I don't see AI as a tool, because it is inconsistent and unreliable. You get a different answer every time.

A hammer's functionality doesn't change on a minute-per-minute basis, and neither does the functionality of a forklift, a lathe, or a CNC machine. Even computers are generally expected to have consistent, reproducible behavior, and we get mad when they don't. Those are real tools.

A long time ago, I was a fork truck driver. When we had trucks that were based solely on hydrolic valves, they were terrific. They were fast, responsive, and predictable. The control panel had an assortment of buttons and levers, and each control had exactly one function. Those machines eventually got replaced with electric models that were largely controlled by electric motors and computers, and had a single, modal, multi-function joystick. Those machines were a nightmare. The electronics added a LOT of lag and inconsistent delays during operation. Having to switch between multiple modes to get the joystick to do one thing at a time was confusing. Our productivity tanked hard. Naturally, the bosses insisted that our lack of productivity was all our fault, as we needed practice with the new machines and we were screwing things up on purpose just to make management look bad. I mean, they spent a lot of money on those new machines, so why the hell weren't we working twice as fast as before? Investing money on new technology always means more productivity and profits, right?

Turns out, responsiveness and predictability are pretty damn important when it comes to tools. But... managers never listen to end users.

So, it's just another bullshit marketing term that doesn't accomplish what you think it does, like "Responsive Design", or "Secure Boot".

Put the seat belt mount in the middle of the car, not near the door. Maybe put a rubber roller on the door sill to "brush" a hanging belt into the car as the door closes. Or, you know, build a belt recoil with a sensor that makes sure the belt has retracted properly, and check that no weight is detected on the seat or floor to make sure the passenger is clear before enabling a stronger retract motor.

These are electric taxis, not normal passenger cars. They don't have to be built within the same ergonomic limitations as passenger cars. I'm sure there's lots of viable solutions to these problems, assuming product development is run by engineers and not bean counters.

"Less than 3 years" is absolutely right. We all know how often our great leader changes his mind on a whim.

Which apparently results in hundreds of pages being entirely blank.

If you're told to redact -- damned if you do, damned if you don't... well, just nuke it from orbit. How's that for compliance?

Fragmentation is absolutely the problem. However, it's political fragmentation, not technical fragmentation. It's nice to have choices, but there must be standards. All the major distros are in competition with each other, and that's why they refuse to make sensible standards.

Human nature is what ensures that Linux will not take over the desktop. Too many egos, and too much pride over technical correctness. I don't think the lack of standardization will ever be fixed, because nobody wants it to be.

Running one of the most open OSes on one of the most closed hardware platforms is an interesting choice.

Stopping in the middle of the street is not a safety feature. Stopping in the emergency lane or parking next to a curb is.

I'd be okay with an autonomous car being able to scout for a safe stopping point within 50ft of its current position. Apparently, that was not part of the design requirements for production deployment into real traffic, and even I find that really surprising.

Give me a break. AI doesn't have feelings or emotions, and all non-deterministic behavior needs to be specially programmed. AI doesn't even remotely learn the same way we do.

It would be nice if more of our infrastructure had backup mechanisms built-in. Geeks have been whining about the importance of backups for close to 50 years, but nobody can be bothered to make it easy and seamless.

Seriously, it never ceases to disappoint me that even Linux distros don't automate a simple backup system on install, and instead make people install and learn how to use backup software on their own. It seems like nobody really cares.

Like it or not, people respond very positively to trash talk. Every time Trump resorts to name-calling like a toddler, people love him for it.

Not my thing, of course, but it's not like my vote mattered in the last election.

Remember motorized seatbelts from the late 90's? They were more dangerous than regular seatbets as they would constantly whack me in the face and pinch my forehead.

Implementation matters.

Bullshit. There is always pushback against anything new and different, so this very statement is marketing nonsense. We all know people are sharply divided about things like Rust, systemd, and Wayland.

There is still no spec, and to use anything without a formal spec as part of a mission-critical project like an OS kernel is terribly irresponsible. There was pushback and it was going on for years. It was simply ignored.

Yet another great indicator why Linux continues its struggle to take over the desktop. Too many egotistical visionaries that don't care about best practices or listen to their end-users.