The “real version”? There is no “real version” of Android. I wouldn’t pick Microsoft specifically because they don’t have a track record of supporting their phones.
If you want android you'd normally go with a phone that is supported by the main contributors /maintainers. doesn't even have to be made by google. but I think that was already pretty clear so you might just be a contrarian. please correct me if you actually had a point.
I think I made the point pretty clear… There really isn’t a phone with the “real android” and it’s best to check the company’s track record of updates. It seems like you just reworded my point while missing that I just stated the same thing.
Yeah lemme go buy that fire ass Linux phone thats a pocketable, foldable tablet with split displays, a pen with haptic feedback and rigid glass screens for stylus use and a great camera and has support for my office products and also isn’t totally busted half the time. Where is it? Because I legit would buy the fuck out of it
Android is literally Linux, and also you can put whatever custom rom you want on your phone. Write your own if it's that big a deal to you. Don't stick with stock Android, but if you want a customizable phone, that's your option. Microsoft and Apple don't give you the option for custom firmware. Android does.
No, it isn’t. Can you install Flatpak apps on Android? Can you plug it in a monitor and run GIMP or desktop version of Firefox? Because actual Linux phones can.
The difference is that Android phones only use Linux kernel and it is so much modified by SoC maker and OEM that by side effect it can’t run anything beside Android anymore. There are projects like PostmarketOS trying to port real (mainline) Linux on phones but it takes awful amount of work and supports like 5 phones still with no things like cameras. There are also systems like Droidian trying to strip Android to bare minimum and run Linux on top of it like an always-on-top app, but this also is only for a couple of phones.
It’s a heavily-forked version of Linux with so many changes that it’s not really Linux anymore.
Is XboxOS literally windows?
Is MacOS literally FreeBSD?
Is PlayStationOS literally FreeBSD?
Omg do MacBooks and PlayStations have the same OS?? I can play Ratchet and Clank on a MacBook???
Android does not use an up to date, or mainline Linux kernel. It gets rid of most of the GNU core utils. It doesn’t use other big parts of Linux like Wayland or X11. I can’t install random Flatpaks on my Android phone. Etc etc.
Calling Android “literally Linux” is incredibly misleading to the point of basically being a lie.
No, the alternative is an open source rom on Samsung's hardware. No Google required, at least for now. Though I do expect that to get much more difficult in the future.
Microsoft is done supporting the original Surface Duo, three years after it first launched on September 10.
The company has stated from the very start that the Surface Duo would receive just three years of OS updates, meaning today is the last day that Microsoft has to stay true to its word.
Going forward, Microsoft will no longer ship new OS updates or security patches for the original Surface Duo, meaning Android 12L is the last version of the OS it will ever officially receive.
Surface Duo only ever got two major OS updates, one shy of the average three that most high-end flagship Android devices get these days.
Microsoft hasn’t been working on new features or bug fixes for Surface Duo in months anyway, so it’s not like current Surface Duo users are going to be missing out on much outside of security patches.
Plus, with support for third-party ROMs, enthusiasts can install a custom version of Android 13/14 on their devices.
The original article contains 254 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 36%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You know, I don’t disagree with vendors putting whatever hardware they want in their devices, and I don’t mind vendor-customized software. But what I do mind is the barrier of supporting these devices without relying on the vendor.
If I buy an x86 computer, I can use it basically however long I want to. I can put a variety of operating systems on it, and I don’t really need to rely on vendors much aside from binary driver blobs, which isn’t really that much of a problem these days.
I really wish that Android wasn’t so customized per device. I wish I could just install upstream Android on anything that can run it, instead of special binary images for each vendor’s make and model. Android is open source and all, but simply having the sources to work with is the easiest part. Making it actually work is significantly n more difficult.
Imagine buying that aforementioned x86 machine, but you had to run a giant, customized binary blob specifically made for a laptop’s make and model. And you had to throw it away after a few years not because you need more resources, but because you cannot upgrade the OS anymore.
The reality is that we need laws that force them to either to continue to offer affordable support or publish all the specs and documentation when they drop support. Vendors shouldn’t be allowed to do otherwise.
That sounds pretty reasonable. I feel so owned by technology lately. It used to be exciting to have tech that you could decide when you wanted to retire it and focus spending on something new and different that served a different purpose. Now I feel like I’m stuck with all the same basic gadgets but I just need to keep throwing money at them to replace them every few years. It’s about as unexciting as having to spend money on an oil change. I’m pretty primed by this as recently my electric objects picture frame just pulled the plugs on their server recently with no notice and bam, I have a black screen in my living room instead of pictures of my dog, family, and favorite artwork.
Generally, the hardware in a small, power-efficient, SoC embedded device is going to be a lot more particular and a lot less general than your gaming computer’s motherboard. It’s harder to write general OS software for specific integrated systems rather than a big set of chips which provide an individual chip for the BIOS, specialized chips for the PCI ports, etc., all of which have become more standardized over time.
