Also, what looks good to us may not be "good" to a machine.

But I'm really just guessing in the dark here.

Besides, GrapheneOS would probably don't want to get into a situation where their keys are burnt into hardware non-modifiable. They had to revoke such a key once in order to protect their users (against an attempt to hijack the project).

It's almost like the free market only works when we have well-defined and regulated markets. This has been known by Adam Smith and quite logical, yet people expect Google and Apple giga-corporations with monopolies to somehow abide by the laws of selling grains on the market.

It's almost like Android has put millions of expert dev hours into making it the most used OS in the world. Like GNU+linux on laptops only works the way it does because of android-upstreamed battery saver kernel features.

But a mobile is also people's most used devices with all of their data, bank accounts etc there - it has to be safe. And GNU+linux has not even a single thought about security, while android just has it worked out (every app runs as its own user, so it's even built on standard UNIX security).

A mobile OS also has to race to suspend and for that it needs cooperation from "apps" -- desktop apps just run, they don't care about anything besides SIGKILL. That's not a workable model on a mobile and android solves it.

And I say all that as someone who runs linux everywhere I can and I absolutely love it. It's imo the best kernel out there -- but the userspace is not where it should be and if anything, the correct question would be what can we take from Android and add to GNU+Linux. (And nix is fantastic, but it's a packaging solution, I don't really see how it comes into question here. I can run nix on my android phone just fine by the way)

In pretty much every other runtime's case you are stuck with whatever their GC uses, and almost every other GC is far less advanced than the JVM's implementationS. And manual memory management is not free of tradeoffs either, e.g. RAII can have pretty long destruct chains in both C++ and Rust.

Because java is still one of the top 3 languages by any ranking worth its salt (not you, tiobe).

(I actually have/am writing a harness in Java fwiw, but mostly as a hobby/experimentation)

Or watch a video. Or do some basic editing of some kind of medium that I will only do once and would make no sense to download a whole application for?

Why throw out the baby as well? Besides, ads can be part of text content as well.

This is typically something that should be regulated by laws, not through tech.

Well, it certainly replaces valuable data like how long have you looked at a given ad with either nothing, or random noise (e.g. if you draw a rectangle over them).

We are no longer living in 2013 where people posted about everything they do. Sure, plenty people do so still, and our interactions with that (even implicitly like how long we looked at it) is plenty of value in and of itself, but I disagree with the general notion.

The effectiveness of ads is that they can just throw stuff at you and "see" what sticks, without you ever telling a word.

TLDR: Actual human tutoring sessions were recorded and analyzed and Socratic questioning was barely used at all. Instead the following pattern was observed:

Pump — "Uh huh?" "What else?" Costs nothing, so try it first.

Hint — points at the region of the answer. "What about the pumpkin's motion sideways?"

Prompt — fishes for one specific word, with the sentence frame supplied. "The pumpkin keeps moving forward at the same ___?"

Assertion — just says it. "It keeps the runner's horizontal velocity."

Sure, in the future full rewrites and stuff like that will be just another "throw money at it" problem, but fundamentally software can get arbitrary complex and we barely know how to write large, maintainable code bases.

Nonetheless, I think testing (and maybe proofs) will have its long-awaited time to shine, as being the "reward function".

Just because "the substrate" has some fixed parts doesn't materially change the equation, I think. Going even more abstract, if I have two Turing complete machines, just because one is Turing complete via some self-modification, or through some other means (e.g. game of life vs Turing machine whose states are fixed) still make them equally powerful.

Don't get me wrong, you are right to point out this shortcoming of LLMs, and I certainly don't believe we are singularity-level. I just don't think this is a good enough argument to prove these statements. A sufficiently smart intelligence that is somehow "fixed", but that can "write on paper" put in a box can't really be distinguished from a "self-modifying" intelligence. In the "worst case" it can just write down a self-modifying intelligence itself as data (since it's sufficiently smart) and execute it to emulate any kind of learning.

What an unnecessarily dismissive "argument". I'm certainly not a CPU, nor a painting, nor a bird, yet plenty of people find these topics and many others interesting.

(Now it is working)