Forgot to add: you won't buy them but rent them, like a cable box.

Most non-computing folks will see them as Alexa-Plus systems that they don't have to worry about updates and other stupid computer geek chores.

Have you checked SC Top 500 lately?

https://top500.org/system/1803...

They seem to be positioning these as ubiquious computing devices, i.e. the computing toaster Steve Jobs was questing after, starting way back in the late '70s and early '80s.

These will not be stand alone computing devices but likely tied to a network and corporate control systems.
That the corporation(s) and/or gov't will be monitoring everything done on the system goes without saying.

If anything these will probably be the death of personal computing.

They want to replace PCs with PCDs (Personal Computing Devices) that will have to be tied to the net (i.e. rented like a cable box) to work and monitors everything you do on them.

Oh yeah, they'll let you plot and goon on the boxes, just so they have dirt on you for control down the line.

I wonder how long it'll be before real computers are restricted to only licensed (gov't / corporate approved) individuals? Maybe we make it to 2040 but pessimist me says they'll try to start controlling PCs before 2035.

Please, no. Often when writing code I need the API reference and only the API reference. I know what I want to do and how to do it, I just need a quick check of the exact order of arguments or exact symbol names. I don't need to try to sift that out of commentary. Likewise when I'm learning how to use the library I'm more interested in the overall view. I don't need to know the exact names of the options for a call, only what the options are for. I expect the code in the user's guide to be accurate, but I don't want the same things out of it that I want out of the API reference.

Except for the bit where it does that caching for a loop where each lookup only occurs once. Because everybody caches lookups, so that must be the right thing to do (it's the most likely thing to happen) in a case where the cache is never used. Riiiiight...

Something critical to note: intent is the most important thing to document when it comes to software. You can see what it does by reading the code, that's straightforward. What I need to know most, both when writing software and maintaining it later, is why it's doing that. What's it supposed to be doing? Why is it doing it in that way? What were the alternatives and why weren't they chosen? How is it supposed to be used by code that calls it? An LLM can't generate any of that just from the code.

This is why traditionally software libraries have had two separate pieces of documentation: an API reference that details every call and it's arguments and results, and a user's guide that lays out how and why to use the library.

This has been typical behavior for large companies when dealing with vulnerability reports for decades. Report one, they treat you as the problem. They'll try to ignore it, consider it "not exploitable", delay and deflect as long as they can get away with it, anything but address the vulnerability. And they'll never tell anyone the vulnerability exists. This only changes when they have no choice but to admit to the problem and fix it, usually when the vulnerability is being publicly exploited. They push "responsible disclosure" because it includes the reporter not making the vulnerability public until the company has a fix, which allows them to stall disclosure as long as they want.

It used to be enough to just include a reasonable deadline when reporting it, after which the reporter would make it public if the company hadn't taken some action on it. Then companies started threatening and then taking legal action against the reporter as soon as they reported the problem, playing the deadline up as "blackmail".

So, what do you do when faced with this? The only reasonable response is to skip the company entirely and make the details public immediately. You're going to be facing retaliation from the company either way, this way the public isn't vulnerable for an extended time. And yes you include details on how to exploit the vulnerability, ideally via working code, so researchers other than the company can confirm it's a real vulnerability that's actually exploitable without having to take your word for it. No, that doesn't give the bad guys anything because remember the working assumption for vulnerabilities: if a good guy has found it, the bad guys already know about it and are using it. Remember that when the company whines.

For some people's beliefs and values, whataboutism is all they've got to offer.

Well, that and projecting.

The even shout "aieeeeee!" when some something scares them.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yeah, I think they forgot to include "stupid" in the long list of his faults.

I think the last good AI I saw in a movie was Robbie the Robot in Forbidden Planet.

I've seen people make that argument before, that there is no difference. You can make that argument if you want, but if you can't provide a viable candidate then you're not helping anything.

Let me be extra direct here. I have never seen a candidate in a race I could vote in that I agreed with 100%. Frankly anytime I meet someone who tells me they agree with a politician 100% of the time I tend to want to tell them they need their head examined (unless they are themselves a politician, in which case doubly so). Even politicians like Bernie Sanders I don't agree with 100% of the time.

Complaining about the rules is not productive. We've seen what the SCOTUS will do about such arguments, we can't get help from them either. The only way to advance is to support someone who will actually do something useful. Pretending that they all do the same shit doesn't help either; there are meaningful platform differences. Just because Drumpf has held every position on every issue doesn't mean he doesn't stand for anything, either - he's actually followed through on some of his (very worst) initial promises.

What have the democrats ever done for us?