Adoption is a function of existing adoption and existing availability of resources.

Extremely good OS' and truly amazing computers have failed, not because they were too expensive or had issues, but because they were perceived to be unpopular OR simply lacked enough software that could run on them.

Extremely bad OS' and truly awful computers have succeeded for the opposite reason.

Linux has an extremely good architecture, at least for machines that are mostly operating with CPUs. When most of the work is done by the GPU, it's less obvious that Linux provides the necessary mechanisms to manage resources and abstract away the hardware specifics. That doesn't mean I expect Linux to start fading, but I don't think a centralised OS is necessarily where things will go. However, the reason it hasn't done better so far is simply because potential users and potential software houses had a negative view of it (even though actual users were almost invariably loving the system).

Windows is crashing now not because it is a slow, bug-ridden piece of spyware (which it is, but users have never cared about that in the past), but because it is perceived in increasingly negative light.

Tell me you read that and didn't get triggered for some obscure reason. Properly managed investments can be quite stable.Now on to what you think I'm doing.

Sorry homie, I'mdoing six figures in retirement, and have untapped investment accounts.

It isn't that difficult. Live within ones means, save and invest sensibly while playing the long game. Have a wife with similar financial outlook. Perhaps this is all not that common?

We live in a world where people take out 30 year mortgages, use multiple maxed out credit cards, essentially still paying off their first purchases on them. As well as doing other financially stupid things. That expenditure adds up. A smart person can have a lot more money to save and invest if they keep their cars and furniture some years longer, pay off the house in say 12 years, and never carry a balance on the credit card (s).

But like I said, you don't hear a lot about us. Doesn't mean we don't exist.

They can get vertical samples from space and the ground. What they can't get from space or the ground is how the internals of a system evolve.

The problem with "models" in the abstract is that there are a lot of them and some of the time the thing you want is to know the same point relative to the system and not to the mudball.

Lots of people have gut feelings about AI, positive or negative.

Most of the AI research I can see people doing is focusing on single-element problems (such as finding counter-examples to a mathematics hypothesis) or solving very simple engineering systems (at most a dozen or so components). Most of the benchmarks are even simpler (write a short story at the level generally asked in English classes of primary school kids).

As a result, I think that people have developed either a very cynical outlook or a very optimistic look. Neither of these is entirely realistic, for the simple reason that no actual useful problem fits any of those descriptions.

Digging much deeper, I'm finding that when problems get into the hundreds or thousands of elements, even ChatGPT Sol 5.6 and Claude Fable 5 struggle badly to keep track of accurate relationships, let alone any level of detail.

If you want to solve a relatively simple coupled system (whether to use solar panels or direct solar heating, and which side of the house to place them), I'm sure AI is fine. If you want AI to write a five hundred word story detailing a conversation between Kim Possible, Rufus, and a smoked herring, I'm sure it could cope. Just.

If you want it to do anything hard enough that a human could do with an assistant, the tests I've been using (meaningful rather than synthetic problems) suggest you've developed a fantastically expensive blue smoke generator. We are going to need to see the inference engines developed for previous generations of AI, and the reasoners developed for the semantic web, and perhaps tools that haven't begun to be imagined yet, before AI can do anything non-trivial.

It seats 5. There are models that seat 7 if that's what you need.

I agree. WFH only people probably think they should be paid the same.

I have a rather unique skillset. But application of that skillset requires onsite. I'm paid accordingly.

And you learned economics from a handful of right wing propaganda Mills.

You would have been better off going with Saturday morning cartoons. Scrooge McDuck had a lot of money but in the magic world of duckburg it never actually hurt the general population. In the real world Scrooge McDuck would have been more like his namesake causing massive social problems from his greed and lust for power and money

Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only. Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more. While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.

I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say specifically that if I insisted to not have my 50:50 arrangement, but always at home. I wouldn't be working there. And the pay and benefits are such that it would be stupid for me to decide to die on that hill. I make as much money in three months as I used to make in an entire year. Would you insist on working at home if spending some time at the office allowed you to quadruple your pay?

There ya go. The insults. Make no mistake, I am saying this and only this - The reason for the marked increase in WFH has largely gone away for many with the end of Covid restrictions. I gave reasons, and the consequences for some. You can disagree with them, but calling me a shill is silly, just shows you are quick to anger, and perhaps just read a line of a post then go ready to rumble. Give me a reason exactly Why companies would want some people back after you point out that remote work is a wonderful thing for them? Seems that in a world where the standard Slashdot outlook is that corporations regularly squeeze out every cent they can out of the workforce and the working environment - they would be insisting on everyone WFH, and stop the lease on the building, fire that staff that used to maintain and clean the buildings, and enjoy the resulting windfall. Or at least, moving to a much smaller and less expensive place in a small town.

Or rather who that matters actually cares?

Return to office was about commercial real estate property values so that a couple of billionaires who are heavily invested in it didn't lose their investments. Every single credible study has shown that work from home improves productivity and is universally beneficial because it gets people off the roads so if you are somebody who genuinely has to go into the office you have less traffic and cleaner air.

Nobody is going to care whether employees are happy or not anymore. Not broadly. Automation has been devouring jobs since the late 70s and by all accounts the pace is going to accelerate. So employers don't need to be nice to you anymore.

So for example, I recently did a 6 hour round trip. On the way back I stopped for 6 minutes to charge and use the bathroom.

As far as I'm aware they don't get any subsidies at all from the government. There used to be a tax break on EVs, but that was withdrawn years ago. You pay the full 20% now.

But unless you have a toilet installed in your car, you have to also walk to the bathroom first.

I know, you piss in a bottle with one hand while handling the petrol pump with the other. I guess for you it is slower.

Wowswers dude. I state some facts and you go ballistic.

I hope you don't go to onsite work, you must be a real pill to be around. Stay angry my friend, it is kinda entertaining .

Which companies? Regardless, while I'm triggering everyone, I might as well restate, if you are opposed to going to an office and consider it a non-starter, it's time to look for a job that will give you the happiness you deserve

I'm just stating some facts that should be pretty obvious. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/v...

I'm also stating why some people don't want to return to onsite, including FTA things like a 2 hour commute.

What is sort of funny is that while your post isn't angry, some are pretty unsettled by what I posted.

I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.

Yeah, there have always been careers that are not working in an office. This isn't about those. They aren't being asked to return to office. I'm speaking from the point of what happened in 2020 for a few years. If the job was performed onsite once, the employer will likely want that again.

This is utterly simple. If you have a personal requirement of never stepping in an office, that is just a personal requirement. Not one thing wrong with that. You find a Job that fits your requirements just like we all should. You do you!

I do 50/50 WFH (actually work from anywhere) and 50 percent onsite. It's a good gig.

I only point out that WFH is a personal choice, and that some people made decisions that would seem to have entertained the idea that WFH was a permanent situation. If a person moved far away from their workplace HQ, no, they don't want to uproot back to a higher cost of living area. The decision to move far away for lower cost of living was perhaps not the best, as if they were once required to work onsite, there is a pretty fair chance they will be wanted onsite again.