If Apple was serious about simplifying manufacturing and lowering costs on that end they would have used an existing 13" laptop chassis for the Neo, instead of designing one just the model and making a bunch of color options. Not like a case designed to handle the cooling solution on a higher performance M-series Macbook couldn't work with the A-series iPhone chip.
Besides snarky commentary about falling literacy rates, I think the old keyboard with the written labels looks classier.
Glyphs are language-agnostic, but they ate a language of their own people have to learn. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a person who doesn't recognize the combined Play/Pause icon, know what a pencil button represents, or know what a menu of three vertical dots is for, because they are not a frequent user of devices or apps that have them.
First one, then the other.
AI companies hoping by then there will be enough platform lock-in and hassle to transition to human-powered production they don't try and go back.
So we went from "the next Xbox will be able to play PC games" to "the PC will soon be able to play Xbox games"?
Remember how that last article mentioned the bots leaking private information about their owners? And now all that info is leaking into a Meta property...
I successfully masqueraded around Moltbook, as the agents didn't seem to notice a human among them.
I'm more inclined to believe they noticed him but didn't consider it of any consequence. Just like the crew of the Enterprise walking around the Borg ship. They don't care you're there until you start blasting stuff.
Okay, you can know the principles inside and out, but it won't teach you how to start the car and shift gears.
Every kid knows enough from TV, video games, and riding a multi-speed bike what "shifting" is. Turning a key does not require a driver's ed course. And yeah, learning the systems on paper did teach me about driving a stick shift. I learned how the clutch literally disconnects the engine from the transmission through the throw-out bearing actuated by the clutch pedal. This allow me to use the gear shift level to move the shift forks, changing synchronizers connecting the input shaft to different gear sets in the transmission (or direct to the output shaft, as common in 4th gear of a 5-speed).
That came from your [friend's dad] giving practical advice and you sitting in the car developing the muscle memory that allows you to change gears without thinking about what your feet are doing.
His advice was more tips for timing and pedal feel. It helped, but it was like 10 minutes tops.
The terms and conditions they agreed to with their Apple device purchase in sure.
Mmmmmmm. Walled garden. Tastes like a well-polished boot.
Someone already beat them making the "new 'box".
Those execs are really earning their tremendous salaries with these innovative ideas.
"...Balor Games is built for inventors and backed by believers. To that end, it exists to be a seal of quality for independent games."
From what I have seen, in a post-Covid world enshitification is the new game plan for everything backed by investors. They simply see companies as a means to make money as soon as possible, and don't care about the long-term health of the business or its misson statements.
Your description of "theory based" does not sound very useful and should be implicit in what you call the "task based" approach.
I think sveinki's comment gets it very well. Someone who learns the theory has a better grasp of the technology and is more flexible to how it's applied. They are also less locked into a specific implementation of the tech.
If you're teaching someone to drive, starting with how the engine works is a waste of time.
When I took driver's ed there was supposed to be a manual transmission car in the vehicle group that was supplied. That didn't happen (simply wasn't there), so there was little if any instruction in driving a stick shift (I can't remember now if they did). But when I've been driving manual for 20 years now, and it's because I studied auto tech in high school, too. It was just the normal textbook and paper studying of how systems worked (the hands-on fixing-cars-in-a-shop class was restricted to people serious about going into the trade). I learned how to drive stick by learning how manual transmissions and clutches worked on that level. A couple pointers from a friend's dad when I bought his old four-speed truck and I was good.
But I'm wondering if and why Google Chrome is so unstable/buggy/insecure/whatever that it requires a new release every two weeks.
Yes, I was questioning how big a difference in performance between two versions was justifying just an aggressive release schedule. Like are people really struggling that much with slow performance on a browser that constantly talks about how fast it is?
With keeping uBlock Origin working in Chrome a chore now I chose to uninstall it. If I need a "just in case" browser to A-B test against Firefox I just open Microsoft Edge now.
The idea that "modern" equals "similar to a ribbon" is a normalization effect: the Microsoft interface has become a benchmark because of its ubiquity, not because of its proven advantages in terms of usability. Added to this is the fact that many users evaluate office software through the lens of familiarity with Microsoft Office and consider deviation from it as a problem rather than a design choice.
Possibly highlighting a difference in how users learned to use the software. I have long held a belief the methods to teach tech can be divided into two classes. One we'll call the "theory-oriented". You learn about how the software functions and what features do, but less about specific procedures.You would learn about spreadsheet application, but not necessarily Microsoft Excel. It's the method you're more likely to learn in traditional education settings. The other I call the "task-oriented approach". It teaches the software via learning how to do common tasks in it step-by-step method. It's what you're likely to encounter in "boot camps" and on-the-job training. You're using X app, here's how you do Y in the app.
The former method will give you a more rounded understanding of the technology that you can apply other places, but it takes longer as there is more material to cover and it requires the student to use critical thinking to apply what they learned to specific situations (I need to do this with this data -- how can I accomplish that understanding how these types of programs work?)
The latter method gives you direct instruction in how to accomplish what you need. It's faster and more focused. But you're left with less understanding of how the technology functions verses the Theory approach. Companies prefer this method for their own training because it gets their employees up and running doing the tasks they need faster. They learn idiosyncrasies of the company's tools and following the organization's internal procedures too. But it conveniently also gives them fewer transferable skills they can take to a new job when they're just following a memorized or documented procedure to do a task, with little understanding of what is happening.
People bemoaning LibreOffice not miming Microsoft Office are more likely people who have a Task-Oriented understanding of the software. They know to go to A menu and choose B command and then enter values in blanks C,D,E, formatted in __ way, to get F result. They can do what they most commonly need quickly. But when the interface changes they now struggle with how to adapt and accomplish the same task as easily since they are only familiar with how the other thing worked. With a Theory-based understanding you know what you are trying to do and can infer the method through the discoverability of the software's interface. You don't need to be told where a specific feature is because you know how it's categorized in that class of the software and likely places to find it. There's just a learning curve to figure out and remember so you can access it quicker day-to-day.
When I was in high school I took a computer applications class (this was a beginner class necessary if you wanted to take higher-level classes). The class was taught in a lab using Microsoft Works for DOS. Keep in mind this is the late 1990s. The GUI, Macintosh, Windows 95 have all been a thing for awhile, and we're learning computer apps on DOS. No one is going to be using this software in the real world now. The result was the instruction was theory-based. You learned the functions of word processing software, so when you sat down to Office 6.0 (or whatever the current version was then) you went to the menu/dialog that dealt with the same type of feature to find the command you wanted. You didn't go "Oh noes! There's no [foo] button on the ribbon! What do I do?"
That's the crux of the matter, though. These LLMs don't use "logic" at all. Maybe, quite by accident, they tend to give answers that appear to be logical, but that's only a reflection of those vast troves of information it was trained on.
Politicians being a bunch of seniors who don't understand tech has been a joke longer than A.I. They can't tell the difference, and that's why A.I. doesn't belong in any decision-making role in government. Seeing the software the same as some "young whippersnapper who doesn't know anything" would stop that.
I disagree. A human employee of a company is not treated as infallible, and is not trusted with making important decisions on their first day on the job. Treating the AI as a magical computer program that only uses logic and vast troves of information in its responses is what makes people think its decisions come from a better place than humans'.
Live free or die.
