miffy900

it's still an opt-in setting though. Windows and OS-components like drivers and Edge do get auto updated yes, but to enable Microsoft Update, you still need to turn on a setting in the Settings app. even setting up a new PC/laptop with windows, this is off by default.

highly unlikely for many of them. SharePoint, bitlocker, Active directory, hyper-v, rdp, DHCP and MSMQ are all software/technologies that have decades of history and long pre-dated LLMs. seriously, do people not realise it was entirely possible to write insecure or bad code before LLMs?

Maybe try reading the writeup? GDID's are 64 bit for one thing, not 128 like GUIDs.

Yep. there's absolutely no way that Cursor is worth that much.

for contrast, Elon paid $44b for twitter back in 2022. When you adjust for inflation, Twitter was acquired for $49b in 2026 money. Cursor getting bought for 1.22x more is just insanity.

Elon seems unwilling to shake off the image that he has basically no idea what he's doing.

well for backend development, yes - I technically never stopped as I had existing projects to maintain. But after trying out Swift a couple times, I've dropped it entirely for backend. For new backend work it's C#/.NET all the way.

I wanted to try using a native language other than C++ and Swift ostensibly seemed easier to pick up. I continue to use Swift for iOS app development though where it is much easier to use; but that has its own share of compromises and trade-offs - but not centred around Swift, around SwiftUI vs UIKit.

As someone who first began using Swift in 2021, after almost 10 years in C#/.NET land, I was already a bit grumpy at how complex C# was, (C# was 21 years at that point), but then coming to Swift, I couldn't believe how complex Swift was compared to C# - Swift was released in 2014, so would've been 8 years old in 2022. How is a language less than half the age of C# MORE complex than C#?

And this was me trying to use Swift for a data access layer + backend web API. There's barely any guidance or existing knowledge on using Swift for backend APIs, let alone a web browser of all projects.

There's no precedent or existing implementation you can look at for reference; known best practices in Swift are geared almost entirely towards using it with Apple platform APIs, so tons of knowledge about using the language itself simply cannot be applied outside the domain of building client-running apps for Apple hardware.

To use swift outside its usual domain is to become a pioneer, and try something truly untested. It was always a longshot.

To be fair, work on Swift began in 2010, which would technically predate Tim Cook's accession to the position of CEO by a year or so.

I recall the source code for Windows XP was leaked some years ago; not just isolated parts of the code base, like with the earlier Windows NT4/2000 source code leak, but a completely buildable repository.

If I write an article on training an LLM on the leaked Windows XP source code, blithely mark the source code repo as in 'the public domain', but used Azure resources for the how-to steps, would that would make it OK Microsoft? You know, your Azure division might get some money...

Seriously, this is just so...blatant. It's like we've all collectively decided that copyright just doesn't matter anymore. Just readin this article, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

though the "about notepad" dialog shows the windows 11 version for some reason??

For many built in windows apps, the 'about this program' menu item just invokes a separate program, 'winver'. If you go Start -> Run and type in winver, it does the same thing.

Are you even responding to the right comment? I read your comment and the parent comment you've responded to and this response doesn't make sense - it reads like a non-sequitur.

Canada dumps good milk down the drain while people go hungry and suffer high food prices

I'm not sure if you realise this, but the exact same thing happens in the US.

The firm gradually grew more contentious, demanding that the RTX 5060 be handed in because the event it was acquired at was part of a business trip, entirely paid for by the company. The employee would never have won the GPU had the firm not enabled him to attend the venue. Our winner refused, arguing that it belonged to him because he had won it on his own by pure luck.

Hmm...I feel like the company's reasoning here is almost acceptable. Almost, because I know as a (paid) employee, all of the code I write, any inventions or IP I come up with are the company's property, so it almost makes sense that the company might also want to assert its right to claim that any physical things given or gifted in the course of work-related trips that employees take on company time.

but the article mentions the winner was an intern, not an employee, and I know many interns i've worked with never actually signed an employment agreement, because they dont actually get paid. They sign NDAs but not full on employment agreements, so how can any company treat them like an employee? if I wasn't getting paid, I'd 100% hold my ground like the intern did and take it.

What name calling? Calling the author 'an unserious person' isn't name calling. Might be worth reading the article:

"If you like Windows 8’s look, you are a bad person. You are the one Steve Jobs was talking about when he said Microsoft had no taste."

yeah you don't need to read very much of this to know this author hasn't exactly written a substantive article; they certainly aren't bothering to backup their claims with any reasoning. the whole post itself is 'this version of windows was ugly, this one wasn't etc'.

That was exactly the same behaviour in Windows 7 though; it wasn't exactly novel. At least Windows 7 searched your apps, and documents all at once. Windows 8 limited you to just apps. Windows 8 was a huge step down in usability.

