I did switch from MacOS to MS Windows in 2023, after being on MacOS from 2015 (and various Linux distros between about 2000 and 2015; before that, Win98 and earlier versions, so help me God).
I did not think anyone would be interested in reading about any of this, and reading the article reinforces my hypothesis.
Interesting points. With the extreme cheapening of the cost (time/skill) for software production, we can have "Extremely Personal Software", as you mention and as demonstrated by the source. I wonder if we will reach a stage where "software" is written by a computer for an audience of 1 and for a single task, to be run once only- via an interface that works for all tasks. The very concept of software as something that users have to learn to use (memorizing keybindings, for example), might go the way of the punch card.
More like Star Trek, we would just ask "computer" to do things, and its machinations (and "software") will be invisible to us. We would just have output to deal with.
I think this would mean a lot of things. I'm sure I can't fathom all of the implications, but it sure makes me feel old! Interesting times ahead.
LLMs seem to be great for speeding up the creation of things that aren't all that hard to write in the first place.
They don't seem to be helping much with difficult tasks.
Text editor? Easy. That used to be a rite of passage. Lots of people have written their own basic text editor.
3d solid modeler? It's always been difficult and AI coders aren't (yet?) up to the task. Most open source CAD projects that show up here are layers on top of OCCT (Open Cascade) which is pretty far behind what commercial geometry kernels are capable of.
More likely we'll have a library of skeletons for single task software, where the LLM can fill in the blanks as needed.
Maybe it saves the script locally (invisible to the user) and reuses it if the user repeats the same request, the script is deleted if it's not needed for X amount of time.
I don't see mention of this in the discussion, so I will add: I think people also don't close tabs. And probably these LI tabs have been up for a long time. Maybe weeks or months.
I completely exit my web browser(s) at least 1x per day, and use bookmarks to get back to pages I need. As a result, I don't have issues with memory leaks or unbounded growth of RAM use. For me, its just the "proper" way to use a program like a web browser, but I'm old enough to be from the era that restarting programs and the OS could fix issues. I recognize that most people feel it is unreasonable to quit the browser, pretty much ever.
"Clear issues caused by a seemingly bright idea, but the idea still pushed forward no matter what." .. well put. It occurs to me that this is the case on the HW front with Apple as well. I remember the butterfly keyboard, the notch, everything glued in and unservicable, the removal of ports like magsafe, ethernet, USB-A... well, at least some of the HW mis-steps have been reversed. We see some movement in that direction from the later versions of Tahoe.
I understand, and even agree, that how this is being handled has some pretty creepy aspects. But one thing missing from the comments I see here and elsewhere is: How else should verification be handled? We have a real problem with AI/bots online these days, trust will be at a premium. How can we try to assure it? I can think of one way: Everyone must pay to be a member (there will still be fraud, but it will cost!). How else can we verify with a better set of tradeoffs?
How about everyone gets a digital certification from their own government that this is the person named this and that. No need to share cranial measurements and iris scans.
Well, different trade offs there. On the plus side, sounds pretty simple. On the other hand...
Digital certification from the gov sounds a lot like "digital ID", which has run into considerable resistance in the UK and EU in just the last few months. As a general observation I find most EU citizens I interact with much more trusting of government than ... well, any other group of folks I have interacted with (I have the privilege of having lived and worked in S. America, N. America, sub Saharan Africa and now an EU country). If it does not fly well here, I don't think its general solution that most people would be comfortable with.
Having lived in borh the UK and Poland I was very surprised (given history) to find how comfortable, in comparison, Poles are with ID requirements, tax ID to join gyms and football clubs compared to the UK whicb still resists mandatory ID. There does seem to be a UK EU divide here
There should be no verification. The idea of a single platform where every worker is listed, identified, and connected to other people he/she knows IRL is scary. It shouldn't exist.
> Identity
>
> Verified using government ID in March 2025
Not that I would necessarily trust a verification badge for someone who controls the company with the responsibility for generating verification badges.
I agree that reserving judgement and separating the roles of individuals from the response of the organization are all critical here. Its not the first time that one of their staff were found to have behaved badly, in the case that jumps to my mind from a few years ago Peter Bright was sentenced to 12 years on sex charges involving a minor1. So, sometimes people do bad things, commit crimes, etc. but this may or may not have much to do with their employer.
