I’m waiting for the day when they forget to renew a domain and porn ads start showing up.

Nope. Computer Vision is an AI topic. It has been from the start. Facial Recognition is just another Computer Vision problem.

Computer Vision, and Facial Recognition, has been happening long before Machine Learning and other now common AI implementations.

Your pet probably came pre-chipped. You probably had nothing to do with the decision. The shelter or breeder chipped the dog before you ever saw it.

Open Macs experienced the same problems as Windows. And closed Windows boxes (like NUC) experience the same reliability as Macs.

The Mac advantage is that they moved away from open configurations. The last open Mac, the Pro, has been dropped.

My desk has a Mac mini and an Intel NUC. They are equally reliable.

It's consumer desktop vs server. Most of the annoyance is trying to monazite the user.

When you get to servers, it's a different story, and complaints mostly boil down to what platform people learned first. The Linux centric bitch about Windows. The Windows centric bitch about Linux.

It's not the crappy hardware itself, it's the crappy drivers that supports it that cause the crashes or flakiness. In particular, in Linux in this Dell laptop case.

Again, in this case, it was NOT Windows having the problem, it was Linux. Both OS are vulnerable to flaky drivers.

Nope. With respect to Windows vs Linux vs Mac crashes, higher Windows numbers are a result of 3rd party software. Linux and Mac have an advantage of being unsupported by a lot of crappy hardware/software.

Nope. Never said that. I said that on the exact same high quality hardware with 3rd party drivers from highly reputable sources, Windows and Linux are both highly reliable.

Not when I get to pick the computer.

Semantics. In this discussion among the technically inclined we are talking about crashes. Note article title. The notion that Windows is inherently worse than Linux is an urban myth.

There is your problem above. While you focus on a monovariant, that for some reason, the only problem is drivers.

The topic is crashes, in case you haven't noticed the article title. Guess what it usually responsible for crashes, Windows, Linux, and Mac?

Now you are getting to the real problem. People favor what they already know, and foolishly try to replicate the ways of one platform on another. They fight the platform. Problems result.

Chipping animals isn't unknown in America.

In fact, they do it often enough to make me question if "AI" is the generic clickbait additive in this story about a search script.

Remember when you could, in System 6.0.7, and still in System 7, copy a file to a floppy (in MultiFinder), then from the floppy, then back to the floppy, and so on for a few minutes, and your Mac would hard crash. Remember?

As a tech I had a few tricks to crash Macs without any software. Just stupid Mac tricks. Not overflowing a disk, either, that was a stupid Windows trick.

Macs were not and are not yet infallible. They enjoy a huge advantage over Windows - control of the hardware. Windows suffers a multitude of hardware drivers, written by who-knows, and every significant attempt by Microsoft to insulate the kernel from bad driver behavior failed up to Windows 8. Mostly.

But it's sport to bash Windows. Has been since about Linux kernel 2.0, which if you were around then, you know was the pot calling the kettle black.

Windows has many flaws to hang your beanie on, but considering the requirements, it's remarkable. Not as remarkable as Linux, which somehow has become so despite (virtually) no paid developers. And I've used Linux since Slackware something like 0.9, which was not 'officially' distributed, and sort of worked. But it hooked me on Linux. Using Windows since the Mach 20 board and Windows 2.0, I've suffered but persisted. Felt bad for WordStar, WordPerfect for Windows, and some other software that never quite made it. Anyone remember Jazz?

Still, bashing Windows is easy. Anyone care to be similarly honest about X11?

Care to share actual metrics with us?

Sure, it is not a big problem for SSH. It is a problem when you connect to a web site, especially as certificate lifetimes get shorter: you need the whole certificate chain from a root (that your browser trusts) to the web server, which means at least two public keys and signatures and often more.

The NIST-approved post-quantum options and PK/sig sizes (in bytes, for "security level 1", which is the lowest) are Crystals Dilithium 2 (1312 / 2420), Falcon-512 (897 / 666 but computationally expensive) or SPHINCS+-SHA2-128s (32 / 7856 for the smaller but more computationally expensive signatures; same for SPHINCS+-SHAKE-128s). This compares to 32/64 or 64/48 bytes for 256-bit ECC algorithms and 256/256 bytes for 2048-bit RSA. If you are fetching a few kilobytes of text or CSS, this additional overhead is huge.

The facts are _really_ clear: The current factorization record without trickery and deception is 21. Might as well predict that "magic" will break classical crypto in any meaningful time with about the same level of justification.

Well, my current estimate id +5 effective qbits every 50 years. That linear scaling may be massive overestimating things, chances are the real scaling is inverse exponential, but lets assume it is linear for the moment. RSA130 needs around 450 effective qbits in a long calculation. We are currently able to factor 21, i.e. 5 bits. Hence we may see RSA130 fall to a QC in something like 4500 years.

I have absolutely no problem with QCs as physics experiments and for advancing some areas of Math. But pushing them as future computing mechanisms is dishonest and should count as scientific misconduct.

... in my $20/mo account.

(Well, except very occasionally for their own services.)

And that is just for them breaking even. Anybody thinks they can push ad revenue 150 times higher?