"Took part" should include those who knew about the deception and did nothing.

Fuschia is not a desktop OS. It's designed for lower end or embedded hardware. Besides, Android has the highly profitable app ecosystem so it makes more financial sense to build GoogleBook based on that.

It wasn’t actually. From the docs for Zircon (Fuchsia’s kernel) [0]:

> Zircon targets modern phones and modern personal computers with fast processors, non-trivial amounts of ram with arbitrary peripherals doing open ended computation.

Fuchsia also had a Linux compatibility layer similar to WSL1 at some point. Might still be there?

[0]: https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/concepts/kernel/zx_and_lk

Interesting. Have heard many times that Google has become risk adverse. Maybe fomr something like Android, they just don't want to rock the profitable boat that it has become by switching out the core OS? ... Also now that we're talking, maybe it's just too much work to do so. Backwards compatibility seems like it'd be a nightmare, especially with all the device drivers.

Just because the underlying kernel (Zircon) is designed to be good for both phones and computers doesn’t mean that Fuchsia (which is just an OS that uses that kernel) is.

Fuchsia is the only OS that uses that kernel.

Also, that was an easily citable doc line, but I think a more comprehensive look at the work done in Fuchsia shows it has or had ambitions to run on personal computers.

e.g.: fancy graphics stack, Linux compatibility layer, ideas about OS integrated cloud syncing, the original work on the Xi text editor.

That was the result of not being successful in development and then they shifted to it. It was not like this at beginning or by design.

Do you know what wasn’t successful?

Yeah, I heard the next one was Barium...or was it Boron?

I was going to say I don't know what they'd do for C, since Carbon and Calcium are already things. But knowing Google, they'll probably call it Chromium.

They could use caesium or cadmium, which are hardly less weird than argon.

If Moore's law continues, then in less than 10 years today's state of the art model will be able to run on a cell phone. How much smarter do we actually need AI to be? Would it still require datacenters and custom hardware?

Moore's law stalled ~2015. Unfortunately, no way current models will run on the <100W thermal budget of a cell phone. Printing the weights directly into a chip would help efficiency a lot, but not enough.

In all likelihood in a few years we'll get ~200-400bA~4-6 MoE models that are on chip, and they'll be better than the current frontier.

I hate it when people pick up a phone while I'm using the modem.

Is it conceivable that in 10 years time we’ll have 7B models that have the same level performance as modern frontier ones?

That would be a stretch. Gemma 4 is 31B and not frontier.

They probably said the same thing about social media back in the day.

I'm sure the thinking out there, and hence investment, is all about how to tether the user to the most addictive, network-effected, incredibly deep, server-side, moat-able version of AI possible.

With regards to Senator Sanders, inflation is a thing. Also the massive increase in the cost of housing that increased the middle class net worth. He has been remarkably consistent about the segment of the population he wants to tax.

I'm also poor relative to the to 0.1% of people, but I still make a ridiculous amount of money compared to the minimum wage worker. If were better able to provide for everyone by taxing me more then I'd be all for it.

Not compared to trillionaires. How much harder do you have to work to become a trillionaire?

From what I read that's the entire point of the whole Googlebook replacing Chromebook thing. The whole desktop is based on Android so all android phone and tablet apps are native. Naturally there will be SDK changes as some apps release versions optimized for desktop.

Google probably wants it so they can extend their app store empire to desktop apps and games.

And if the structure isn't actually being used for military purposes they just have to say "oopsie"? It makes sense for occasional houses that are being used for military purposes to be destroyed, but destroying all houses simply due to suspicion seems like too much.

I think you're complaining that they have a bad product. A supply chain risk means something else entirely.

i think it's a supply chain risk.

anthropic nanny claude and spy on it, they have ego issues.

if the dod use anthropic it is sort of like putin relying on prigozhin.

prigozhin got ideas and tried to usurp putin. this did not end well for prigozhin.

Yes. That's pretty much how it works for fascism. The government uses powers meant for a legitimate purpose to instead intimidate people and the mechanisms of government meant to restrain such abuse fail or are taken over entirely. Have you ever studied history?

But the idea is that you don't elect people who would behave that way in the first place. Plus the US courts are demonstrably not in fact mindless rubber stamps for the president. And it's not like anyone is actually canceling elections at this time, so they can be voted out later.

To me a fascist government would prevent people from being able to take their power away at all, and simply do whatever they want with impunity, but I don't quite see that happening in the US right now. Courts are still ruling against the government, they're largely complying in most ways, and there will still be more elections.

Are they trying to do some things that smell "fashy"? Maybe. But I still think it's a stretch to say the US government is full blown fascist in the same way we've seen that in the past in some other countries.