Maths can be super deterministic but often difficult to compute because of concepts like inferring by induction. I had to personally unlearn and rebase my understanding of math based in computation to 'get' pure maths. Another example is set building. You often don't need to compute the existence of members of sets in pure math you just need to agree that there are some members of a set that meet the criteria. How many or how many things that aren't in the set aren't meaningful often times to accept something and move on with the proof. From the computing perspective this can be difficult to put together.
From my perspective depending on where they want to develop it might be trivial to add something time consuming to a proposal such as eminent domain or easement reviews that will run out the shot clock and drown out reasonable questions by local governments. Local governance often is complicated by local (town), regional (county), and state level roles. Additionally depending on the area not all of these roles are even staffed by people working on it full-time.
This really isn't an all or nothing sort of situation. Many of the AI players have a proven record of simply not following existing norms. Until there is a consumer oriented player who is not presuming that training on my private data and ideas is permitted it only makes sense to do some stuff things locally. Beyond that many of the companies providing AI have either weird limits or limitations that interrupt me. I just know as an individual or a fledgling company I am simply not big enough to fight some of these players and win, and the compliance around companies running AI transparently is too new for me to rely on so the rules of engagement are all over the place. Also don't forget in a few years when the dust settles that company with that policy you like is highly likely to be consumed by a company who may not share the same ethics but your data is still held by them.
This was also introduced in the same moment as a bunch of real name initiatives from multiple companies. People were rejecting it based on what it demanded compared to what was offered. It also killed or force reworked other Google products that were working fine to end users (e.g. Google Talk).
In my eyes it was one of the key moments that put them on a downward trajectory in public opinion. So while it might have had the right features the rest of the deal sucked, and people were already tiring of social media overall.
I think the thing you missed is how aggressive their firings had been. It is quite possible that they no longer have capacity to maintain a distribution. Public reporting indicates 5,000 people let go... but probably more were guided to leave.
If that is the case then terminating Clear Linux as a distribution might be the responsible thing if they were the source of direction for the distro. This was also a PoC distro as opposed to seeking enterprise workloads so it also seems reasonable that after the innovations that were good were adopted by more mainstream distros they no longer served a purpose.
I still expect to see a steady stream of kernel patches for new chips and features. I just would place headcount loss and accomplishing everything they set out to do with the distro over FOSS malice. Unlike many of the ghosts of malicious corp open source this doesn't fit exactly in my view.
It baffles me how unreasonable some of the commenters are. Intel is trying to stop bleeding money and are cutting everything that's not core to their business. Side projects like clear Linux not being on the chopping block would be such a slap in the face of every employee that lost their job in the last year.
If you don't have these kinds of projects you eventually don't have market share in DCs. It only gets easier for purchasers like me to say no Intel when they haven't provided Intel specific optimizations so viewing that as side project or donation is misguided and not consistent with how Linus describes their relationship.
Which would be a valid point if they were competitive with AMD but that's not the case right now. Not having competitive CPUs is what is killing Intel in the DC.
Stuff like clear linux is sprinkles on the sunday, if you don't even have the ice cream it doesn't matter how good your sprinkles are.
You are saying they should leave DCs and never go back? To be blunt they could never explain their prices without sprinkles and no one is going to care when they are back at AMDs level if they burned that in the interim. Selling for a dollar less than AMD is not a model Intel can sustain.
Clear Linux itself is afaik irrelevant it is a vehicle for getting their code for optimizations developed and out to make FUDish claims that maybe an AMD won't be as good for your workloads, etc.
While not at Google for myself a lot of the CI test failures just become knock on effects from complex interdependent CI components delivering the whole experience. Oops Artifactory or GitHub rate limited you. Oops the SAST checker from some new vendor just never finished. Even if your code passes locally the added complexity of CI can often be fraught with flaky and confusing errors that are intermittent or run afoul based on environmental problems that particular moment you tried.
I find this to be an interesting anecdote because at a certain level for a long time the most helpful advice you could give is what would be the best reference for the problem at hand which might have been a book or website or wiki or Google for stack overflow and now a particular AI model might be the most efficient way to give someone a 'good reference.' I could certainly see someone recommending a model the same way they may have recommended a book or tutorial.
On point of discussing code.. a lot of cloud frameworks are boring but good. It usually isn't the interesting bit and it is a relatively recent quirk that everyone seems to care more about the framework compared to the thing you actually wanted to achieve. It's not a fun algorithm optimization, it's not a fun object modeling exercise, it's not some nichey math thing of note or whatever got them into coding in the first place. While I can't speak for your father I haven't met a programmer who doesn't get excited to talk about at least one coding topic this cloud framework just might not have been it.
> It usually isn't the interesting bit and it is a relatively recent quirk that everyone seems to care more about the framework compared to the thing you actually wanted to achieve. It's not a fun algorithm optimization, it's not a fun object modeling exercise, it's not some nichey math thing of note or whatever got them into coding in the first place.
I only read your comment after I posted mine, but my take is basically the same as yours: the GP thinks the IT learning-treadmill is fun and his dad doesn't.
I am worried about a more modest enshittification. I am already starting to encounter models that are just plain out of date in non obvious ways. It has the same feeling as trying to remember how to express someone on how to troubleshoot windows over the phone for two versions ago (e.g.: in vista this was slightly different).
As far as I can see it is just strawmanning the federal workforce as a boogeyman. Every federal person I heard of or talked to spent most of the weekend and Monday trying to understand how to respond and what was permitted to disclose. The email looks like a phishing email because it's not from existing org structure. Most fed employees never have interacted with OPM before because that's not how any of this worked. It also doesn't help that the email before this was 'if you respond to this email you resign.'
Not only was the previous email "if you respond to this email you resign", but the last email was "if you don't respond to this email, you resign." (at least on ones my friends saw, apparently not all?)
reply