I depend on it for road trips, navigating to unfamiliar destinations, or even just sharing ETAs with people

If you still need help breaking down what I meant in the previous post, feel free to ask. Sentences can be tricky.

On a related note, just because Gemini doesn’t tell you to put glue in your pizza anymore, by no means implies that this particular problem is solved: https://www.404media.co/it-is-trivially-easy-to-use-reddit-t...

If you don’t like the answer, don’t worry, they’re building more data centers in poor neighborhoods so you can keep submitting the prompt until you get a better one.

Nowadays people just say “AI” when they mean “LLM,” which is an unrelated thing entirely, but people want people who use it.

Also, I agree that the platforms and paradigms we have are fucked up, but do believe that people who put work into making something deserve to charge for it if there are folks who’d pay.

One of many lessons that can be taken away from this exercise is to understand your audience and challenge the assumptions you make about their prior knowledge, culture, kind of peanut butter, et deters.

The value of LFS is not in having the system you build, it's in understanding it. After you've read and worked through the book, you've managed to produce a functioning GNU/Linux OS, and presumably you know what all the parts are.

From there, understanding any published distribution is a matter of understanding what makes it unique, maybe a different package manager or init system, or different userland packages. Regardless, the fundamentals still stand, and your ownership of the system is improved by having worked through the book.

We redirect our AAWMness into our pedantry when we don’t want to wear it on our sleeves

Edit: I admit there are plenty of concrete critiques in the article, but if we’re supposed to stand up against slop, isn’t naming names the first step?

As for whether the Times should be developing their own LLM bot, why on earth would they want that?