Did Ars respond in any way after the conviction of their ex-writer? Better vetting of their hires might have been a response. Apparently there was a record of some questionable opinions held by the ex-writer. I don't know, personally, if any of their policies changed.
The current suspected bad behavior involved the possibility that the journalists were lacking integrity in their jobs. So if this possibility is confirmed I expect to see publicly announced structural changes in the editorial process at Ars Technica if I am to continue to be a subscriber and reader.
Probably. Question is, who will be accountable for the bot behavior? Might be the company providing them, might be the user who sent them off unsupervised, maybe both. The worrying thing for many of us humans is not that a personal attack appeared in a blog post (we have that all the time!) its that it was authored and published by an entity that might be unaccountable. This must change.
Both. Though the company providing them has larger pockets so they will likely get the larger share.
There is long legal precedent for you have to do your best to stop your products from causing harm. You can cause harm, but you have to show that you did your best to prevent it, and your product is useful enough despite the harm it causes.
Respectfully: I think the study is largely irrelevant to those who you seem to dismiss as one who "revel in Enforcement Theatre". I do agree the study provides valuable information I think it missed the point made by many advocates of immediate removal of those in the US illegally: No matter how low the rate of criminality by those in the country without permission, the number of events caused by that population should be pushed to 0 by removing them or not having them enter the country in the first place.
Specifically: According to Wikipedia there were about 1.7 M undocumented people in Texas as of 2023. The study estimates 96.2 violent crimes per year per 100K for that same population. So that is about 1,635 violent crimes per year that should not happen. Across all the categories they present, its 308.8 crimes per 100K per year- so for the undocumented population that means about 5,250 crimes per year that in theory should not happen (if there were 0 undocumented people in Texas).
The fact that the rate is lower for native-born or legal immigrants is immaterial to the argument advanced by those seeking more enforcement of immigration laws. Now, there are many, many aspects of the current administration's approach that can be debated and will probably not stand up well to scrutiny, but its important to understand the arguments being made if we are honestly interested in engaging in discussion and improvement.
Another interesting thing: From the study results I think that if you did drop the number of undocumented people in Texas to 0, the crime rates would actually increase, even as the absolute number of crimes dropped. And the number would only drop if those removed were not replaced with (for example) legal immigrants.
> its important to understand the arguments being made if we are honestly interested in engaging in discussion and improvement.
Yes. But making their arguments into different, milder, sanitized and whitewashed ones is NOT understanding them. It is carrying water for them. As of now, both their rhetorics and actions match perfectly. There is zero reason to think this is about crime levels.
> The fact that the rate is lower for native-born or legal immigrants is immaterial to the argument advanced by those seeking more enforcement of immigration laws
When the deportations are done in an orderly manner and without visible abuses, these people are unhappy. When they are done with visible abuses, then they feel like they are getting what they wanted. They do not particularly like the focus on lawbreakers either, their own rhetoric casts violent law breaking as something good - if done by the right side. In fact, when only illegal immigrants are deported, they act like something was missing.
If we are honest to ourselves about what they want and openly talk about, they want white ethnostate. They have issue with legal migrants and with non white citizens too. They have issue with EU having non whites in it. Somehow, their primary targets are cities with relatively low illegal immigration rather then ... Texas with much higher illegal immigration.
Immigration is not a left-right issue, there are reasons to want to limit wanted and unwanted immigration, regardless of who one might vote for.
> If we are honest to ourselves about what they want and openly talk about [...] without visible abuses, these people are unhappy.
You seem to be talking about a subset of all people who do not want immigration: caricaturally-extreme racists. You and GP are not talking about the same people, and GP is not carrying water for anyone.
I still visit regularly (and have since about 2000 or so), but I agree that it is not the same as in those days. I remember feeling like I was gaining actual insight into the topics from the comments, today... much less so. Maybe being older also plays a role, but I think /. has certainly changed as well.
I'm an American living in the EU for the last 1.5 y due to a work assignment. From what I observe here rough times and hard choices are coming for Europe, and probably relatively soon. I am sorry to say it, but I believe (as the saying goes) it is later than you think.
As for relying on your democratic process: I hope you are right.
I did not think anyone would be interested in reading about any of this, and reading the article reinforces my hypothesis.
reply