They can afford to make a big song and dance about this because chances are they are not selling the hardware at a loss and they have the regular steam store to offset the short term costs. If they were selling the hardware at a loss, I think their marketing trying to sell this device would be very different.

I feel like there could be a loophole here for the new-framework-author. Stick to using JSX for the view; JSX is just syntax sugar for built in react functions for constructing a tree, which can be easily swappable with your own implementation. I recall years ago using a babel plugin that just emitted static HTML from JSX. I know Vue.js v2 also had JSX support that way.

I think LLMs, despite already being trained massively on React, can easily adapt their output to suit a new framework's-specific API surface with a simple adjustment to the prompt. Maybe include an abbreviated list of type/function signatures that are specific to your new framework and just tell the LLM to use JSX for the views?

What I think will definitely be a challenge for new library authors in the age of LLMs is state management. There are already tons of libraries that basically achieve the same thing but have vastly different APIs. In this case, new lib-authors may be forced to just write pluggable re-implementations of existing libraries just to enable LLMs to emit compilable/runnable code. Though I dont know of any state management library that dominates the web like React does with the view layer.

for the longest time, no one in linux land cared about API stability or backward compatibility - then app/game developers realised if they could port a portion of Win32 to Linux via WINE, they could just target the win32 API or at least a portion of it and so long as WINE was installed, their app/game would always work. i find it a bit ironic; desktop Linux is being enabled by re-implementing APIs from another OS.

To be fair, Microsoft has always had a culture of strong backwards compatibility, even between major OS versions - this is something they cultivate internally AND also tell their customers/users about.

Apple has had no such culture internally and they sure as heck don't emphasise backward compatibility to their customers (users or otherwise) - if anything, Apple prods and nags their developers to stick to the latest SDK/platform APIs, and shove the burden of software compatibility and maintenance onto them and hand wave away the breaking changes as being part and parcel of membership in the Apple ecosystem. This attitude can be traced back to the Steve Jobs era at Apple. It's definitely not new and comparing what Microsoft does with software and backward compatibility and expecting Apple to do the same is not fair - they really are different companies.

Just wanted to mention that some basic Windows-OS keyboard shortcuts don't work, like ALT+F to open the File menu. Also things like ALT+SPACEBAR to bring up the system context menu for the focussed window (the menu with maximise, minimise, close options etc.) do not seem to work. I'm guessing with the DirectX rendering backend, the 'app' is rendered more akin to a video game than a native win32 process.

Also after install, the install directory takes up 400MB+. Even VSCode only takes up around 380MB. I believe it when they say it's not an Electron app, but I do wonder what's being packed in there. I was always under the impresion that Rust apps are pretty lightweight, but that install size is nearing Java levels of binary/dependency bloat.

I think this idealism reveals a naive viewpoint about what users really care about. They care that apps work - that they do what they're supposed to and do it fast or efficiently. Not even Microsoft makes apps for their own platform that are native apps (example Teams, the new Outlook), and they service millions of users. Indeed, if you look at Microsoft's UI over the years, they are inconsistent as hell (all of the Office apps throughout the years is a good example), but so long as performance, functionality and usability hasn't suffered too much, users are OK with non-native apps that do not appear native. Another example is iTunes on Windows - looks nothing like a native Windows app.

There's also the fact that having control over your own apps UI/design language is better over the long term. What if Apple decides to ditch this liquid glass for something else years in the future? They ditched their own design language in iOS7, and now with iOS26 they've done it again.

And the basis for UI redesigns as wide ranging as this are almost entirely nonsensical. Does liquid glass suddenly improve usability by whatever percent? Nope - I guarantee Apple does NOT interrogate or benchmark their UI designs in the same way as NN Group does. Usability is actually hurt by the fact users need to re-learn basic interactions, and existing ones are now slower. Is overall performance improved over the previous version? Absolutely not - performance metrics such as battery life and UI responsiveness have regressed with the over use of visual effects like translucency and minute pixel manipulations. Why bother following changes to a design language when they are not based on real reasoning backed up by actual data or solid logic, and they end up regressing performance to an even worse state? Why should any app vendor be obligated to follow what are ultimately arbitrary and whimsical changes?

Redesigns such as this result in literally more work for the sake of it, zero net improvements and whole lot of wasted effort, all for what? Just to look different for a while, until the next redesign?

Charlie Kirk is hardly responsible for the 2nd amendment so trying to blame him for public shootings seems grossly unfair. So anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment deserves to be gunned down in public? Where does this end?

Please re-read the post you replied to; literally no one was blaming Kirk for public shootings happening. They were mentioning that Kirk has previously remarked about how shootings are ultimately a necessary trade-off for 2A rights. Seriously, you might also want to read the Newsweek article that the OP linked to; Kirk is quoted:

"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death," Kirk said at a Turning Point USA Faith event on Wednesday, as reported by Media Matters for America. "That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it. "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

Kirk SAID THIS; there's video of him saying this as well; I had to double check this myself as, putting aside the irony of his own death, how can anyone rationalise this way? Let alone say it out loud? I never heard of this guy before now and the more I read about him, the more I am astounded in the worst possibly ways.

