I mean in the long run, it should be a good thing to separate out the hardware phone market from the OS it comes with IMO. And for large scale adoption, it's extremely useful to have the most non-technical people using your OS, because they will complain and bugs will get reported (maybe not through the preferred channels, though).

No notes on the markup though. Infuriating there's no negotiating ability to say "you can't sell this OS on a cheap phone for 600% margins".

And what do you think about coding agents in the next few years? Will we see a variation in agent capabilities? E.g. a company makes and distributes a specialized coding agent for CSS, or even serving up a kind of library that's language-agnostic, since they seem to be best at translation rather than creation?

I read the "Why Scheme?" page and it looked entirely AI generated, inasmuch as the reasoning presented confused me, because it didn't make sense. It references homoiconicity as pretty much the only reason to do this, mentions Lisp once or twice, and then just sort of talks about AI not understanding HTML because it doesn't understand compiling.

But putting it under the prompt of "must pass compiler" makes an AI exactly as capable at the task of making websites as it is capable at the task of making correct programs in any language - which is to say that it can't be guaranteed. Which in turn puts into the question the whole purpose of this project, and particularly, why Scheme chosen at all? Why not Lisp? Why not C? Or Erlang? Or Clojure?

What do you mean by "be epistemically sound enough"?

You are using it as if to say "if your code is grounded in sound abstractions, you'll be fine and tests will therefore generate successfully" but preface that claim with "the code provides a baseline truth for the tests". The latter does not follow from the former, and it also does not lift the burden of responsibility away from the programmer - which is where my doubts on test generation stem from in the first place.

Additionally, what is "completely solipsistic value generation"?

You reference it like a perk in a skill tree, but to my ears "generating completely solipsistic values" seems like a way of describing AGI with a philosophical wording instead of just saying AGI.

Yes tests are conceptually isolated and that helps, but I've personally seen unit tests get generated that are semantically incorrect - that is, they test the structure of the code (e.g. they can check function output types and values), but they can't know _why_ the unit tests need to be there, so the really really helpful tests never get generated. Not to mention the obvious issues with generated tests only testing is x = x, or needless redundant tests for the same thing, or them essentially testing basic features of the language.

If your web app crashes one out of every fifty times I launch it, it's not good. The business side of things is reasonable to prioritize right up until it isn't.

No political administration in my lifetime (!) has made policy decisions against the interests of tech monopolists. The closest we got was Lina Kahn's FTC.

There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice.

I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know what the AI is being asked to do is it likely you will find the output helpful.

This is itself alarming to me, but no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information.

Politics - particularly politics relevant to large democracies - appears to be a function of visible truth, and not truth itself. See all the articles about "X slams Y" or the endless "we're launching an investigation into [thing we cannot prove]".

Anecdotally, from one attempt at chatting with it, Grok is far and away the most obviously dishonest and shifts conversations towards right leaning talking points.

Maximally truth seeking indeed.

Was already kind of annoyed at the "manual" not being very comprehensive - think I'll switch to another distro or fully yank control away from Omarchy and just roll my own Arch, I guess. Depends on how much work it'll take.

With Electron + React, you'd be able to rip out any components you need and place them in other web apps. The browser is (psychologically) avoiding vendor dependencies to a greater degree than other options.