The biggest disappointment has been that all new OS features require a new runtime and are not accessible from just pure Win32 any more. Heck the pipeline for developing UWP/WinUI3 apps requires extra steps to register and install the application just to run it inside a debugger.

Back in the day there was a card called an S3 Virge, which we affectionally called a 3D decelerator card, because of its lacklustre 3D performance.

The real insanity is just gambling in Australia. As the article mentioned the people in the country have the highest losses to gambling anywhere in the world. This goes beyond sports betting, as that is just the latest thing, to poker machines (slot machines for you USA people) and other online gambling (cough Kick & related companies cough).

I am old enough to remember the introduction of poker machines in pubs and clubs here in Australia and it was always framed as a personal choice and government revenue source but all it did was result in money going from families to the big corporate "entertainment venue" operators (pub and club owners). I'd love it if Australia got rid of all gambling from normal parts of society and limited it to strictly regulated casinos (at most), but the gambling industry is so firmly entrenched in politics and society that I don't see any change happening soon

This is also what I wonder, what practical applications can you actually do locally on something like a minimum spec NPU?

That would mean the only way to increase growth would be to charge more per token and to get the existing people to use more tokens. Both of which seem to be only what mature companies do when trying to squeeze the cash cow for all it's worth.

It also explains why they're trying to stuff AI into everything, to keep the numbers up, and to get everyone to try and pay them money.

Being written by a LLM is a signal that the submission is of low effort and therefore probably low quality, which then puts the onus on the people reviewing and reading the submission instead of the original generator of the submission. Hence I would classify it as spam.

Open source communities also have rules against LLM generated contributions, for various moral, ethical, or legal reasons.

Presumably they used a free version of the LLM, therefore it is completely understandable that it inserted a snippet of text advertising its use into the output. I mean using a free email provider also adds a line of text to the end of every email advertising the service by default - "Sent from iPhone" etc.

It's the same with compilers, there's not one single implementation which is the compiler, and the ecosystem of compilers makes things more interesting.

It has been said that Microsoft indemnifies people using its LLM tools against copyright and patent issues, but I don't know if it applies to LLM output which might/should be GPL licenced.

This can also apply to people, either if they have seen the code previously and therefore are ineligible to write the code for a clean-room implementation, or it gets murky when the same person writes the same code twice from their own knoeldge, as in the Oracle Java case.

Coming from a professional programming perspective I can totally see the desire to have more libraries written in permissive licences like BSD or MIT, as they allow one like myself to include them in commercial closed-source products without needing to open source the entire codebase.

However I find myself agreeing with the article in so far as this LLM generated implementation is breaking the social contract for a GPL/LGPL based library. The author could have easily implemented the new version as a separate project and there would not have been an outcry, but because they are replacing the GPL version with this new one it feels scummy to say the least.