I’m no expert but I imagine that with a device like this, which will no doubt be popular amongst techie-types, there’ll be a custom ROM out for it soon enough
There’s a very grassroots Windows 10 ARM hack for the SD1, actually. It’s quirky, and lacks a LOAD of the driver blob that comes in a normal x64 install of Windows on AMD or Intel, but it can make outbound calls and run simple WinonARM apps.
This is why I got a Nokia Lumia 1020 and used some duct tape to stick it to a Motorola Droid. I get it all: multitasking. 2 screens that fold up. Great camera. 2 SIM card slots. 2 operating systems for max compatibility. Plus, a slide-out keyboard and multiple batteries.
People ask me “Is it secure?” Shiiiiit. Come try me and we’ll see who is secure when you get knocked upside the head with it. “Is it up to date?” It’s two phones, my man. I’m up to date your girl and her friend.
Buying into Microsoft’s word is like buying into Google’s: if it’s not in the product, it won’t be coming. I got burnt by wp7->wp8 and then again when they closed wp8 without reason. I’m not counting on them staying on the smartphone market long enough to establish themselves.
They stuck to their word, technically. 3 years, with monthly patches for security, on a device that sold abysmally. There are rumors they sold (most of) the first run of SD2 in the first 4 months, and didn’t bother to produce any more. I know they’ve been out of the consumer SD2 since July/August of 2022- as of January this year, not even my Fortune 50 Corpo clients can get MSFT to pony up a SD2 replacement under warranty or otherwise. They just write a cheque to your account if you request as much.
Microsoft’s mobile team Icarus flew too close to the poorly advertised sun, in this case. Expensive ass phone to build, expensive ass phone to buy, but damn it’s a great device.
Microsoft is done supporting the original Surface Duo, three years after it first launched on September 10.
The company has stated from the very start that the Surface Duo would receive just three years of OS updates, meaning today is the last day that Microsoft has to stay true to its word.
Going forward, Microsoft will no longer ship new OS updates or security patches for the original Surface Duo, meaning Android 12L is the last version of the OS it will ever officially receive.
Surface Duo only ever got two major OS updates, one shy of the average three that most high-end flagship Android devices get these days.
Microsoft hasn’t been working on new features or bug fixes for Surface Duo in months anyway, so it’s not like current Surface Duo users are going to be missing out on much outside of security patches.
Plus, with support for third-party ROMs, enthusiasts can install a custom version of Android 13/14 on their devices.
The original article contains 254 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 36%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Towerborne absolutely nails its premise, set in a cataclysmic, but hopeful world where a mysterious event has left the realm with only one safe place: the Belfry.
A weighty, tactile weapon feel accompanies a variety of loot, build opportunities, and deep skill expression to make this my unexpected game of the show.
The CGI trailer is set on some kind of barren planet, where an army of seeming clones toils in a large space vehicle that looks like a giant hamster wheel.
I’ll have a full preview up in the coming weeks, but Endless Dungeon was every bit as infectious as Towerborne, with tight combat, satisfying tower defence gameplay, and vibrant visuals.
I think the build I played for ARA was missing some optimization and even some animations since combat events were just fireballs instead of the grand melees we saw from the game’s various trailers, but the underlying gameplay was incredibly exciting, with infectious complexity rammed with opportunities to get creative.
There were tons of other games I saw at the show, including Stalker 2, Sonic Superstars, Persona 5 Tactica, and others, and I’m working on previews and content for a lot of these in the coming weeks (after my tentative Starfield review… whew).
The original article contains 1,381 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Too much is made of the shrinking user base. I’m sure they’ll come back with a vengeance come the start of the school year in the northern hemisphere.
Also, maybe a tool like this shouldn’t be privately funded? Most of the technology is based on university funded research we all paid for. mRNA vaccine research was similarly funded with public money in mostly universities, and now we have to pay some private company to sell it back to us. How is that efficient? AI should be common property.
If it’s made from all of us it should be free for all of us.
I’m fine with these researchers going out and scraping the social networks to train models, it’s incredibly advantageous to society in general. But it’s gotta be crystal clear transparency and it’s gotta be limitlessly free to all who want to.
It’s the only way that any of this won’t result in another massive boundary between the 1% and us pod living grunts. It’s already a devisively powerful technology when harnessed adversarially, that power is reduced when everyone has access to it as well.
If you look at how much they spend per day (poster quoted $700,000 daily but said unverified), how would it make any sense to provide the service for free? I won’t argue for/against releasing the model to the public, since honestly that argument can go both ways and I don’t think it would make much of a difference anyway except benefit their competitors (other massive companies).
However, let’s assume they did release it publicly, what use would that be for the smaller business/individual? Running these models takes some heavy and very expensive hardware. It’s not like buying a rack and building a computer, these models are huge. Realistically, they can’t provide that as a free service, they’d fail as a company almost immediately. Most businesses can’t afford to run these models themselves, the upfront and maintenance costs would obliterate them. Providing it as a service like they have been means they recoup some of the cost of running the models, while users can actually afford to use these models without needing to maintain the hardware themselves.
