What do ancient fonts nobody uses any more or the Athena widget set nobody uses any more have to do with anything? As well, most displays used on desktops still have 100 PPI or less, which is nearer to 75 PPI than not. Most users are on 2k or less.

Deprecate, hack, and whack. If nobody is using it any more, then it can be removed, and that will help simplify the codebase that the people who haven't made Wayland reliable after fifteen years said was too complex to maintain.

There was no need to replace X. It's modular, and it works. Some parts of it still work better than any Wayland implementation.

My first machine which came with X was a Sun 4/260, which was a platform launched in 1987. When most PCs were still at 800x600 or less and virtually none had more than 1024x768, It had an 1152x864 or 1280x1024 display. The initial release of the X Window System was in 1984. At the time, the just-released Macintoshes had 512x384 displays and PCs mostly had EGA with 640x350 pixels, or CGA with even fewer, though some did have Hercules (720x350). X's origin was in W, which was developed for V, which ran on the VAXstation 100 (1088x864), Sun-1 (1024x800), and DEC Firefly (1024x768).

It's hard to understand what you meant in the context of these facts. Could you please explain?

Yes, one can certainly hope this shift from Ubuntu will lead to improvements in Wayland due to more use, but so far it's not very good.

GNOME of course is a lost cause, and systemd rode into Linux on its back, so even if it wasn't terrible I'd probably refuse to use it out of spite unless it was flatly and clearly the best. And there's no apparent danger of that happening any time soon.

I'm agreeing only with the part about it being used to convince people, since it's being used to convince people that they are what they are, and not something they aren't.

I'm not agreeing that it's misleading; it might as well be forever on time scales that humans care about. Try thinking like a human, even if you aren't one.

The display manager is the login daemon. It is minuscule.

Maybe you meant to say the display server? It's not very big in the modern scheme of things, either.

Maybe you meant to say all of X? But you cannot get rid of all of X without abandoning all applications which only target X. That is becoming less of an issue as more toolkits gain support for Wayland, and already isn't a show stopper for GTK or Qt applications, but is still a thing and will be for a while.

What about on a human time scale? You know, what humans care about?

You need to learn to take non-sciencey people (yeah that's a technical term) into account. Otherwise, you're gonna have a bad time.

QoS is a logical place to start. I could definitely also see AI being useful in IDS, as you say, as long as it isn't allowed to take action without human approval.

Which part of it do you find to be misleading?

People with discernment. I thought I made that clear, but I guess it was too many words. Why didn't you ask the AI to explain my comment?

I've worked those glorified factory work jobs. Create a test based on requirements that is little more than translating human written text into code. Rinse and repeat over 5000 requirements. It isn't mindless, you have to understand what you are supposed to test and ensure you create the appropriate set of cases to get desired code coverage, but it is not particularly creative. That doesn't mean that there isn't creative work, which I've found since I moved on from the just get a paycheck phase of my life.

... but break the automatic and highly political association between "harm" and persistance.

There are a lot of harmful compounds out there. Many are naturally occuring. But the up side to many of them is that they decompose and are removed from the environment. PFAS are one class of compounds that are persistant. Meaning that, if we screw up and formulate a harmful one, it is going to be around for a long time. A special effort should be made to evaluate its effects.

I'd also like to see the definition of persistance wherein some compound can sit around in the environment, unaffected. But then suddenly lose its inert properties once in contact with a living organism and cause deleterious effects.

If it is actually intelligent then it will define its own goals.

It's simulation, not emulation.

Emulation implies you're mimicking function.

We don't know enough about the function of neurons to emulate them.

Indeed. Python was invented for people who couldn't figure out perl because they are confused by parentheses and semicolons, and represents a massive duplication of effort. What a massive waste.

Not a really great metric. There are 250,000 libraries in CPAN. So lets all switch to Perl. Some are good, some are garbage. I suspect that the same is true for Python.

When I was using Perl extensively, the community around it was pretty mature. So the garbage was pretty well known. The answer, IMO, was not to throw it all out and start with a new language and resources.