The kernel is probably too large to rewrite the whole thing at once. This could lead to a future without any new C kernel devs, leading to stagnation, while the Rust kernel could be many years away from being finished. (Assuming we actually move away from C.)
At that point you might as well just start an entirely new kernel and hope it is good enough to eventually replace the Linux one once all devs are gone. Kinda the X11 and wayland thing.
The main draw of xmonad is that you can modify pretty much everything, as the config itself is a Haskell file (the entire thing is written in Haskell). There are tonnes of modules to use, you can define your own window layouts and add whatever functions you can dream off - I haven’t seen any other window manager offer this kind of freedom (with the added joy of learning Haskell!).
As for the second point, about half a year ago, they started doing exactly this. Rewriting xmonad for Wayland. Guess I’ll sit this one out.
I just set up xmonad because I was in the mood for change. Took about a week of tinkering a bit each day and I really like it. Afterwards, I was still in the mood for configs and looked at Wayland. There isn’t much progress on Wayland xmonad, so guess that has to wait.
That’s a common problem I’ve been hearing for almost 10 now - the software support isn’t quite there yet.
I don’t necessarily disagree. You can certainly use LLMs and achieve something in less time than without it. Numerous people here are speaking about coding and while I had no success with them, it can work with more popular languages. The thing is, these people use LLMs as a tool in their process. They verify the results (or the compiler does it for them). That’s not what this product is. It’s a standalone device which you talk to. It’s supposed to replace pulling out your phone to answer a question.
I don’t expect a correct answer because I’ve used these models quite a lot last year. At least half the answers were hallucinated. And it’s still a common complaint about this product as well if you look at actual reviews (e.g., pretty sure Marques Brownlee mentions it).
Obviously the only contexts that would apply here are ones where you expect a correct answer.
That’s the whole point, I don’t expect correct answers. Neither from a 4 year old nor from a probabilistic language model.
1% correct is never “fairly high” wtf
It’s all about context. Asking a bunch of 4 year olds questions about trigonometry, 1% of answers being correct would be fairly high. ‘Fairly high’ basically only means ‘as high as expected’ or ‘higher than expected’.
Also if you want a computer that you don’t have to double check, you literally are expecting software to embody the concept of God. This is fucking stupid.
Hence, it is useless. If I cannot expect it to be more or less always correct, I can skip using it and just look stuff up myself.
I haven’t seen much of them here, but I use other media too. E.g, not long ago there was a lot of coverage about the “Humane AI Pin”, which was utter garbage and even more expensive.
“Fairly high” is still useless (and doesn’t actually quantify anything, depending on context both 1% and 99% could be ‘fairly high’). As long as these models just hallucinate things, I need to double-check. Which is what I would have done without one of these things anyway.
Why are there AI boxes popping up everywhere? They are useless. How many times do we need to repeat that LLMs are trained to give convincing answers but not correct ones. I’ve gained nothing from asking this glorified e-waste something, pulling out my phone and verifying it.
As always, you guys are way too fixated on size.
They very much are for a lot of people. Lines goes up, you can give yourself a nice bonus payout and if things come crashing down you leave. With your golden parachute of course.