If the study reported on how much time was spent using Windows overall versus Macs. Because that makes a big difference. If there was, say, ten times the usage of Windows than MacOS, then affects the overall uptime.

Without this, the numbers don't have the context to really make a lot of conclusion. Not to mention that this probably all self-reported numbers as well.

Nothing like being a junior developer at a company whose business relies on getting rid of roles *exactly* like yours.

Then again, there's completely useless stock options that you can pretend will pay off big time.

So, this argument all pivots on this theory of extended mind by two philosophers, a theory that (looks around) isn't widely accepted at all in their specialized field of studies.

Let's compare this to the growing body of negative effects of constant access social media on children and the related ethical concerns.

If Gen Z decides to learn how to use maps more, keep written journals and do basic math with a calculator and make friends in real life that's a overall win for everybody.

They will still have access to computing when they need to use it. Again turning computers back to their roots as a tool, not as a gateway for serving constant distraction and near-zero-quality media is fine by me.

Yes, those are the arguments that some are making about AI. Frankly, they are more credible than a CEO essentially saying that they are hurt some people don't just trust companies like them to do the right thing. With the numbers being thrown around, skepticism is required here. It's bad enough when our government throws massive money at military projects with very dubious actual value. But the potential labor disruption and further accumulation of wealth at the very top that is possible with AI, it is irresponsible not to have the highest level of oversight and regulation in this case.

Oh, and some of the people you are making unhappy are the very demographic that brought NVidia to where they are. If AI is so important, NVidia should just commit 100%. Announce you are leaving the consumer and low-end workstation GPU market entirely.

It's a trending topic that's easy to get quite a few clicks from, so I expect a lot more articles and content to continue for quite some time.

The biggest advocates of Linux don't want the "year of the Linux Desktop" and the homogeneity that it would bring. It's the choices that they have that makes the platform interesting to them.

Of course, that means most users have to make choices they don't want or even understand.

Won't create a demand for highly memory optimized versions of applications. The costs for rewriting that code in desktop specific environments is very high and the inertia behind web frameworks and applications is so large that nobody wants to move to something better, despite how bad the current frameworks can be.

Most users expect more out of all their applications. Application frameworks have to deal with monitor scaling, use very high quality font and vector rendering and stay highly responsive. They use more animations to provide a better visual experience. This means you have to cache more complex visual assets and have more memory overhead. Older X11 and Win32 applications just look bad in comparison.

This is all due to a irrational land grab for computing resources that just happens to make it more expensive to build or even own your own computer.

Developers aren't the problem here, it's the out of control economic forces that want to consolidate even more wealth and resources in fewer and fewer places on the backs of increasingly strained labor.

To potentially be in a worse place than you started. But, hey, sunk costs and all that. Honestly, what is the savings really going to be after Google cranks up your per-user costs when they have captured enough of your data so that you can't switch back?

Microsoft makes money on Windows and Office because it is good enough for the job and has a decent ROI. It's their core business. Sure, they want you on Azure. But, hey, you want on-premise? Happy to sell it to you as well.

Google Workspace could be left to languish in the dust and it wouldn't affect the bottom line that much. Bonus, all your documents are strung around on their servers.

And no, you aren't getting rid of those spreadsheets anytime soon. They can take full advantage of a local machine and they make sense to the people that use them. It costs less to just keep the machines and licenses up to date versus trying to make an application that is essentially a specific spreadsheet, but has to run on pretty expensive computing resources for no actual gain.

Being able to run a local client on a local copy of a document is a good thing.

Multiple tabs are good. Markdown support is fine. And, of course, just more marketing shoving AI into every crevice.

There is a good OS lurking around in Windows, but, it is buried under too much slop.

Here's hoping a true Pro version becomes a thing.

I use Windows as my daily driver (it is what works best for me and I came from Linux) and AI is a big distraction for them. The CEO has become obsessed with AI and how them not being leader threatens the whole company and is pushing AI where it doesn't want to be and where nobody wants it.

