bztzt

in Windows, some teams/people use it others don't. Historically it hasn't worked well with some of the internal build/test/etc stuff, that's mostly changed in recent years.

内卷/involution seems like one possible kind of "recursive self-improvement". A circle is also an exponential: y = i^x.

(I have no idea what will happen. 内卷 or intelligence explosion both seem plausible.)

Buddhism itself also has such a history, for example with the Hindu gods, or with Shinto in Japan.

You don't need a tool, you can just right-click and uninstall.

this is how I did "AI coding" (for unfamiliar languages/frameworks/etc.) back in the GPT-3.5/4 days. Except I'd also test each line to verify it actually did what I thought it did.

MAI is supposed to have its own design language/brand identity that is unrelated to the overall Microsoft brand. It has its own fonts, logo, colors, etc. The weird thing is that consumer Copilot, which is (or was) developed at MAI (as opposed to business/M365 Copilot which is developed in Redmond and designed based on the regular Microsoft stuff) also has its own design language which is different from the regular Microsoft stuff and different from the MAI stuff.

tbh all of this has always struck me as an ego thing from the MAI team, who are mostly based in Silicon Valley, not Redmond, and think of themselves as too cool for Microsoft

Microsoft's head of marketing at the time posted about this on internal Yammer. He said there were two main reasons: first, "Windows 10" just did better in focus groups than Windows 9 or other alternatives; second, since the plan at the time was for all future changes to be delivered as updates rather than a newly branded Windows release†, it felt better to end on a round number.

† btw, what became Windows 11 started development as just another Windows 10 feature update, and what gets branded as a "new release" vs an "update" is mostly a marketing decision.

switching between a touchscreen and mouse is no more awkward than switching between a keyboard and mouse, imo

I'm not sure there's any crisply definable bright line separating them. Generally embrace/extend strategies do involve trying to make extensions that some people will consider valuable.

WinRT doesn't depend on the CLR at all, it's just an updated COM-based model.

Aren't your two paragraphs really two ways of saying the same thing?

no, but they've introduced a bunch of versions of it under different names (WPF, Silverlight, Phone Silverlight, WinRT XAML, UWP), a few of which broke compatibility, so that's probably where you got that impression.

voice is just an input method. a natural language interface can also support typing or other inputs.

The meaningful difference is whether there are isolation and distribution/update mechanisms so that users can install and maintain apps with less risk and hassle. This doesn't have much to do with (in-app) UI per se, though.

These benchmark articles frustrate me because I rarely feel they tell me anything. What do the benchmarks actually measure? When one tested product benchmarks as better/worse than another, what specifically is happening to make it better or worse? I feel like a good technical reporter ought to be able to dig deeper, do some investigation and provide real insight.