> Oh wait, what’s left? :)
Copilot :D

Choosing which system is a good replacement is on the user. Why should Linux distributions change, because Windows users have more pressure to find a matching one? There may be niches to create new ones (think "Lindows") but the existing ones are fine and will still be fine if the Windows users do not choose them.

most consumer printers are easier with Linux. Last time I wanted to install a printer, I plugged it in and went to systemsettings to select the appropriate driver and it was fully installed and configured with sane defaults. I printed a test page and everything went well. In Windows it took a while to download the driver disable all third-party tools it wanted to install and then had an unfamiliar vendor-specific interface to configure the page layout.

Some of the core advantages are the differences, not the similarities.

The article already mentions snap. Snap is the attempt to make the ecosystem more friendly for vendors who do not care about distributions and their packaging and QA criteria, but want to push a setup.exe to users. Linux works so well, because not every program comes with a setup.exe that can do anything in the system, but programs have maintainers which create packages that install software with the minimal changes to the system.

If a Debian package needs to touch a system config, there are a lot of consideration before such a package is accepted. Snap sidesteps this by saying "We touch whatever we want, but inside a container" and delivers half an ubuntu (plus gnome, kde, etc. depending on the particular app) runtime just to run a small program whose developer couldn't bother to think of how to do sane packaging.

So the point is, that distributions take responsibility of QA of the whole system. If your program breaks Ubuntu, then the Ubuntu maintainer takes the responsibility to do a timely emergency fix even when you abandoned the project. If one yolo installs it with curl|bash and you abandon the project, the remains of what your install.sh did to the system will be there until the user reinstalls the system.

Spotify will now scramble to prevent this. I doubt there will be continuous updates. I think they may when Spotify stops worrying and the anti-scraping tech is no longer changed start another attempt, but they surely won't be able to rip it album by album as it is uploaded to Spotify.

They said 160 kbit/s Ogg. For exactly that reason, you need to limit archive size and still have an acceptable audio quality.
I'd think for an archive that's fine. If you want to stream high quality audio, you find the price list on the Spotify website.

Give it a bit more time. Diffusers took off in 2022, LLMs in 2023. AI is growing faster than many prior tech, but it is still at its infancy. Not long ago people laughed about the number of fingers, now they are scared of not being able to tell fact from fiction. I am a bit surprised that video AI might get faster to high quality results than text, but on the other hand the text models are fricking huge compared to image and video AI ... maybe text is more dense than we think.

It may be not about you. Look at all the high frequency trading stuff. They are using highly sophisticated algorithms that are expensive business secrets ... but don't you think they will start using AI as soon as it gets better than their hand crafted things? It's not like you need AI for your Christmas shopping, but it also isn't either that the stock market were dominated by human decisions.

That falls somewhere into the "not the uncanny valley" part, but on the "before it was good" AI it is a combination of you fixing it (In particular the ChatGPT phrases) and in the current part you not overusing it, I guess. The first time I used ChatGPT to writes something "more serious and convincing" I had to tone it down massively afterward. If you don't do it, it can become a caricature of what you wanted. A long "business English" text sounds very convincing. But when it is not plausible for your current letter to sound like this, it will seem weird.

And for graphics you can overdo AI just as CGI. Sometimes the photo-realistic image, no matter if CGI or AI, is just worse than the simple graphic. And there is the "Who cares" part. A personalized Christmas card? Most of them are not longer looked at than a minute. If someone wants to photoshop^W AI edit them into a santa costume for that, why not? It's not like someone is claiming it would be high art.

But most the time they work. And are hard to beat at efficiency.

Is it the human factor (and the time coordination) or the pairing factor? Let's say AI gets a bit better and you have an AI driven system available. It works at your pace and is always ready when you're working. Would this work for you even though pairing with humans doesn't?

> The problem, I suspect, is that they are designed to fail safe. Specifically, when they encounter a situation that is substantially unexpected, they stop and reach out to operators to ask how to resolve the unexpected situation.

That's what I tried to say. And that is for someone who is responsible the best solution to avoid being responsible for dangerous situations. On the other hand it is massively inconvenient, not only for passengers but also for other drivers. But the question is, how much do we already try autonomous systems handling unforeseen situations? I'd think the "better safe than sorry" strategy may be better at the moment.

The easier it is for a maintainer, the fewer interested users are required to motivate one. In the best case, the package is used by the maintainer themselves, then it doesn't matter at all if it has any further users.

The problem is, you need to do something that can be done reliably (!low AI") and predictable (others are not too surprised by it and can plan their own maneuvers ahead).

If the thing (seemingly) can't work as usual in this situation, it needs a safe fallback. And when it seems that any complicated maneuvers are out of question, you need to stop (and in the best case let a human handle the vehicle). What would be the alternative? Keep driving straightforward no matter what? Do some things that were deemed to unreliable for usual operation in the emergency situation?

Why don't they use rails instead. The solution is so simple ... and already exists. One driver for hundreds of passengers.