> Windows UI is the most disjoint though, with designs accumulated over the past 20 years still kicking in various places.

But every Linux distro has its own UI, and pretty much every distro makes it easy to configure it to look how you want, with tens of thousands of themes out there developed over the past 20 years by people wanting their os to look a certain way.

The most glaring inconsistencies are going to be user-inflicted. If I spend a weekend tweaking defaults to look just right I need to be ok with possibly tweaking any new software I download to fit my theme.

But even from a non-power-user perspective, if my mom runs into problems with her computer it's much easier to walk her through a fix over the phone if she's on Windows or a Mac.

My dad, who is very tech-literate, once tried Linux and all the trouble shooting guides required him to open a command prompt (because there isn't a consistent GUI you can use to fix things across distros). He never forgave it.

As if you don't get a jumble of UI frameworks on Linux too.

You can run KDE but depending on the app and containerization you open you'll get a Qt environment, a Qt environment that doesn't respect the system theme, random GTK apps that don't follow the system theme, random GTK apps that only follow a light/dark mode toggle. The GTK apps render their own window decorations too. Sometimes the cursor will change size and theme depending on the window it's on top of.

Sure but its not baked into the system utilities like in windows.

Such is life in the attention economy.

Why would a human painstakingly craft a text which sounds exactly like an LLM when they can just instruct an LLM to write it?

While sandboxing is definitely more secure... Why not put a global deny on .env-like filename patterns as a first measure?

Only $40?

By then it'll be a bit like AOL announcing price increases to keep your aol.com account.

That's 40 TUSD, Trump Golden Dollars, which would be an equivalent of the lightly used Trumrolette Goldenrado or a typical young family tent.

>I really, truly don't understand. This isn't just about manners, mores, or self-reflection. The inability or unwillingness to think about your behavior or its likely reception are stupefying.

Shower thought: what does a typical conversation with an LLM look like? You ask it a question, or you give a command. The model spends some time writing a large wall of text, or performing some large amount of work, probably asks some follow up questions. Most of the output is repetitive slop so the user scans for the direct answer to the question, or checks if the tests work, promptly ignores the follow-ups and proceeds to the next task.

Then the user goes to an online forum and carries on behaving the same way: all posts are instrumental, all of the replies are just directing, shepherding, shaping and cajoling the other users to his desired end (giving him recognition and a job).

I'm probably reading too much into this one dude but perhaps daily interaction with LLMs also changes how one interacts with other text based entities in their lives.

I'll gladly discuss at length things that are near and dear to my heart.

Facing random people in the public court of opinion is not one of them!

Also, there's long-form writing in my blog posts, Twitter and Reddit.

Well if you wanna contribute (at least as a proxy) to OSS, you need to deal with people and make them want to deal with you. If you don't do that, no PR, regardless of how perfect it is, will ever be accepted. If you're so sure that your strategy for the future of development is correct, then prove it by building your own project, where you can fully decide which contributions are accepted, even those which are 100% ai generated. This should be easy, right? Once your project gains wide spread adoption, you can show everybody that you've been right all along. Until then, it's just empty talk.

That's exactly their plan, it seems.

Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work...

I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker.

The rambling nature of his posts also makes it harder to properly argue against them as he keeps repeating the same points over and over; some of them are decent but there is certainly a gish gallop feeling to the whole thing.

> Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work...

He definitely changed his mind on AI coding agents based on reader feedback. Ultimately though, you need incredible productivity growth/massive layoffs to make the numbers work for the current spending and RN, I don't see large signs of this.

> I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker.

I think this is probably because he feels like he's taking crazy pills when he hears what CEOs/leaders are saying about this. It's some kind of mind virus. Like, I was at a meetup a few months back where a senior data/code person was saying that nobody would write code in 5 years, which (if you've used the tools heavily) seems pretty absurd.