And when we get it, it's more like Cold Fusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColdFusion_Markup_Language

Please don’t insult CFML by comparing it to something that puts the user at risk and crashes every five minutes ;)

But is it closer than Linux on the desktop?

Well, Linux on the desktop is always this year. So it's closer than fusion, which is always ten years from now, and maybe closer than fully autonomous Teslas, which is always a year or two from now. At least the Steam Deck won't make rolling stops.

The irony of this is there is probably more Unix on your wrist than Linux on the desktop.

As someone who's heavily bought into the Apple ecosystem, I'm surrounded by Unix all the time, technically. On my wrist, in my pocket, on my lap. And I'm surrounded by Linux, too, at least at work. But Linux on the desktop? How delightfully absurd!

Nah, I really want my next PC build to run Linux. But that'll have to wait a while ... just paid $4k for a vacation. My girlfriend wasn't sympathetic that $4k would pay for an awesome rig instead.

I tried Linux on a fairly hefty Ryzen rig recently and it was the usual shit show. HiDPI doesn’t even work properly with wayland yet. My next $4k rig is going to be an iMac.

Typing this on my iPad in a hotel. That’s the life.

I'm sympathetic, and I don't think I'd ever run Linux as my primary compute. But as a secondary machine that gives me a chance to tinker where failure doesn't really matter, it seems viable.

I just rent mine from Linode. Less capital risk then.

Linux on the desktop is already here in the form of WSLg, and will be even more popular once Android support rolls out (though that's probably more useful on tablets anyway).

Already here. I am writing this on KDE Plasma.

The amount of other people reading this on a linux desktop is 100% irrelevant to me.

Cold fusion is a hoax. Did you mean regular fusion?

Both Cruise and Waymo are legally operating cars without drivers that are available to the public today.

Whoosh (first part). I think that was their point.

In one sense the cars are not available to the public.

They are available as services of course, so you’re right in that sense.

But we do not know what is going on in the background (such as a team of “safety drivers” monitoring every inch of the drive with the ability to do who knows what at any time).

As far as I can tell, Cruise has an appearance of autonomy to reap the benefits of the PR around that. With the safety drivers (by another name perhaps, to hide their role) not physically present in the car, but connected over a network and operating behind the curtain. All of hacker news has fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.

Waymo is another story. With a restricted sandbox, it’s essentially a shuttle, not a car.

The saying is that fusion (not cold fusion) is always 10 years away. It’s not a hoax but it always seems slightly out of grasp. We are far closer to self driving cars than we are towards regular fusion as we’ve had working prototypes for decades. There hasn’t yet been a break even fusion reactor prototype.

Cruise launched publicly in San Francisco yesterday.

I believe both they and Waymo are using remote safety drivers but at a ratio of one for every 20 cars on the road and they expect that ratio to continually decrease over time.

Both have been just around the corner since the 1970's. But just because they are obvious technologies it doesn't make them more feasible.

> Both have been just around the corner since the 1970's.

Fusion, yes. Cold fusion, no.

Which law of nature self driving AI contradicts?

We know enough about the physical laws of nature that we can write them down and figure out where the limits of tech/automation are.

We know nothing about how the human brain works. True artificial intelligence/AGI (which is needed for level 5 self driving) is a pipe dream.

I'm sorry, but it's you who know nothing. Insulting entire fields is neither nice nor constructive.

Sooner or later AGI will be available, it's just a matter of time. It does not have to work like a human brain

If you ask around you will see that my thoughts are shared by most people actually working in the field. It's the enthusiasts/fans who think we are on the brink of the world they see in sci-fi movies.

Here's a list of nothing where nobody figured out anything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_neuroscience

I didn't ask around, but I did watch quite a few science lectures/talks by reputable scientists about how the brain and our mind works.

I also did not make any claims other than suggesting that self driving AI will eventually be possible since there is no natural law that prevents it.

Being skeptical is okay, but you might need to back up your claims.

Probably the one that attempting to process an unconstrained system in a constrained model, regardless of the method, always results in unhandled edge cases. Apply tons of metal and fragile entities made of meat to the problem and someone’s going to get hurt.

This is true for human brains too. Not surprisingly you are more likely to cause an accident if you are driving in a new environment, like in a heavy snowfall on an icy road, if California is your only driving experience so far.

In finance they say past performance does not indicate future success, same should apply to AI in both directions. Just because its applications were too narrow in the past predicts nothing about the future.

The law of human nature

AI is like graphene it can do anything in the lab.

EDIT: thx

I think you meant graphene.

Graphene?