial.
For a while, it was the creators who were scarce, (programmers, artists) but now that's not scarce either.

At this point, the only thing that's scarce is energy, water, and RAM.

I can't remember things well enough to know which is which....BUT!

It seems that the 'color' magic of "Warbreaker" would make for some excellent visuals. The first half of the story would make an excellent show as well...(I kind of remember the ending not quite having the same feel though.)

Is the difference between this new idea and a Chromebook just a middle-ware layer where the processing/rendering takes place? So instead of interacting with a browser, I interact with a picture of a browser and the 'computer' that generated that picture interacts with the actual webpage?

Is there a way to 'rearchitect' everything to not need a dedicated 'middle-ware' layer, but instead your 'display terminal' receives feeds of pre-computed and pre-rendered webpages and applications from multiple sources?

Aren't we already in a 'data-center' crisis? We're concentrating the 'compute' too much and it's overloading the grid. Taking the part that's still 'distributed' and centralizing that as well seems like compounding the problem.

This was my thought. What do the 'terminals' to these 'rented computers' look like?

How much 'local processing' do they need to do the communication and display? Wouldn't they still need RAM and hardware of some sort?

I have to assume that Google isn't the authoritative record for these domains. I guess they might be, and in that case the block seems 'somewhat' reasonable. However, if they aren't, and they are just an echo of the authoritative server, then it seems incredibly short-sighted to target Google here.
Is OpenDNS targeted as well, or xFinity, or any of a million other DNS 'repeaters.'

Canal+ is European. I wonder what percentage of European 'Internet users' have Google as their primary DNS server. I'm guessing those [famous IPs] are hosted in the US, and it would server Europe better to point at something more local? (Does Google have other DNS server IPs in other regions? Can you load-balance a single IP such that it doesn't require bouncing off an specific machine? Or is that what DNS would provide?)

Is there an actual JVM here? Looking at what TeaVM does, it seems it's more of a 'cross-compiler' (if that's a term, post says 'transpiles'), and it allows you to write JAVA but compile it to JavaScript (WASM). (Which are famously 'not the same thing.')

So, it's for JAVA programmers who don't want to learn JS? The deliverable seems like a monolithic, minified, partially obfuscated text file?

"Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop!"