The left really needs to get a grip and look in the mirror. I have seen way too many 'normal' democrats mocking his death and implying it was justified because he was a 2nd amendment supporter. So are many of your friends, relatively, coworkers. When they see you express that opinion, we realize you're a sociopath and you're the fascist who thinks anyone who disagrees deserves death.

You are now ranting against a made-up argument that literally NO ONE made, but you.

This is still some code, as opposed to no code. It does seem to model everything in the research paper.

Aside from the original research paper needing to be included in the repo, it definitely does not need anything more than what's already there. It all builds and compiles without errors, only 2 warnings for the library proper and 6 warnings for the test project. Oh and it comes with a unit testing project: 59 tests written that covers about 73% of the library code. Only 2 tests failed.

Even having a unit testing library means it beats out like 50% of all repos you see on GitHub.

Anyone here arguing that we should just let Intel fail in the market needs to understand that Intel is struggling right now partly because Asian nations like South Korea and Taiwan have for years subsidized their own chip making companies because they knew that in the long term, it was going to be an important strategic industry that would eventually be worth the effort and trouble. Now look where we are. Their long term strategy has paid off. Only TSMC is at the cutting edge, and Samsung is a fairly distant, but still reasonably close, secondary player.

Maybe there are better ways to prop up Intel besides the government taking a stake, but losing Intel would be a huge blow to American manufacturing interests. There's been a failure of strategic vision, both at Intel and in the American government. I think as a short term measure, taking a stake isn't the worst thing the government could do at this time.

Also to go off on a tangent a bit: this is one of the benefits of having a Trump-like character as President; he's clearly not beholden to any ideology and is extremely flexible when it comes to making policy decisions, even when a certain policy might be more at home with the opposing party or side of politics.

So, the one bad thing that sticks out about what Trump is doing now, is that he's adding more conditions to the money that has already been legally disbursed by Congress. Under the CHIPS act, Intel is already eligible to receive the money; Trump is illegally adding more conditions for Intel to receive the money, after the fact. To do this legally, the act needs to be amended. As simple as that. Anything more than that is illegal.

I’m saying that in actuality, you won’t be able to see any damage if somebody drank a beer once, because there isn’t any.

Which, again, is not a claim that was ever made in the article. You are literally making things up and arguing against your own made up arguments, and framing it as if the article originally made them. No where in the article does it say that.

It's also weird that you would have a such a vehement reaction towards the quote

"recent research indicating that any level of alcohol consumption may negatively affect health"

to the point of making things up. How on earth is such a statement even at all remotely controversial?

Nope. On closer inspection, it's a tablet resting on a stand; it's not mounted with a VESA clamp or arm like most monitors would be. You can see the USB charging cable is plugged into the side of the tablet as well. When you compare it to the keyboard and headphones next to it, it must be about 11-13 inches in size, so it's unlikely to hold a mini PC on the back as it wouldn't be heavy enough to prevent toppling over. The stand would be bigger too if it could hold a mini PC.

Actually it wasn't too long ago, in the early-2010's, that Microsoft was promoting SharePoint for internet sites; I think at one point some Europoean car manufacturer (BMW? Ferrari?) had their global marketing site on SharePoint. Of course that didn't last long, as Microsoft licensed it at a crazy price ($40k per site or something like that).

The article itself is evidence. There are many more links in it to other stories that report on basically the same or similar incidents. There are also several names in the article itself that you can research or probe on your own to tell if it's coming from a trustworthy source.

Consider also the author: it's written by an actual journalist/editor with a large body of pre-existing work in the field, and many of the claims written are backed up by quotes from a named source. It's not like they're writing all this and hiding it behind the weasel phrase 'according to a source close to the matter'.

The register too is actually UK founded, so it's not even American.

Your reaction is just so typical of people nowadays - just assume it's all 'made up' without any effort in debunking or picking apart any specific claims.

True, but at that point it's still not too late to prevent paying money that will ultimately end up in the NK government hands.

Unlikely. Frosted glass blur was introduced almost twelve years ago in iOS 7, and was supported all the way down to the iPhone 4. Many apps like control center have used a full screen blur without any performance issues for a long time.

"Without any performance issues"? Entirely false - reviews at the time noted iOS 7 dramatically reduced battery life - all across the board for Apple devices, even for the then latest iPhone 5S and 5c (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/ios-7-thoroughly-rev...).

The abuse of transparency/translucency in the UI was the primary reason - you could go to Accessibility settings and disable animations + transparency/translucency and get notable increases in both runtime speed of the OS UI and battery life.