Less than a million dollars a day for everyone who wants to in the whole world to use AI right now? That’s peanuts. A single city bus costs $5-800k to buy. Even if costs goes up to several tens of million a day for access for the whole world that’s incredibly affordable.
It’s crazy that something so useful and so cheap to run can’t be sustained in the current system. This seems like an argument against a market based solution to AI.
Less than a million dollars a day for everyone who wants to in the whole world to use AI right now?
You’re ignoring the fact that the cost scales with usage. Increasing its availability will also increase the cost, hardware requirements (which can’t really scale since there’s a shortage), and environmental cost due to power usage.
Even if costs goes up to several tens of million a day for access for the whole world that’s incredibly affordable.
With how many people are already using AI, it’s frankly mind boggling that they’re only losing $700k a day.
You’re also ignoring the fact that costs don’t scale proportionally with usage. Infrastructure and labor can be amortized over a greater user base. And these services will get cheaper to run per capita as time goes on and technology improves.
Finally, there are positive economic externalities to public AI availability. Imagine the improvements to the economy, education and health if everyone in the world had free access to high quality AI in their native language, no matter how poor or how remote. Some things, like schools, roads and healthcare, are not ideally provisioned under a free market. AI is looking to be another.
Finally, there are positive economic externalities to public AI availability.
There are positive economic externalities to public everything availability. We don’t live in this kind of world though, someone will always try to claim a larger share due to human nature. That being said, I’m not really interested in arguing about the political feasibility (or lack thereof) of having every resource being public.
With how many people are already using AI, it’s frankly mind boggling that they’re only losing $700k a day.
There are significant throttles in place for people who are using LLMs (at least GPT-based ones), and there’s also a cost people pay to use these LLMs. Sure you can go use ChatGPT for free, but the APIs cost real money, they aren’t free to use. What you’re seeing is the money they lost after all the money they made as well.
You’re also ignoring the fact that costs don’t scale proportionally with usage. Infrastructure and labor can be amortized over a greater user base. And these services will get cheaper to run per capita as time goes on and technology improves.
I don’t disagree that the services will get cheaper and that costs don’t scale proportionally. You’re most likely right - generally speaking, that’s the case. What you’re missing though is that there is an extreme shortage of components. Scaling in this manner only works if you actually have the means to scale. As things stand, companies are struggling to get their hands on the GPUs needed for inference.
There are positive economic externalities to public everything availability. We don’t live in this kind of world though, someone will always try to claim a larger share due to human nature.
Saying “Things are inevitably bad because of human nature” is just very weird, since we obviously do have good policies and we try to solve other problems like crime and poverty. It sounds like you already agree that this is good policy? You’re just saying it’s not politically feasible? OK, sure, we probably don’t disagree then.
That being said, I’m not really interested in arguing about the political feasibility (or lack thereof) of having every resource being public.
I am obviously NOT arguing that every resource should be public. This discussion is about AI, which was publicly funded, trained on public data, and is backed by public research. This sleight of hand to make my position sound extreme is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
there’s also a cost people pay to use these LLMs.
OK, keep the premium subscription going then.
What you’re missing though is that there is an extreme shortage of components.
There’s a shortage, but it’s not “extreme”. ChatGPT is running fine. I can use it anytime I want instantly. You’d be laughed out of the room if you told AI researchers that ChatGPT can’t scale because we’re running out of GPUS. You seem to be looking for reasons to be against this, but these reasons don’t make sense to me, especially since this particular problem would exist whether it’s publicly owned or privately owned.
We probably don’t here, but like I said I’m not really interested in discussing the political feasibility of it.
I am obviously NOT arguing that every resource should be public. This discussion is about AI, which was publicly funded, trained on public data, and is backed by public research. This sleight of hand to make my position sound extreme is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
I don’t think I ever disagreed that the models themselves should be public, and there are already many publicly available models (although it would be nice if GPT-N were). What I disagree with is the service being free. The service costs a company real money and resources to maintain, just like any other service. If it were free, the only entity that could reasonably run the models is the government, but at this point we might as well also have the government run public git servers, public package registries, etc. Honestly, I’m not sure what impression you expected me to get, considering the claim that a privately run service using privately paid-for resources should be free to the public.
There’s a shortage, but it’s not “extreme”. ChatGPT is running fine. I can use it anytime I want instantly. You’d be laughed out of the room if you told AI researchers that ChatGPT can’t scale because we’re running out of GPUS.
Actually no, I work directly with AI researchers who regularly use LLMs and this is the exact impression I got from them.
If Twitter ran for decades on a loss, so will OpenAI. Worst case scenario they get completely absorbed by MS and have the bill footed by them. Kind of what happened with Youtube.
Maybe before they just decided they could make it bigger without much refinement and now have a completely shit system that’s just a glorified chat bot with a high ego to assert its false knowledge.
windowscentral.com
Active