Eroding Windows and Office with AI slop is a much, much larger threat to actual business model than OpenAI, et al. will ever be. Microsoft is fortunate that they have the opportunity to go backwards (with a few new things and fixes) to keep market share.

Making a much less-sucky Windows Pro isn't hard. Fix backup and update image backup and restore. Undo the dumbing down of OneDrive; don't sync any folders by default, but allow sync of any folder. Allow local accounts, make OneDrive and Copilot anything opt-in via installing from the store (or winget). Get any web stuff out of the shell whenever possible. Get Control Panel replaced with a workable solution.

Way easier and cheaper than gluing in AI slop willy-nilly, I would think.

While it is easy to hop on the bandwagon, this isn't an issue that strikes at the heart of the shell. It was a set of app packages that didn't get setup in time. There's already a workaround (run a script to register the packages). A notable mistake, but not a fundamental flaw.

Microsoft management buying into way too much AI hype; that will ruin Windows and Office. They have to hope there are enough developers to keep the AI rot at arms length so they can just remove it and you know, just make things work better?

Java is adopting a lot of C# features, with varying success[1]. As such, more developers are seeing the advantages of those features so why not just use C# where it is way more refined. The cross-platform story is pretty complete. The runtime and the tooling. VS Code works. IntelliJ fans have Rider. The dotnet command tool does the things you need it to.

Some things in Java are just clunky. Building and package management can really become a nightmare. You have choices where you don't really want them.

Microsoft is doing a better job stewarding the platform than Oracle, and as unpopular as Microsoft can be, it is nothing compared to the ill will that Oracle has brought. Microsoft has unhappy customers; Oracle has paying prisoners. The main challenge Microsoft has to overcome is the older versions of the platform itself. As an example, some developers think Entity Framework only works with SQL Server. That was never the case. EF Core works swimmingly with a lot of databases, with Postgres support becoming a notable highlight.

[1] Choices like type-erasure for generics, not having auto boxing and unboxing really makes for some clunky APIs. You have things like

IntStream mapToInt()

C# has

IEnumerable<T> Select(...)

where T can be int, string, whatever. Async and await alongside IO libraries that are non-blocking by default is another win. Sure, function coloring, but it's been a feature for ten years and it just works.

They have a massive supercomputer initiative that allows them to understand how to maintain the actual fissile materials and the elements that set up them off effectively via a highly complex computer simulation. Been working on it for 30+ years.

You don't need direct testing to keep MAD in place because betting somebody else's stuff is broken and yours isn't doesn't add up. You can't even even fade a "failed test" because it might be a bluff to draw you out.

This is just another distraction tactic.

So, engineers don't have the same skill set as marketers.

Well, I'll be damned.

Of course, every project starts on a completely even playing field and having access to certain networks and resources has nothing to do with initial success in the area. It's just down to marketing. Wait, how do I find good marketing people...

You have to get lucky. You do need to work just to roll the dice, Some people have to do *way less* work to get that first roll and they aren't the business experts they think they are.

So, the most popular language is one that will no longer bootstraps itself in any significant anyway (remember, PyPy is a thing).

TypeScript creates JavaScript, that code uses an engine and the engines for JavaScript aren't in written in JavaScript. However, the TypeScript compiler was written in TypeScript.

Emphasis on was. It is being ported to Go to address fundamental performance issues. And, yet, if you have a concern about the size or performance of any web app or application based on Electron and the like, you are just out of touch with the new realities. Not that you could find programmers to write native apps these days anyway.

Reinventing the wheel is a given and is even acceptable if the new wheel isn't fundamentally worse than the last version. But, here we are.

It is tiring to hear the executives that are clearly so out of touch with the day to day realities of programming demanding anything out of a workforce. Doubly so for reinforcing the amount of money sloshing around because "AI is the best".

If there was even a hint that AI could provide real, sustainable gains in productivity, you wouldn't have to tell the workforce to use it, they'd being using it already.

And nothing will provide 500% gains. Essential complexity still exists, AI does nothing to address that.

All this is pressuring workers to do more with even less time because if they don't, the big AI will take your job.